1

[6450-01-P] 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[Docket Number: EE–2006–STD–0131] 

RIN 1904–AA92 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures 

for General Service Fluorescent Lamps and Incandescent Reflector Lamps 

 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy. 

 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) is announcing that pursuant to the Energy 

Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), it is amending the energy conservation standards for 

certain general service fluorescent lamps and incandescent reflector lamps. DOE is also 

adopting new energy conservation standards and amendments to its test procedures for 

certain general service fluorescent lamps not currently covered by standards. Additionally, 

DOE is amending the definitions of certain terms found in the general provisions. It has 

determined that energy conservation standards for these products would result in significant 

conservation of energy, and are technologically feasible and economically justified. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
2

DATES: The effective date of this rule is [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. Compliance with the standards 

established in today’s final rule is required starting on [INSERT DATE THREE YEARS 

AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. The 

incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this rule was approved by the 

Director of the Federal Register on [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

ADDRESSES: For access to the docket to read background documents, the technical 

support document, transcripts of the public meetings in this proceeding, or comments 

received, visit the U.S. Department of Energy, Resource Room of the Building 

Technologies Program, 950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW., 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024, (202) 

586-2945, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. Please call Ms. Brenda Edwards at the above telephone number for additional 

information regarding visiting the Resource Room. You may also obtain copies of certain 

previous rulemaking documents in this proceeding (i.e., framework document, advance 

notice of proposed rulemaking, notice of proposed rulemaking), draft analyses, public 

meeting materials, and related test procedure documents from the Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy’s website at: 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/incandescent_lamps

.html. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
3

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

 Ms. Linda Graves, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE–2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586–1851. E-mail: 

Linda.Graves@ee.doe.gov. 

 Mr. Eric Stas, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC–72, 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-

9507. E-mail: Eric.Stas@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Summary of the Final Rule

A. The Standard Levels

B. Current Federal Standards for General Service Fluorescent Lamps and Incandescent 

Reflector Lamps

C. Benefits and Burdens to Purchasers of General Service Fluorescent Lamps and 

Incandescent Reflector Lamps

D. Impact on Manufacturers

E. National Benefits

F. Conclusion

II. Introduction

A. Authority

B. Background

1. Current Standards

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for General Service Fluorescent Lamps, 

Incandescent Reflector Lamps, and General Service Incandescent Lamps

III. Issues Affecting the Scope of this Rulemaking

A. Additional General Service Fluorescent Lamps for Which DOE is Adopting Standards

1. Scope of EPCA Requirement that DOE Consider Standards for Additional Lamps

2. Determination of the Additional Lamps to Which Standards Will Apply

a. Four-Foot Medium Bipin Lamps

b. Two-Foot Medium Bipin, U-Shaped Lamps

c. Eight-Foot Recessed, Double-Contact Lamps

d. Eight-Foot Single Pin Slimline Lamps

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
4

e. Very High Output Straight-Shaped Lamps

f. T5 Lamps

g. Various Other Fluorescent Lamps

3. Summary of GSFL for Which DOE has Adopted Standards

B. Incandescent Reflector Lamp Scope of Coverage

1. Covered Wattage Range

2. Exempted Incandescent Reflector Lamps

3. Museum Lighting

C. Amended Definitions

1. “Rated Wattage”

2. “Colored Fluorescent Lamp”

D. Off Mode and Standby Mode Energy Consumption Standards

E. Color Rendering Index Standards for General Service Fluorescent Lamps

IV. General Discussion

A. Test Procedures

B. Technological Feasibility

1. General

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels

C. Energy Savings

D. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria

a. Economic Impact on Consumers and Manufacturers

b. Life-Cycle Costs

c. Energy Savings

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products

e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

f. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy

g. Other Factors

2. Rebuttable Presumption

V. Methodology and Discussion of Comments on Methodology

A. Market and Technology Assessment

1. Product Classes

a. General Service Fluorescent Lamps

i. Modified-Spectrum Fluorescent Lamps

i. 25 Watt 4-foot MBP Lamps

ii. Summary of GSFL Product Classes

b. Incandescent Reflector Lamps

i. Modified-Spectrum Lamps

ii. Lamp Diameter

iii. Voltage

iv. IRL Summary

B. Engineering Analysis

1. Approach

2. Representative Product Classes

3. Baseline Models

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
5

4. Efficacy Levels

a. GSFL Compliance Reports

b. 4-foot MiniBP Efficacy Levels

c. IRL Manufacturing Variability

5. Scaling to Product Classes Not Analyzed

a. 2-foot U-Shaped Lamps

b. Lamps with Higher CCTs

c. Modified Spectrum IRL

d. Small Diameter IRL

e. IRL With Rated Voltages Greater Than or Equal To 125 Volts

C. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

1. Consumer Product Price

2. Sales Tax

3. Annual Operating Hours

4. Electricity Prices and Electricity Price Trends

5. Ballast Lifetime

6. Lamp Lifetime

7. Discount Rates

8. Residential Fluorescent Lamp Analysis

9. Rebuttable Payback Period Presumption

D. National Impact Analysis–National Energy Savings and Net Present Value Analysis

1. Overview of NIA Changes in This Notice

2. Shipments Analysis

3. Macroeconomic Effects on Growth

4. Reflector Market Growth

5. Penetration of R-CFLs and Emerging Technologies

6. Building Codes

7. GSFL Shipments Growth

8. Residential Installed GSFL Stock

9. GSFL Lighting Expertise Scenarios

10. IRL Product Substitution Scenarios

11. Discount Rates

E. Consumer Sub-Group Analysis

F. Manufacturer Impact Analysis

G. Employment Impact Analysis

H. Utility Impact Analysis

I. Environmental Assessment

J. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other Emissions Impacts

VI. Discussion of Other Key Issues and Comments

A. Sign Industry Impacts

B. Max-Tech IRL

1. Treatment of Proprietary Technologies

2. Other Technologies

a. High-Efficiency IR Coatings

b. Silverized Reflectors

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
6

c. Integrally-Ballasted Low-Voltage IRL

3. Lamp Lifetime

C. IRL Lifetime

1. Baseline Lifetime Scenario

2. Minimum Lamp Lifetime Requirement

3. 6,000-Hour-Lifetime Lamps

D. Impact on Competition

1. Manufacturers

2. Suppliers

E. Xenon

F. IRL Hot Shock

G. Rare Earth Phosphors

H. Product and Performance Feature Availability

1. Dimming Functionality

2. GSFL Product Availability

I. Alternative Standard Scenarios

1. Tiered Standard

2. Delayed Effective Date

3. Residential Exemption

4. Conclusions Regarding Alternative Standard Scenarios

J. Benefits and Burdens

VII. Analytical Results and Conclusions

A. Trial Standard Levels

1. General Service Fluorescent Lamps

2. Incandescent Reflector Lamps

B. Significance of Energy Savings

C. Economic Justification

1. Economic Impact on Consumers

a. Life-Cycle Costs and Payback Period

i. General Service Fluorescent Lamps

ii. Incandescent Reflector Lamps

b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis

2. Economic Impact on Manufacturers

a. Industry Cash-Flow Analysis Results for the IRL Lifetime Sensitivity

b. Cumulative Regulatory Burden

c. Impacts on Employment

d. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity

e. Impacts on Manufacturers That Are Small Businesses

3. National Net Present Value and Net National Employment

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products

5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

6. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy

7. Other Factors

D. Conclusion

1. General Service Fluorescent Lamps Conclusion

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
7

a. Trial Standard Level 5

b. Trial Standard Level 4

2. Incandescent Reflector Lamps Conclusion

a. Trial Standard Level 5

b. Trial Standard Level 4

VIII. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 2001

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review

M. Congressional Notification

IX. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

Acronyms and Abbreviations 

ACEEE American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy 

ACG Applied Coatings Group 

ADLT Advanced Lighting Technologies, Inc. 

AEO Annual Energy Outlook 

ANOPR advance notice of proposed rulemaking 

ANSI American National Standards Institute 

ASAP Appliance Standards Awareness Project 

BEF ballast efficacy factor 

BF ballast factor 

BR bulged reflector (reflector lamp shape) 

BT Building Technologies Program 

Btu British thermal units 

CAIR Clean Air Interstate Rule 

CAMR Clean Air Mercury Rule 

CBECS Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey 

CCT correlated color temperature 

CEC California Energy Commission 

CEE Consortium for Energy Efficiency 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CFL compact fluorescent lamp 

CIE International Commission on Illumination 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
8

CO2 carbon dioxide 

CRI color rendering index 

CSL candidate standard level 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

DOJ U.S. Department of Justice 

E26 Medium screw-base (incandescent lamp base type) 

EEI Edison Electric Institute 

EIA Energy Information Administration 

EISA 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 

EL efficacy level 

E.O. Executive Order 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

EPACT 1992 Energy Policy Act of 1992 

EPACT 2005 Energy Policy Act of 2005 

EPCA Energy Policy and Conservation Act 

ER elliptical reflector (reflector lamp shape) 

EU European Union 

EuP Energy-Using Product 

FEMP Federal Energy Management Program 

FR Federal Register 

FTC U.S. Federal Trade Commission 

GE General Electric Lighting and Industrial 

GRIM Government Regulatory Impact Model 

GSFL general service fluorescent lamp 

GSIL general service incandescent lamp 

GW gigawatt 

Hg mercury 

HID high-intensity discharge 

HIR halogen infrared reflector 

HO high output 

HVAC heating, ventilating and air-conditioning 

IALD International Associated of Lighting Designers 

IESNA Illuminating Engineering Society of North America 

ImSET Impact of Sector Energy Technologies 

INPV industry net present value 

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

I–O input-output 

IR infrared 

IRL incandescent reflector lamp 

K Kelvin 

kt kilotons 

LCC life-cycle cost 

LED light-emitting diode 

lm lumens 

LMC U.S. Lighting Market Characterization Volume I 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
9

lm/W lumens per watt 

MBP medium bipin 

MECS Manufacturer Energy Consumption Survey (MECS) 

MIA manufacturer impact analysis 

miniBP miniature bipin 

MMt million metric tons 

Mt metric tons 

MW megawatts 

NAICS North American Industry Classification System 

NEEP Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnership 

NEMA National Electrical Manufacturers Association 

NEMS National Energy Modeling System 

NEMS-BT National Energy Modeling System – Building Technologies 

NES national energy savings 

NIA national impact analysis 

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology 

NOPR notice of proposed rulemaking 

NOX nitrogen oxides 

NPV net present value 

NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council 

NVLAP National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program 

OEM original equipment manufacturer 

OIRA Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

OMB U.S. Office of Management and Budget 

PAR parabolic aluminized reflector (reflector lamp shape) 

PBP payback period 

PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric 

PSI Product Stewardship Institute 

quad quadrillion (1015) Btu 

R reflector (reflector lamp shape) 

R-CFL reflector compact fluorescent lamp 

R&D research and development 

RDC recessed double contact 

RECS Residential Energy Consumption Survey 

RIA regulatory impact analysis 

SBA U.S. Small Business Administration 

SO standard output 

SO2 sulfur dioxide 

SP single pin 

T5, T8, T10, T12 tubular fluorescent lamps, diameters of 0.625, 1, 1.25 or 1.5 inches, 

 respectively 

TSD technical support document 

TSL trial standard level 

TWh terawatt-hour 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
10

U.S.C. United States Code 

UV ultraviolet 

V volts 

VHO very high output 

W watts 

I. Summary of the Final Rule 

A. The Standard Levels

 The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6291 et seq.; 

EPCA), provides that any new or amended energy conservation standard that the 

Department of Energy prescribes for covered consumer and/or commercial products, 

including general service fluorescent lamps (GSFL) and incandescent reflector lamps (IRL), 

must be designed to “achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency . . . which the 

Secretary determines is technologically feasible and economically justified.” (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the new or amended standard must “result in significant 

conservation of energy.” (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) The energy conservation standards in 

today’s final rule, which apply to certain types of types of GSFL and IRL, satisfy these 

requirements, as well as all other applicable statutory provisions discussed in this notice. 

 Table I.1 and Table I.2 present the energy conservation standard levels DOE is 

adopting today. These standards will apply to GSFL and IRL listed in those tables that are 

manufactured for sale in the United States, or imported into the United States, on or after 

[INSERT DATE THREE YEARS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
11

Table I.1 Summary of the Amended Energy Conservations Standards for General 

Service Fluorescent Lamps 

Lamp Type Correlated Color 

Temperature 

Energy Conservation Standard

lm/W 

4-Foot Medium Bipin ≤ 4,500K 89 

> 4,500K and ≤ 7,000K 88 

2-Foot U-Shaped ≤ 4,500K 84 

> 4,500K and ≤ 7,000K 81 

8-Foot Slimline ≤ 4,500K 97 

> 4,500K and ≤ 7,000K 93 

8-Foot High Output ≤ 4,500K 92 

> 4,500K and ≤ 7,000K 88 

4-Foot Miniature 

Bipin Standard Output 

≤ 4,500K 86 

> 4,500K and ≤ 7,000K 81 

4-Foot Miniature 

Bipin High Output 

≤ 4,500K 76 

> 4,500K and ≤ 7,000K 72 

Table I.2 Summary of the Energy Conservation Standards for Incandescent Reflector 

Lamps 

Lamp 

Wattage 

Lamp 

Type Diameter Voltage Energy Conservation Standard lm/W 

40W-205W 

Standard 

Spectrum 

> 2.5 inches ≥ 125 6.8*P0.27

< 125 5.9*P0.27

≤ 2.5 inches ≥ 125 5.7*P0.27

< 125 5.0*P0.27

40W-205W 

Modified 

Spectrum 

> 2.5 inches ≥ 125 5.8*P0.27

< 125 5.0*P0.27

≤ 2.5 inches ≥ 125 4.9*P0.27

< 125 4.2*P0.27

Note 1: P is equal to the rated lamp wattage, in watts. 

Note 2: Standard Spectrum means any incandescent reflector lamp that does not meet the 

definition of “modified spectrum” in 430.2 

B. Current Federal Standards for General Service Fluorescent Lamps and Incandescent 

Reflector Lamps

 Table I.3 and Table I.4 present the current statutorily-prescribed Federal energy 

conservation standards for GSFL and IRL. The standards set requirements for minimum 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
12

efficacy and color rendering index (CRI) levels for certain GSFL, and minimum efficacy 

levels for certain IRL. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(1); 10 CFR 430.32(n)) 

Table I.3 EPCA Standard Levels for GSFL 

Lamp Type Nominal Lamp 

Wattage Minimum CRI Minimum Average Efficacylm/W 

4-Foot Medium Bipin > 35W 69 75.0 

≤ 35W 45 75.0 

2-Foot U-Shaped > 35W 69 68.0 

≤ 35W 45 64.0 

8-Foot Slimline > 65W 69 80.0 

≤ 65W 45 80.0 

8-Foot High Output > 100W 69 80.0 

≤ 100W 45 80.0 

Table I.4 EPCA Standard Levels for IRL 

Wattage Minimum Average Efficacy 

lm/W 

40-50 10.5 

51-66 11.0 

67-85 12.5 

86-115 14.0 

116-155 14.5 

156-205 15.0 

C. Benefits and Burdens to Purchasers of General Service Fluorescent Lamps and 

Incandescent Reflector Lamps

 In the April 2009 notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR), DOE considered the 

impacts on consumers of several trial standard levels (TSLs) related to the efficiency of 

GSFL and IRL. 74 FR 16920 (April 13, 2009). In the April 2009 NOPR, DOE tentatively 

concluded that the economic impacts on most consumers (i.e., the average life-cycle cost 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
13

(LCC) savings) of amended standards for GSFL and IRL would be positive. DOE has 

reached the same conclusion in today’s final rule, as explained below. 

 The economic impacts on consumers, i.e., the average life-cycle cost savings, are 

generally positive in this final rule. DOE’s analyses indicate that on average residential and 

commercial consumers would see benefits from the proposed standards. DOE expects that 

under the standards presented in this final rule, the purchase price of high-efficacy GSFL 

would be higher (up to thirteen times higher, including the purchase of new lamps and a 

new ballast) than the average price of these products today; the energy efficiency gains, 

however, would result in lower energy costs that more than offset such higher costs for the 

majority of consumers analyzed in this final rule. When the potential savings due to 

efficiency gains are summed over the lifetime of the high-efficacy products, consumers 

would be expected to save up to $67.06 (depending on the lamp type), on average, 

compared to their expenditures over the lives of today’s baseline GSFL. The results of 

DOE’s analyses for IRL follow a similar pattern. Although DOE expects the purchase price 

of the higher-efficacy IRL to be 47 to 64 percent higher than the average price of these 

products today, the energy efficiency gains would result in lower energy costs that more 

than offset the higher costs for the majority of consumers analyzed in this final rule. When 

these potential savings due to efficiency gains are summed over the lifetime of the higherefficacy IRL, it is estimated that consumers would save up to $7.95 per lamp (depending on 

the wattage and operating sector), on average, compared to their expenditures over the lives 

of today’s baseline IRL. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
14

D. Impact on Manufacturers

 Using a real corporate discount rate of 10.0 percent, DOE estimates the net present 

value (NPV) of the GSFL and IRL industries to be $527-639 million and $221-301 million 

in 2008$, respectively. DOE expects the impact of today’s standards on the industry net 

present value (INPV) of manufacturers of GSFL to be between a 0.6 percent loss and a 30.7 

percent loss (-$4 million to -$162 million), and between a 6.8 percent loss and a 44.4 

percent loss (-$21 million to -$98 million) for IRL manufacturers. Based on DOE’s 

interviews with GSFL and IRL manufacturers, DOE expects minimal plant closings or loss 

of employment as a result of the standards. 

E. National Benefits

 DOE estimates the GSFL standards will save approximately 3.83 to 9.94 quads 

(quadrillion (1015) British thermal units (Btu)) of energy over 30 years (2012–2042). Over 

the same time period, DOE estimates IRL standards will save approximately 0.94 to 2.39 

quads. By 2042, DOE expects the energy savings from the GSFL and IRL standards to 

eliminate the need for approximately 1.8 to 6.2 and 0.2 to 1.1 gigawatts of generating 

capacity, respectively. 

 These energy savings from GSFL will result in cumulative (undiscounted) greenhouse 

gas emission reductions of 175 to 488 million tons (Mt) of carbon dioxide (CO2); for IRL, 

DOE estimates these reductions will be 44 to 106 million tons (Mt) of CO2. Cumulative for 

GSFL and IRL, DOE estimates that the range of the monetized value of CO2 emission 

reductions is between $0.2 billion to $24.8 billion, at a 7-percent discount rate, and between 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
15

$0.5 billion to $49.8 billion at a 3-percent discount rate. The mid-range of the CO2 value 

(using $33 per ton) is $3.9 to $10.2 billion and $7.6 to $20.6 billion at 7-percent and 3-

percent discount rates, respectively. 

 Additionally, the GSFL standards will help alleviate air pollution by resulting in 

between approximately 11,000 to 36,780 tons (11.0 and 36.8 kilotons (kt)) of nitrogen 

oxides (NOx) cumulative emission reductions from 2012 through 2042; the IRL standards 

will results in NOx cumulative emissions reductions of 6.4 to 8.4 kt. Mercury (Hg) 

cumulative emissions reductions over the same time period will be reduced by up to 7.3 

metric tons due to GSFL standards and 1.65 metric tons from IRL standards. The monetized 

values of these emissions reductions, cumulative for both GSFL and IRL, are estimated at 

$6.0 to $131.5 million for NOX and up to $82.6 million for Hg at a 7-percent discount rate. 

Using a 3-percent discount rate, the monetized values of these emission reductions are $6.9 

to $162.3 million for NOX and up to $153.7 million for Hg. 

 

 The national NPV of the GSFL and IRL standards is between $10.02 and $26.31 

billion and $1.83 and $9.06 billion, respectively, using a 7-percent discount rate cumulative 

from 2012 to 2042 in 2008$. Using a 3-percent discount rate, the national NPV of the 

GSFL and IRL standards is between $21.84 and $53.53 billion and $3.78 and $17.81 billion, 

respectively, cumulative from 2012 to 20042 in 2008$. This is the estimated total value of 

future savings minus the estimated increased costs of purchasing GSFL and IRL, discounted 

to 2009. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
16

 The benefits and costs of today’s final rule can also be expressed in terms of 

annualized 2008$ values over the forecast period 2012 through 2042. Using a 7-percent 

discount rate for the annualized cost analysis, the cost of the standards established in today’s 

final rule is $700 million per year in increased product and installation costs, while the 

annualized benefits are $2.95 billion per year in reduced product operating costs. Using a 3-

percent discount rate, the cost of the standards established in today’s final rule is $531 

million per year, while the benefits of today’s standards are $3.12 billion per year. The 

following tables depict these annualized benefits and costs for the adopted standards for 

GSFL and IRL. 

 Table I.5 Annualized Benefits and Costs for GSFL 

Category Primary 

Estimate Low Estimate High Estimate 

Units 

Year 

Dollars Disc Period Covered

Benefits 

Annualized 

Monetized 

$millions/year 

2302 1329 3275 2008 7% 31 

2420 1387 3452 2008 3% 31 

Annualized 

Quantified 

10.48 CO2 (Mt) 5.76 CO2 (Mt) 15.2 CO2 (Mt) - 7% 31 

1.78 NOx (kt) 1.03 NOx (kt) 2.54 NOx (kt) - 7% 31 

0.11 Hg (t) 0 Hg (t) 0.22 Hg (t) - 7% 31 

10.6 CO2 (Mt) 5.69 CO2 (Mt) 15.52 CO2 (Mt) - 3% 31 

1.19 NOx (kt) 0.63 NOx (kt) 1.76 NOx (kt) - 3% 31 

0.11 Hg (t) 0 Hg (t) 0.23 Hg (t) - 3% 31 

Qualitative 

Costs 

Annualized 

Monetized 

$millions/year 

582 378 786 2008 7% 31 

425 230 621 2008 3% 31 

Qualitative 

Net Benefits/Costs 

Annualized 1720 951 2489 2008 7% 31 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
17

Monetized 

$millions/year 1994 1158 2831 2008 3% 31 

Qualitative 

Table I.6 Annualized Benefits and Costs for IRL 

Category Primary 

Estimate Low Estimate High Estimate 

Units 

Year 

Dollars Disc Period Covered 

Benefits 

Annualized 

Monetized 

$millions/year 

650 406 894 2008 7% 31 

696 424 968 2008 3% 31 

Annualized 

Quantified 

2.39 CO2 (Mt) 1.51 CO2 (Mt) 3.28 CO2 (Mt) - 7% 31 

0.51 NOx (kt) 0.45 NOx (kt) 0.58 NOx (kt) - 7% 31 

0.02 Hg (t) 0 Hg (t) 0.05 Hg (t) - 7% 31 

2.4 CO2 (Mt) 1.45 CO2 (Mt) 3.35 CO2 (Mt) - 3% 31 

0.35 NOx (kt) 0.31 NOx (kt) 0.4 NOx (kt) - 3% 31 

0.02 Hg (t) 0 Hg (t) 0.05 Hg (t) - 3% 31 

Costs 

Annualized 

Monetized 

$millions/year 

118 227 9 2008 7% 31 

106 218 -6 2008 3% 31 

Qualitative 

Net 

Benefits/Costs 

Annualized 

Monetized 

$millions/year 

532 179 885 2008 7% 31 

590 207 973 2008 3% 31 

F. Conclusion

 DOE has evaluated the benefits (energy savings, consumer LCC savings, positive 

national NPV, and emissions reductions) to the Nation of today’s new and amended energy 

conservation standards for certain GSFL and IRL, as well as the costs (loss of manufacturer 

INPV and consumer LCC increases for some users of GSFL and IRL). Based upon all 

available information, DOE has determined that the benefits to the Nation of the standards 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
18

for GSFL and IRL outweigh their costs. Today’s standards also represent the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically 

justified, and will result in significant energy savings. At present, GSFL and IRL that meet 

the new standard levels are commercially available. 

II. Introduction 

A. Authority 

 Title III of EPCA sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy 

efficiency. Part A1

 of Title III (42 U.S.C. 6291–6309) provides for the Energy Conservation 

Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. The program covers consumer 

products and certain commercial products (all of which are referred to hereafter as “covered 

products”), including GSFL and IRL. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(14) and 6292(i)) DOE publishes 

today’s final rule pursuant to Part A of Title III, which provides for test procedures, 

labeling, and energy conservation standards for GSFL and IRL and certain other types of 

products, and authorizes DOE to require information and reports from manufacturers. The 

test procedures for GSFL and IRL appear at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR) part 430, subpart B, appendix R. 

 The scope of coverage of these provisions for GSFL and IRL is dictated by EPCA’s 

definitions of these and related terms, as further discussed below. EPCA defines “general 

service fluorescent lamp” as follows: 

 

1

 This part was originally titled Part B; however, it was redesignated Part A after Part B was repealed by Pub. 

L. 109-58. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
19

. . . [F]luorescent lamps which can be used to satisfy the majority of fluorescent 

applications, but does not include any lamp designed and marketed for the following 

non-general lighting applications: 

(i) Fluorescent lamps designed to promote plant growth. 

(ii) Fluorescent lamps specifically designed for cold temperature installations. 

(iii) Colored fluorescent lamps. 

(iv) Impact-resistant fluorescent lamps. 

(v) Reflectorized or aperture lamps. 

(vi) Fluorescent lamps designed for use in reprographic equipment. 

(vii) Lamps primarily designed to produce radiation in the ultra-violet region of the 

spectrum. 

(viii) Lamps with a color rendering index of 87 or greater. 

(42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(B)) 

 EPCA defines “incandescent reflector lamp” as follows: 

. . . [A] lamp in which light is produced by a filament heated to incandescence by an 

electric current . . . [and] (commonly referred to as a reflector lamp) which is not 

colored or designed for rough or vibration service applications, that contains an inner 

reflective coating on the outer bulb to direct the light, an R, PAR, ER, BR, BPAR, or 

similar bulb shapes with E26 medium screw bases, a rated voltage or voltage range 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
20

that lies at least partially within 115 and 130 volts, a diameter which exceeds 2.25 

inches, and has a rated wattage that is 40 watts or higher. 

(42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(C), (C)(ii) and (F)) 

 EPCA further clarifies this definition of IRL by defining lamp types excluded from the 

definition, including “rough service lamp,” “vibration service lamp,” and “colored 

incandescent lamp.” (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(X), (AA), and (EE)) EPCA prescribes specific 

energy conservation standards for certain GSFL and IRL. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(1)) The 

statute further directs DOE to conduct two cycles of rulemakings to determine whether to 

amend these standards, and to initiate a rulemaking to determine whether to adopt standards 

for additional types of GSFL. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(3)-(5)) This rulemaking represents the 

first round of amendments to the GSFL and IRL energy conservation standards as directed 

by 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(3), and it also implements the requirement for DOE to consider energy 

conservation standards for additional GSFL under 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(5). The advance notice 

of proposed rulemaking (ANOPR) in this proceeding, 73 FR 13620, 13622, 13625, 13628-

29 (March 13, 2008) (the March 2008 ANOPR), the notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) 

in this proceeding, 74 FR 16920, 16924-26 (April 13, 2009) (the April 2009 NOPR), and 

subsections II.B.2 and III.B.2 below provide additional detail on the nature and statutory 

history of EPCA’s requirements for GSFL and IRL. 

 EPCA provides criteria for prescribing new or amended standards for covered 

products, including GSFL and IRL. As indicated above, any such new or amended standard 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
21

must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is 

technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Further, 

DOE may not prescribe an amended or new standard if DOE determines by rule that such 

standard would not result in “significant conservation of energy,” or “is not technologically 

feasible or economically justified.” (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) Additionally, DOE may not 

prescribe an amended or new standard for any GSFL or IRL for which DOE has not 

established a test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)) 

 EPCA also provides that in deciding whether such a standard is economically 

justified for covered products, DOE must, after receiving comments on the proposed 

standard, determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens by considering, 

to the greatest extent practicable, the following seven factors: 

 (1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and consumers of the 

products subject to the standard; 

 (2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of products in 

the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance 

expenses for the covered products that are likely to result from the imposition of the 

standard; 

 (3) The total projected amount of energy savings likely to result directly from the 

imposition of the standard; 

 (4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered products likely to 

result from the imposition of the standard; 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
22

 (5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the 

Attorney General, that is likely to result from the imposition of the standard; 

 (6) The need for national energy conservation; and 

 (7) Other factors the Secretary considers relevant. 

 (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) 

 In addition under (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)), EPCA, as amended, establishes a 

rebuttable presumption that a standard for covered products is economically justified if the 

Secretary finds that “the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying 

with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three times the value of the 

energy, and as applicable, water, savings during the first year that the consumer will receive 

as a result of the standard, as calculated under the test procedure ...” in place for that 

standard. 

 EPCA also contains what is commonly known as an “anti-backsliding” provision. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) This provision mandates that the Secretary not prescribe any 

amended standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy use or decreases the 

minimum required energy efficiency of a covered product. EPCA further provides that the 

Secretary may not prescribe an amended or new standard if interested persons have 

established by a preponderance of the evidence that the standard is “likely to result in the 

unavailability in the United States of any product type (or class) with performance 

characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are 

substantially the same as those generally available in the United States....” (42 U.S.C. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
23

6295(o)(4)) 

 Section 325(q)(1) of EPCA sets forth additional requirements applicable to 

promulgating standards for any type or class of covered product that has two or more 

subcategories. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) Under this provision, DOE must specify a different 

standard level than that which applies generally to such type or class of product “for any 

group of covered products which have the same function or intended use, if . . . products 

within such group—(A) consume a different kind of energy from that consumed by other 

covered products within such type (or class); or (B) have a capacity or other performancerelated feature which other products within such type (or class) do not have and such feature 

justifies a higher or lower standard” than applies or will apply to the other products. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)(A) and (B)) In determining whether a performance-related feature 

justifies such a different standard for a group of products, DOE must “consider such factors 

as the utility to the consumer of such a feature” and other factors DOE deems appropriate. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) Any rule prescribing such a standard must include an explanation of 

the basis on which DOE established such higher or lower level. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2)) 

 Federal energy conservation requirements for covered products generally supersede 

State laws or regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. 

(42 U.S.C. 6297(a)–(c)) DOE can, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption for 

particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions 

of section 327(d) of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
24

B. Background

1. Current Standards 

 The energy conservation standards that EPCA prescribes for GSFL and IRL, and 

that are currently in force, set efficacy levels and color rendering index (CRI) levels for 

certain GSFL, and efficacy standards for certain IRL. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(1); 10 CFR 

430.32(n)) These standard levels are set forth in Table I.3 and Table I.4 above. 

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for General Service Fluorescent Lamps, Incandescent 

Reflector Lamps, and General Service Incandescent Lamps 

 This rulemaking represents the first round of amendments to these GSFL and IRL 

standards, and it also addresses the adoption of standards for additional GSFL, as directed 

by 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(3) and (5), respectively. Initially, this rulemaking also included 

consideration of energy conservation standards for general service incandescent lamps 

(GSIL). However, as explained in the April 2009 NOPR, amendments to EPCA in the 

Energy Independence and Security Act of 20072

 (EISA 2007) eliminated DOE’s authority to 

regulate additional GSIL and statutorily prescribed standards for GSIL; therefore this 

rulemaking no longer addresses GSIL. 74 FR 16920, 16926 (April 13, 2009). 

 DOE commenced this rulemaking on May 31, 2006, by publishing its framework 

document for the rulemaking, and by giving notice of a public meeting and of the 

availability of the document for review and public comment. 71 FR 30834 (May 31, 2006). 

 

2

 Pub. L. 110-140 (enacted Dec. 19, 2007). 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
25

The framework document described the procedural and analytical approaches DOE 

anticipated using and issues to be resolved in the rulemaking. DOE held a public meeting on 

June 15, 2006, to present the framework document, describe the analyses DOE planned to 

conduct during the rulemaking, obtain public comment on these subjects, and facilitate the 

public’s involvement in the rulemaking. DOE also allowed the submission of written 

statements after the public meeting, and in response received 10 written statements. 

 On February 21, 2008, DOE issued the March 2008 ANOPR in this proceeding. 73 FR 

13620 (March 13, 2008). In the March 2008 ANOPR, DOE described and sought comment 

on the analytical framework, models, and tools that DOE was using to analyze the impacts 

of energy conservation standards for the two appliance products. In conjunction with 

issuance of the March 2008 ANOPR, DOE published on its website the complete ANOPR 

technical support document (TSD), which included the results of DOE’s various preliminary 

analyses in this rulemaking. In the March 2008 ANOPR, DOE requested oral and written 

comments on these results, and on a range of other issues. DOE held a public meeting in 

Washington, DC, on March 10, 2008, to present the methodology and results of the ANOPR 

analyses, and to receive oral comments from those who attended. In the March 2008 

ANOPR, DOE invited comment in particular on the following issues: (1) consideration of 

additional GSFL; (2) amended definitions; (3) product classes; (4) scaling to product classes 

not analyzed; (5) screening of design options; (6) lamp operating hours; (7) energy 

consumption of GSFL; (8) LCC calculation; (9) installation costs; (10) base-case marketshare matrices; (11) shipment forecasts; (12) base-case and standards-case forecasted 

efficiencies; (13) trial standard levels; and (14) period for lamp production equipment 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
26

conversion. 73 FR 13620, 13686-88 (March 13, 2008). In addition, subsequent to the public 

meeting and the close of the ANOPR comment period, DOE and the National Electrical 

Manufacturers Association (NEMA) met on June 26, 2008 at NEMA’s request to discuss 

appropriate standards for high correlated color temperature (CCT) fluorescent lamps. 74 FR 

16920, 16926 (April 13, 2009). DOE addressed in detail the comments it received in 

response to the ANOPR, including NEMA’s presentation at the June 2008 meeting, in the 

April 2009 NOPR. 

 

 In the April 2009 NOPR, DOE proposed amended and new energy conservation 

standards for GSFL and IRL. In conjunction with the NOPR, DOE also published on its 

website the complete TSD for the proposed rule, which incorporated the final analyses DOE 

conducted and technical documentation for each analysis. The TSD included the 

engineering analysis spreadsheets, the LCC spreadsheet, the national impact analysis 

spreadsheet, and the MIA spreadsheet—all of which are available on DOE’s website.3

 The 

proposed standards were as shown in Table II.1 and Table II.2, as presented in the April 

2009 NOPR. 74 FR 16920, 17027 (April 13, 2009). 

Table II.1 Proposed GSFL Standard Levels in April 2009 NOPR 

Lamp Type Correlated Color 

Temperature 

Proposed Level

lm/W 

4-Foot Medium Bipin ≤ 4,500K 84 

> 4,500K 78 

2-Foot U-Shaped ≤ 4,500K 78 

> 4,500K 73 

 

3

 The Web site address for all the spreadsheets developed for this rulemaking proceeding are available at: 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/incandescent_lamps.html 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
27

8-Foot Slimline ≤ 4,500K 95 

> 4,500K 91 

8-Foot High Output ≤ 4,500K 88 

> 4,500K 84 

4-Foot Miniature 

Bipin Standard Output 

≤ 4,500K 103 

> 4,500K 97 

4-Foot Miniature 

Bipin High Output 

≤ 4,500K 89 

> 4,500K 85 

* For these product classes, EPCA has different efficacy standards for lamps with wattages 

less than 35W and greater than or equal to 35W. 

Table II.2 Proposed IRL Standards in April 2009 NOPR 

Lamp 

Type Diameter Voltage Proposed Level lm/W 

Standard 

Spectrum 

40W-205W 

> 2.5 inches ≥ 125 7.1P0.27

< 125 6.2P0.27

≤ 2.5 inches ≥ 125 6.3P0.27

< 125 5.5P0.27

Modified 

Spectrum 

40W-205W 

> 2.5 inches ≥ 125 5.8P0.27

< 125 5.0P0.27

≤ 2.5 inches ≥ 125 5.1P0.27

< 125 4.4P0.27

Note: P is equal to the rated lamp wattage, in watts. 

DOE held a public meeting in Washington, DC, on February 3, 2009, to hear oral 

comments on and solicit information relevant to the proposed rule. At the public meeting 

and in the April 2009 NOPR, DOE invited comment in particular on the following issues: 

(1) the scope of covered products; (2) the amended definition of “colored fluorescent lamp”; 

(3) product classes for IRL; (4) product classes for T5 lamps; (5) the 4-foot MBP residential 

engineering analysis; (6) performance characteristics of model lamps used in the 

engineering analysis; (7) the efficacy levels for IRL; (8) the efficacy levels for GSFL; (9) 

scaling to product classes not analyzed; (10) ballast operating hours in all sectors and GSFL 

operating hours in the residential sector; (11) growth rates and market penetration in the 

shipments analysis; (12) base-case and standards-case market-share matrices; (13) the 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
28

manufacturer impact analysis; (14) the determination of environmental impacts; (15) the 

selected trial standard levels; (16) the proposed standard levels; (17) alternative scenarios to 

achieve greater energy savings for GSFL; (18) other technology pathways to meet IRL 

TSL5. 74 FR 16920, 17025-26 (April 13, 2009). The April 2009 NOPR also included 

additional background information on the history of this rulemaking. 74 FR 16920, 16925-

26 (April 13, 2009). 

III. Issues Affecting the Scope of this Rulemaking 

A. Additional General Service Fluorescent Lamps for Which DOE is Adopting Standards

1. Scope of EPCA Requirement that DOE Consider Standards for Additional Lamps 

 As discussed above, EPCA established energy conservation standards for certain 

general service fluorescent lamps (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(1)) and directed the Secretary to 

“initiate a rulemaking procedure to determine if the standards in effect for fluorescent lamps 

. . . should be amended so that they would be applicable to additional general service 

fluorescent [lamps] . . . .” (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(5)) Thus, EPCA directs DOE to consider 

whether to adopt energy efficacy standards for additional GSFL beyond those already 

covered by standards prescribed in the statute. 

 However, as set forth in greater detail in the March 2008 ANOPR and the April 2009 

NOPR, although many GSFL not currently subject to standards are potential candidates for 

coverage, it could be argued that EPCA’s definitions of “general service fluorescent lamp” 

and “fluorescent lamp” conflict with (and negate) the requirement of 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(5) 

that DOE consider standards for additional GSFL. 73 FR 13620, 13628-29 (March 13, 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
29

2008); 74 FR 16920, 16920, 16926-27 (April 13, 2009). Specifically, EPCA defines 

“general service fluorescent lamp” as “fluorescent lamps” that can satisfy the majority of 

fluorescent lamp applications and that are not designed and marketed for certain specified, 

nongeneral lighting applications. (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(B)) Furthermore, EPCA defines 

“fluorescent lamp” as “a low pressure mercury electric-discharge source in which a 

fluorescing coating transforms some of the ultraviolet energy generated by the mercury 

discharge into light,” and as including “only” the four enumerated types of fluorescent 

lamps for which EPCA already prescribes standards. (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(A); 42 U.S.C. 

6295(i)(1)(B)) Thus, to construe “general service fluorescent lamp” in 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(5) 

as being limited by all elements of the EPCA definition of “fluorescent lamp,” would mean 

there are no GSFL that are not already subject to standards, and hence, there would be no 

“additional” GSFL for which DOE could consider standards. Such an interpretation would 

conflict with the directive in 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(5) that DOE consider standards for 

“additional” GSFL, thereby rendering that provision a nullity. 

 For the reasons below, DOE has concluded that the term “additional general service 

fluorescent lamps” in 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(5) should be construed as not being limited to the 

four enumerated lamp types specified in the EPCA definition of “fluorescent lamp,” thereby 

giving effect to the directive in 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(5) that DOE consider standards for 

additional GSFL. First, DOE added this directive to EPCA at the same time it added the 

definitions for “general service fluorescent lamps” and “fluorescent lamps,” as part of the 

Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT 1992; Pub. L. 102-486). DOE does not believe 

Congress would intentionally insert a legislative provision that, when read in conjunction 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
30

with simultaneously added definitions, amounts to a nullity. Second, reading the definition 

of “fluorescent lamp” to preclude consideration of standards for additional GSFL would run 

counter to the energy-saving purposes of EPCA. It is reasonable to assume that, when 

Congress incorporated this directive into EPCA, it sought to have DOE consider whether 

standards would be warranted for generally available products for which EPCA did not 

prescribe standards. Also, it is assumed that Congress would not have intended for DOE to 

limit itself to consideration of energy conservation standards only for those products 

utilizing technologies available in 1992, but instead, it would seek to cast a broader net that 

would achieve energy efficiency improvements in lighting products incorporating newer 

technologies. 

 In addition, DOE understands that the industry routinely refers to “fluorescent lamps” 

as including products in addition to the four enumerated in the statutory definition of that 

term. In fact, in the March 2008 ANOPR, DOE presented its plan for including additional 

GSFL for coverage, and DOE did not receive adverse comment. 73 FR 13620, 13628-29 

(March 13, 2008) 

 For these reasons, and as further explained in the March 2008 ANOPR, 73 FR 13620, 

13629 (March 13, 2008), and in the April 2009 NOPR, 74 FR 16920, 16926-27 (April 13, 

2009), DOE has concluded that, in addressing general service fluorescent lamps in 42 

U.S.C. 6295(i)(5), Congress intended to refer to “fluorescent lamps” in a broader, more 

generic sense than as expressed in the EPCA definition for that term. Consequently, as set 

forth in the April 2009 NOPR, 74 FR 16920, 16927 (April 13, 2009), DOE views 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
31

“additional” GSFL, as that term is used in 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(5), as lamps that: (1) meet the 

technical portion of the statutory definition of “fluorescent lamp” (i.e., a low-pressure 

mercury electric-discharge source in which a fluorescing coating transforms some of the 

ultraviolet energy generated by the mercury discharge into light) (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(A)) 

without restriction to the four lamp types specified in that definition; (2) can be used to 

satisfy the majority of fluorescent lighting applications (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(B)); (3) are not 

within the exclusions from the definition of GSFL specified in 42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(B); and 

(4) are ones for which EPCA does not prescribe standards. Such an interpretation does not 

alter the existing statutory provision or standards for “fluorescent lamps,” but it does permit 

DOE to give effect to section 6295(i)(5) of EPCA by adopting energy conservation 

standards for a wide variety of GSFL that are not currently covered by standards. DOE 

notes that it received no adverse comments on this interpretation in response to the April 

2009 NOPR. 

2. Determination of the Additional Lamps to Which Standards Will Apply 

 To determine the additional GSFL to which energy conservation standards should 

apply, DOE first comprehensively reviewed the fluorescent lighting market and identified 

the following types of lamps as “additional” GSFL for consideration pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

6295 (i)(5), based on the four criteria above: 

• 4-foot, medium bipin (MBP), straight-shaped lamps, rated wattage of less than 

28W; 

• 2-foot, medium bipin, U-shaped lamps, rated wattage of less than 28W; 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
32

• 8-foot, recessed double contact (RDC), rapid start, high-output (HO) lamps not 

defined in ANSI Standard C78.1-19914 or with current other than 0.800 nominal 

amperes; 

• 8-foot single pin (SP), instant start, slimline lamps with a rated wattage greater 

than or equal to 52, not defined in ANSI Standard C78.3-19915

; 

• Very high output (VHO) straight-shaped lamps; 

• T56

 miniature bipin (miniBP) straight-shaped lamps; 

• Additional straight-shaped and U-shaped lamps other than those listed above (e.g., 

alternate lengths, diameters, or bases); and 

• Additional fluorescent lamps with alternate shapes (e.g., circline lamps and pinbased compact fluorescent lamps (CFL)). 

73 FR 13620, 13630 (March 13, 2008); 74 FR 16920, 16927-28 (April 13, 2009). 

 For each of these categories of GSFL, DOE assessed whether standards had the 

potential to result in energy savings. For each category for which it appeared that standards 

could save significant amounts of energy, DOE then performed a preliminary analysis of 

whether potential standards appeared to be technologically feasible and economically 

justified. Finally, for GSFL that met that test, DOE did an in-depth analysis of whether, and 

at what levels, standards would be warranted under the EPCA criteria in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), 

pertaining to energy savings, technological feasibility, economic justification, and certain 

 

4

 Titled “for Fluorescent Lamps—Rapid-Start Types—Dimensional and Electrical Characteristics.” 5

 Titled “for Fluorescent Lamps—Instant-Start and Cold-Cathode Types—Dimensional and Electrical 

Characteristics” 

6

 T5, T8, T10, and T12 are nomenclature used to refer to tubular fluorescent lamps with diameters of 0.625, 1, 

1.25, and 1.5 inches respectively. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
33

other factors. Based on this analysis, as summarized in the April 2009 NOPR, DOE 

proposed to cover the following additional GSFL: 

• 2-foot, medium bipin U-shaped lamps with a rated wattage greater than or equal to 

25 and less than 28; 

• 4-foot, medium bipin lamps with a rated wattage greater than or equal to 25 and 

less than 28; 

• 4-foot T5, miniature bipin, straight-shaped, standard output lamps with rated 

wattage greater than or equal to 26; 

• 4-foot T5, miniature bipin, straight-shaped, high output lamps with rated wattage ≥

51; 

• 8-foot recessed double contact, rapid start, HO lamps other than those defined in 

ANSI Standard C78.1–1991; 

• 8-foot recessed double contact, rapid start, HO lamps (other than 0.800 nominal 

amperes) defined in ANSI Standard C78.1–1991; and 

• 8-foot single pin instant start slimline lamps, with a rated wattage greater than or 

equal to 52, not defined in ANSI Standard C78.3–1991 

74 FR 16920, 16930 (April 13, 2009). 

 

DOE received several comments regarding the additional GSFL proposed for 

coverage. In terms of methodology, the Green Lighting Campaign questioned the criteria 

DOE used in determining whether to include additional fluorescent lamps in coverage. 

Specifically, the Green Lighting Campaign argued that just because a product is lowvolume, and, therefore, does not represent significant energy savings, does not indicate that 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
34

it should not be subject to standards. According to the commenter, many low-volume 

products are some of the least-efficient products on the market. (Green Lighting Campaign, 

No. 74 at p. 3) 

 In response, as described in more detail for each lamp described below for which 

coverage was not extended, DOE concluded that coverage was inappropriate given the small 

market share of these lamps. DOE emphasizes that it will vigilantly monitor the market 

shares and other relevant information for these lamps and consider whether to extend 

coverage in a future rulemaking. 

 NEMA and EEI agreed with the scope of coverage proposed in the April 2009 NOPR. 

(NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. 43; EEI, No. 45 at p. 3) However, the 

Green Lighting Campaign disagreed with DOE’s proposed scope of coverage, expressing 

concern that DOE’s proposed standards in the April 2009 NOPR would allow a significant 

amount of outdated lighting equipment to be sold in the US even though more efficient 

replacement technologies exist. Specifically, the Green Lighting Campaign requested that 

two-pin compact fluorescent lamps, high-intensity discharge (HID) lamps, ballasts, 

luminaires, and fluorescent lamps of other shapes and sizes be included in coverage. (Green 

Lighting Campaign, No. 74 at pp. 1-4) 

 In response, DOE considered two-pin compact fluorescent lamps and fluorescent 

lamps of other shapes and sizes for coverage but concluded that they did not meet the 

statutory criteria defined by EPCA, because these lamps represent relatively small market 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
35

shares and do not possess the ability to serve as substitutes for most covered GSFL. See 

section III.A.2.g for more details. Additionally, this rulemaking only amends standards for 

GSFL and IRL, as described in section III. DOE is addressing standards for ballasts and 

HID lamps in separate rulemakings, and DOE currently does not have the authority to set 

energy conservation standards for luminaires. Please consult the website of DOE’s 

Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards Program for further detail.7

 Earthjustice and the Green Lighting Campaign disagreed with DOE’s proposed 

covered wattage ranges. In the April 2009 NOPR, DOE determined the wattage range for 

covered products based on commercially-available products. 74 FR 16920, 16929-30 (April 

13, 2009). This approach allowed DOE to confirm that an energy conservation standard 

would be technologically feasible and economically justified for any covered product. In 

comments on the March 2008 ANOPR, stakeholders stated that instead of determining a 

covered wattage range based on commercially-available products, DOE should substantially 

lower covered wattage ranges and use narrowly-drawn exemptions for those products that 

did not meet the EPCA criteria for inclusion as a covered product. 74 FR 16920, 16929-30 

(April 13, 2009). The stakeholders believed that this approach ensured that energy 

conservation standards would achieve largest potential energy savings. DOE responded in 

the April 2009 NOPR and agreed that current covered wattage ranges should be extended 

when commercially-available product exists, but disagreed that they should be extended 

when no products are available. DOE is required to consider energy conservation standards 

 

7

 Available at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/index.html 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
36

that are technologically feasible. If a lower wattage lamp does not yet exist, DOE cannot 

confirm that it would be technologically feasible or economically justified for such a lamp 

to meet a set energy conservation standard. Furthermore, DOE encourages the introduction 

of lamps at lower wattages. Thus, DOE decided to only lower the wattage range of a 

covered product if a commercially available product existed at a lower wattage. 74 FR 

16920, 16929-30 (April 13, 2009). 

 In commenting on the April 2009 NOPR, Earthjustice again disagreed with DOE’s 

approach and urged DOE to be proactive in extending the standards’ covered wattage range 

so as to eliminate potential loopholes. Earthjustice argued that DOE should cover all 

wattages of the designated product classes that are lower than the existing covered wattage 

range unless DOE can prove that standards are not technologically feasible or economically 

justified. In not doing so, Earthjustice claims DOE is not meeting its obligations under 

EPCA to consider standards for all GSFL, including those that do not currently exist, but 

might be popular at the time the standard takes effect. (Earthjustice, No. 60 at p. 4) The 

Green Lighting Campaign asserted that the covered wattage ranges proposed in the April 

2009 NOPR “seem arbitrary and unjustified,” commenting that the European Union’s (EU) 

energy efficiency standards for lighting cover a much larger range of rated wattages. (Green 

Lighting Campaign, No. 74 at pp. 2-3) 

 In seeking to advance the energy-saving goals of EPCA, DOE understands 

stakeholders’ concerns that new products may emerge that are outside of the covered 

wattage range. However, in setting up the statutory structure, Congress was very careful to 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
37

ensure that any standards set would be based upon the best available data, particularly in 

terms of what standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified. 

Furthermore, given the anti-backsliding provision of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1), DOE must 

exercise great care so as to set an appropriate standard in the first instance. Contrary to 

EPCA’s direction that DOE set standards for products that the data show to be 

technologically feasible and economically justified, Earthjustice would have DOE broaden 

coverage without data, unless DOE can prove a negative (i.e., that such standards are not 

economically feasible and economically justified). DOE concludes that such an approach 

would violate the statute. Accordingly, DOE maintains that it is inappropriate to lower the 

covered wattage range to include products that do not exist. Without knowing the 

performance characteristics of a lamp, DOE cannot know how energy conservation 

standards will affect it. It is not possible for DOE to set standards for lower-wattage lamps 

that currently do not exist because DOE cannot prove that standards for such lamps are 

technologically feasible and economically justified. Therefore, DOE maintains the covered 

wattage range proposed in the April 2009 NOPR in this final rule. It is further noted that if 

low-wattage products do subsequently enter the market, DOE would address the 

appropriateness of energy conservation standards for such products in considering periodic 

amendments to the GSFL and IRL standards pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(m). 

 In response to comments on the EU’s lighting efficiency standards, DOE notes that 

these standards are not directly comparable, because they are applied to a larger scope of 

products than what is covered in this rulemaking. Thus, the cited EU standards encompass a 

broader range of covered wattages (i.e., include lower wattage levels) than those proposed 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
38

by DOE, because the EU standard covers lamps with shorter lengths. 

 ACEEE and the CA Stakeholders suggested that DOE should lower the wattage range 

of covered products by one watt in order to account for imprecision in how lamps are rated. 

(ACEEE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. 44-45; CA Stakeholders, No. 63 at p. 

11) ACEEE argued that because a lamp’s rated wattage and its ”actual” wattage often 

differ, lowering the wattage range would prevent manufacturers from circumventing 

standards by rating lamps at artificially low wattages. For example, a manufacturer could 

rerate a 25 watt lamp as a 24 watt lamp, which would then not be covered by standards. 

 While DOE understands the stakeholders’ concerns, DOE believes that the definition 

of “rated wattage” sufficiently addresses the issue of potential circumvention. As discussed 

in further detail in section III.C.1 below, for lamps currently commercially-available and 

listed in ANSI C78.81-2005 or ANSI C78.901-2005, “rated wattage” (as defined in 

amended 10 CFR 430.2) is specified for each lamp on its corresponding datasheet in the 

same industry standard. Therefore, for these lamps, manufacturers may not arbitrarily lower 

the rated wattage of lamps listed in the ANSI standards. However, due to the emergence of 

new products on the market after publication of the ANSI standards, not all currently 

commercially-available lamps are listed in ANSI C78.81-2005 or ANSI C78.901– 2005. 

For lamps not listed in either standard, the rated wattage corresponds to the wattage 

measured when operating the lamp on an appropriate ballast, as specified by part 1(iii) of 

the revised definition of “rated wattage.” In such a case, the “actual” wattage would be 

equivalent to the rated wattage, thereby preventing circumvention of the standard. Thus, for 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
39

all covered lamps, DOE believes that the definition of “rated wattage” adopted in this final 

rule prevents manufacturers from artificially raising or lowering the rated wattage of a lamp, 

thereby addressing any potential loopholes. 

 The following sections discuss each additional GSFL category DOE considered 

throughout this rulemaking and summarize the analysis performed to determine to which 

lamps DOE should extend coverage. 

a. Four-Foot Medium Bipin Lamps 

DOE found that there are no 4-foot medium bipin lamps with a rated wattage below 

25W currently on the market, but that manufacturers do market and sell 25W 4-foot medium 

bipin T8 fluorescent lamps as replacements for higher-wattage 4-foot bipin T8 lamps. Thus, 

DOE initially concluded that standards for these lamps that are 25W or higher, but less than 

28W, would mitigate the risk of unregulated 25W lamps becoming a loophole, and would 

maximize potential energy savings. In addition, because the technology and incremental 

costs associated with increased efficacy of 25W lamps are similar to their already regulated 

28W counterparts, DOE tentatively concluded that standards for these lamps would be 

technologically feasible and economically justified. 73 FR 13620, 13630 (March 13, 2008) 

and 74 FR 16920, 16928 (April 13, 2009). As explained in the April 2009 NOPR and as set 

forth below in section VII, DOE has now determined that standards for 4-foot medium bipin 

lamps with a rated wattage at or above 25W, and below 28W, would save significant 

amounts of energy and are technologically feasible and economically justified, and includes 

such standards in today’s rule. DOE has not, however, pursued standards for 4-foot medium 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
40

bipin lamps with a rated wattage below 25W. The lack of existence of such lamps precludes 

DOE from assessing whether standards for them are technologically feasible and 

economically justified, and the inability to make such an assessment could also result in the 

adoption of standards that would reduce the utility of such a product or even preclude its 

development. 74 FR 16920, 16929-30 (April 13, 2009). Therefore, in this final rule, DOE 

extends coverage to 4-foot medium bipin lamps with a rated wattage greater than or equal to 

25W and less than 28W. 

b. Two-Foot Medium Bipin, U-Shaped Lamps 

 DOE initially decided not to consider standards for 2-foot U-shaped lamps less than 

28W, based on its understanding that no such products are commercially available. NEMA 

provided information, however, that such lamps have been introduced at 25W. Therefore, 

consistent with its approach just described for 4-foot medium bipin lamps, DOE evaluated 

for standards 2-foot U-shaped lamps of 25W or more, but less than 28W. 74 FR 16920, 

16929-30 (April 13, 2009). As set forth below in section VII, DOE has now determined that 

standards for these lamps would save significant amounts of energy and are technologically 

feasible and economically justified, and includes such standards in today’s rule. In addition, 

DOE has not pursued standards for 2-foot U-shaped lamps with a rated wattage below 25W, 

for the same reasons that it has declined to pursue standards for 4-foot medium bipin lamps 

with a rated wattage below 25W. Therefore, in this final rule, DOE extends coverage to 2-

foot U-shaped lamps with a rated wattage greater than or equal to 25W and less than 28W. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
41

c. Eight-Foot Recessed, Double-Contact Lamps 

 As indicated above, DOE examined 8-foot recessed double-contact (RDC) rapid-start 

HO lamps, including those not defined in ANSI Standard C78.1-1991 as well as those 

defined in ANSI Standard C78.1-1991, but with other than 0.800 nominal amperes. These 

are T8 8-foot lamps, and neither is currently subject to standards. DOE concluded that these 

lamps serve or could serve as substitutes for GSFL currently subject to standards, and, 

therefore, coverage of these lamps would maximize energy savings from standards. DOE 

also tentatively concluded that energy conservation standards for these T8 lamps would be: 

(1) technologically feasible because they use technologies similar to the technologies used 

by their already-regulated T12 counterparts; and (2) economically justified because 

preliminary analysis indicated such standards would result in substantial economic savings. 

73 FR 13620, 13630-31 (March 13, 2008) and 74 FR 16920, 16928 (April 13, 2009). As set 

forth below in section VII, DOE has now determined that standards for these lamps would 

save significant amounts of energy and are technologically feasible and economically 

justified, and includes such standards in today’s rule. Therefore, in this final rule, DOE 

extends coverage to the following 8-foot recessed double contact, rapid start, HO lamps: (1) 

ones other than those defined in ANSI Standard C78.1–1991; and (2) those defined in ANSI 

Standard C78.1-1991 with other than 0.800 nominal amperes. 

d. Eight-Foot Single Pin Slimline Lamps 

 As with 8-foot recessed double contact, rapid start, HO lamps, DOE concluded that 8-

foot, single pin, instant start, slimline lamps not included in ANSI Standard C78.3-1991, 

with a rated wattage greater than or equal to 52W, could serve as substitutes for GSFL 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
42

currently subject to standards. Therefore, DOE tentatively concluded that regulation of 

these lamps has the potential to achieve substantial energy savings. DOE’s preliminary 

analysis also indicated that energy conservation standards for these 8-foot single pin lamps 

would be: (1) technologically feasible because they use technologies similar to the 

technologies used by their already-regulated T12 counterparts; and (2) economically 

justified because preliminary analysis indicated such standards would result in substantial 

economic savings. 73 FR 13620, 13631-32 (March 13, 2008) and 74 FR 16920, 16929 

(April 13, 2009). As set forth below in section VII, DOE has now determined that standards 

for these lamps would save significant amounts of energy and are technologically feasible 

and economically justified, and includes such standards in today’s rule. Therefore, in this 

final rule, DOE extends coverage to 8-foot single pin instant start slimline lamps, with a 

rated wattage greater than or equal to 52W that are not defined in ANSI Standard C78.3–

1991. 

e. Very High Output Straight-Shaped Lamps 

 Although individual VHO T12 lamps consume relatively large amounts of energy, 

they are commonly used in outdoor applications where high-intensity discharge (HID) 

lamps are rapidly gaining market share, and shipments of VHO lamps are declining rapidly. 

Therefore, the total energy savings that would result from standards for these lamps would 

be small and would likely decrease over time. In response to the April 2009 NOPR, DOE 

received no adverse comment regarding its decision to not cover VHO lamps. Accordingly, 

DOE has not pursued standards for VHO lamps and does not extend them coverage in this 

final rule. 73 FR 13620, 13632 (March 13, 2008) and 74 FR 16920, 16928 (April 13, 2009). 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
43

As emphasized above, DOE will vigilantly monitor the market shares and other relevant 

information for these lamps and consider whether to extend coverage in a future rulemaking. 

f. T5 Lamps 

 DOE initially decided not to consider standards for T5 lamps because it believed that 

standards for these lamps would have limited potential to result in energy savings. First, 

these lamps have a relatively small market share. Second, although T5 lamps can substitute 

for T8 or T12 lamps, T5 lamps tend to have higher efficacies than T8s or T12s. Therefore, 

DOE inferred that a lack of standards for T5 lamps would be unlikely to undermine energy 

savings resulting from a T12 and T8 standard, even if the standard caused increased sales of 

T5 systems. 73 FR 13620, 13632 (March 13, 2008). 

 However, after receiving comments on this issue in response to the March 2008 

ANOPR, including comments advocating energy conservation standards for T5 lamps, DOE 

decided it should reconsider whether such standards are warranted. Specifically, DOE 

concluded that, absent standards for T5 lamps, less-efficient T5 lamps could enter the 

market and be substituted for T8 and T12 lamps that are subject to standards. Thus, a lack 

of standards for T5 lamps could potentially reduce the energy savings that could result from 

the standards for T8 and T12 lamps. Accordingly, in the NOPR, DOE tentatively concluded 

that regulation of T5 lamps has the potential to achieve substantial energy savings. 

Furthermore, DOE research indicated that: (1) the primary driver of T5 market share growth 

is substitution for currently regulated 4-foot MBP lamps; (2) standard-output (approximately 

28W) and high-output (approximately 54W) lamps are the highest volume T5 miniature 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
44

bipin lamps; and (3) reduced-wattage versions of these lamps (26W and 51W, respectively) 

are available. Therefore, DOE evaluated for standards 4-foot nominal, straight-shaped, T5 

miniature bipin standard output lamps with rated wattages ≥26W and 4-foot nominal, 

straight-shaped, T5 miniature bipin high output lamps with rated wattages ≥ 51W, as they 

present the greatest potential for energy savings. DOE also tentatively concluded that 

energy conservation standards for these T5 lamps would be: (1) technologically feasible 

because higher-efficacy versions of some of these lamps are already present in the market; 

and (2) economically justified because preliminary analysis indicated such standards would 

result in substantial economic savings. 74 FR 16920, 16929 (April 13, 2009). Both NEMA 

and ACEEE supported the extension of coverage to T5 lamps. (NEMA, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. 43; ACEEE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. 44; NEMA, 

No. 81 at p. 7) 

 Since the publication of the NOPR, DOE has learned that a 49W T5 miniature bipin 

high-output lamp has been introduced to the market. As this lamp is very similar to a 51W 

T5 miniature bipin high-output lamp, DOE concludes that standards for these lamps would 

be technologically feasible and economically justified for the reasons listed above. 

Therefore, as set forth in more detail in section VII, DOE has determined that standards for 

T5 lamps would save significant amounts of energy and are technologically feasible and 

economically justified. Thus, in this final rule, DOE extends coverage to 4-foot T5, 

miniature bipin, straight-shaped, standard output lamps with rated wattage greater than or 

equal to 26W and 4-foot T5, miniature bipin, straight-shaped, high output lamps with rated 

wattage greater than or equal to 49W.

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
45

g. Various Other Fluorescent Lamps 

 In addition to the GSFL already covered by standards and those just discussed, there 

exist straight-shaped and U-shaped fluorescent lamps that have, for example, alternate 

lengths, diameters, or bases, as well as fluorescent lamps with alternative shapes (e.g., 

circline lamps and pin-based compact fluorescent lamps (CFL)). In this rulemaking, DOE 

has not pursued standards for these additional fluorescent lamps. The GSFL already 

covered and those DOE included in this rulemaking represent a significant majority of the 

GSFL market, and, thus, the bulk of the potential energy savings from amended or new 

standards. Furthermore, there is limited potential for lamps with miscellaneous lengths and 

bases to grow in market share, given the constraints of fixture lengths and socket 

compatibility. 73 FR 13620, 13632 (March 13, 2008) and 74 FR 16920, 16928 (April 13, 

2009). Given the relatively low shipments and limited potential for growth in shipments, 

DOE does not extend coverage to GSFL with alternate lengths, diameters, bases, or shapes. 

DOE again emphasizes that it will vigilantly monitor the market shares and other relevant 

information for these lamps and consider whether to extend coverage in a future rulemaking. 

Magnaray, a luminaire manufacturer, commented that the amended standards should 

not eliminate existing “twin T5” fluorescent lamps from the market. Magnaray stated that 

“twin T5” lamps have demonstrated significant energy savings relative to their 

replacements. The luminaire manufacturer further requested that DOE recommend these 

lamps for use in all outdoor lighting applications. (Magnaray, No. 58 at p. 1) DOE research 

indicates that “twin T5” lamps are actually high-lumen-output single-ended twin-tube T5 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
46

pin-based CFL. In general, these lamps are offered with wattages between 18W and 80W, 

CCTs between 3000K and 5000K, lengths between 9 and 22.6 inches, and CRIs of 82. As 

discussed above, based on their relatively low market-share and the low potential energy 

savings associated with their regulation, DOE is not extending coverage to pin-based CFL. 

DOE reiterates that it will vigilantly monitor the market shares and other relevant 

information for these lamps and consider whether to extend coverage in a future rulemaking. 

In addition, it should be noted that DOE does not endorse particular products or recommend 

that consumers adopt particular technologies in the energy conservation standards 

rulemaking. 

3. Summary of GSFL for Which DOE has Adopted Standards 

 DOE has determined that energy conservation standards are technologically feasible 

and economically justified, and would result in significant energy savings, for all of the 

“additional” GSFL for which DOE proposed standards in the April 2009 NOPR. Therefore, 

DOE is adopting standards today for the following additional GSFL: 

• 2-foot, medium bipin U-shaped lamps with a rated wattage greater than or equal to 

25 and less than 28; 

• 4-foot, medium bipin lamps with a rated wattage greater than or equal to 25 and 

less than 28; 

• 4-foot T5, miniature bipin, straight-shaped, standard output lamps with rated 

wattage greater than or equal to 26; 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
47

• 4-foot T5, miniature bipin, straight-shaped, high output lamps with rated wattage 

greater than or equal to 49; 

• 8-foot recessed double contact, rapid start, HO lamps other than those defined in 

ANSI Standard C78.1–1991; 

• 8-foot recessed double contact, rapid start, HO lamps (other than 0.800 nominal 

amperes) defined in ANSI Standard C78.1–1991; and 

• 8-foot single pin instant start slimline lamps, with a rated wattage greater than or 

equal to 52, not defined in ANSI Standard C78.3–1991. 

B. Incandescent Reflector Lamp Scope of Coverage

The April 2009 NOPR proposed amended energy conservations standards for 

incandescent reflector lamps with a rated wattage from 40W to 205W, other than those 

exempted from standards under 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(1)(C). 74 FR 16920, 16924-25, 16930-

31, 17017-18 (April 13, 2009) In response to the April 2009 NOPR, DOE received several 

comments regarding the proposed incandescent reflector lamp scope coverage. These 

comments are discussed below. 

1. Covered Wattage Range 

In response to the April 2009 NOPR, the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) expressed 

concern that the scope of coverage for IRL is too limited, specifically with regard to the 

proposed covered wattage range (i.e., 40W-205W). EEI suggested that manufacturers could 

easily produce lamps at 39W or 206W to circumvent energy conservation standards. 

Because IRL exist in the market at wattages as low as 35W and as high as 500W, EEI 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
48

recommended that the covered wattage range for IRL be extended to include lamps as low 

as 20W and as high as 505W. (EEI, No. 45 at p. 2) 

In amending energy conservation standards for IRL, DOE is limited to the definition 

prescribed by EISA 2007, which defines IRL as a lamp that “has a rated wattage that is 40 

watts or higher.” (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(C), (C)(ii), and (F)) Given this definition, DOE does 

not have the authority to decrease the lower wattage limit of covered IRL below 40W. DOE 

does, however, have the authority to alter the upper limit of the wattage range for covered 

IRL. In response to EEI’s comment, DOE analyzed commercially-available product in 

manufacturer catalogs to assess the prevalence of products with wattages greater than 205W. 

Based on this research, DOE believes that IRL with rated wattages greater than 205W 

comprise a very small portion of the market and, therefore, do not represent substantial 

potential energy savings. For these reasons, DOE has decided, in this final rule, to adopt 

standards for IRL with a rated wattage greater than or equal to 40W and less than or equal to 

205W. 

2. Exempted Incandescent Reflector Lamps 

As discussed in more detail in the April 2009 NOPR, 74 FR 16920, 16930 (April 13, 

2009), section 332(b) of EISA 2007 amended EPCA to expand its definition of 

“incandescent reflector lamp” to include lamps with a diameter between 2.25 and 2.75 

inches, as well as ER, BR, BPAR, or similar bulb shapes (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(C)(ii)) and 

also to exempt certain of these lamps from EPCA’s standards for IRL (42 U.S.C. 

6295(i)(1)(C)). As discussed in section II.B.2, DOE issued and posted on its website the 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
49

January 2009 NOPR in which DOE adhered to its conclusion that these exemptions, read in 

conjunction with other language in 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(1)(C) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(3), 

precluded DOE from adopting energy conservation standards for lamps covered by the 

exemptions. DOE subsequently held a public meeting where stakeholders commented on 

the contents of the January 2009 NOPR. 

At the February 3, 2009 NOPR public meeting, NEMA stated its agreement with 

DOE’s interpretation of the statute regarding the exempted IRL. (NEMA, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. 323) However, stakeholders presented comments disagreeing 

with DOE’s conclusion and urging DOE to set standards for the exempted lamps. Several 

commenters stated that exempted lamps comprise a substantial portion of the market and, 

therefore, represent significant potential energy savings. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 38.4 at p. 27-28; EEI, No. 45 at p. 3; Woolsey, No. 46 at p. 1) Furthermore, ASAP 

argued that DOE’s interpretation that these lamps are exempt from DOE regulation, does 

not accurately reflect what Congress intended when making these lamps covered products in 

EISA 2007. According to the commenter, because States are preempted from setting 

standards for covered products, these exempted IRL would remain beyond the reach of any 

energy conservation standards. Several stakeholders urged DOE to draft and publish a 

supplementary NOPR to address the exempted ER and BR lamps. (ASAP, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 38.4 at pp. 33, 52-53, 322-323; Woolsey, No. 46 at p. 2) 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
50

After carefully considering the testimony of the February 3, 2009 NOPR public 

meeting and reexamining the ANOPR public comments on this issue, DOE has reexamined 

its authority under EPCA to amend standards for ER, BR, and small-diameter lamps and 

concluded that its earlier view may have been in error. As discussed in more detail in the 

April 2009 NOPR, DOE is reconsidering whether, under 42 U.S.C 6295(i)(3), the directive 

to amend the standards in paragraph (1) encompasses both the statutory levels and the 

exemptions to those standards. Regardless of the outcome of that decision, DOE has not 

considered such lamps as part of the present rulemaking because it had not conducted the 

requisite analyses to adopt appropriate standard levels. At the same time, DOE did not wish 

to delay the present rulemaking (and the accompanying energy savings to the Nation) for the 

sole reason of considering this subset of ER, BR, and small-diameter lamps. Therefore, as 

explained in the April 2009 NOPR, DOE has decided to proceed with setting energy 

conservation standards for the lamps that are the subject of the present rulemaking and to 

commence a separate rulemaking for ER, BR, and small-diameter lamps. 74 FR 16920, 

16930-31 (April 13, 2009). 

Following the publication of the April 2009 NOPR, several stakeholders supported 

DOE’s decision to address the exempted lamps in a separate rulemaking and urged DOE to 

act quickly to set these new standards. (Earthjustice, No. 60 at p. 2; NEEP, No. 61 at p. 5; 

Joint Comment, No. 62 at pp. 2-3; ACEEE, No. 76 at p. 5; NRDC, No. 82 at p. 4) 

Commenters encouraged DOE to establish energy conservation standards for the exempted 

lamps with the same effective date as those adopted in this rulemaking in order to minimize 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
51

market distortions and potential shifting from regulated products to unregulated products. 

(EEI, No. 45 at p. 3; NEEP, No. 61 at p. 5; EEI, No. 78 at p. 2) DOE will consider these 

comments in its separate rulemaking assessing energy conservation standards for the 

exempted ER, BR, and small diameter lamps. 

3. Museum Lighting 

DOE received a comment from The J Paul Getty Museum requesting that museum 

lighting, and particularly art museum lighting, be exempt from standards. The comment 

stated that HIR lamps do not provide the same quality of light as the halogen lamps that 

would be eliminated by the proposed standard. (The J Paul Getty Museum, No. 56 at p. 1) 

In response, DOE is unaware of any specific light quality of halogen lamps that would 

necessitate their usage instead of halogen infrared reflector lamps for museum applications. 

In addition, the commenter did not provide any further details on the unique utility of 

current lamps in museum settings that could not be provided by substitute lamps that would 

meet the requirements of the energy conservation standards under consideration. Although 

the infrared reflector coating causes a reduction in the infrared region of the electromagnetic 

spectrum, these wavelengths of light are largely invisible to the human eye. Therefore, 

DOE does not believe that halogen lamps represent a distinct utility. In addition, given the 

identical nature of halogen PAR lamps used in museum settings and non-museum settings, it 

would be potentially easy for any consumer to purchase and install a lamp meant for 

museum use. Accordingly, DOE is concerned that failure to regulate this type of lamp 

could significantly undermine the energy savings potential of the IRL standard. In light of 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
52

this concern and the lack of information to substantiate a unique utility of halogen IRL, 

DOE has decided not to create an exemption from IRL standards for museum lighting. 

C. Amended Definitions

1. “Rated Wattage” 

 To implement the expanded scope of EPCA’s coverage of GSFL and IRL, and of 

standards adopted for GSIL in EISA 2007, DOE proposed to revise its definitions of “rated 

wattage” and “colored fluorescent lamp.” 74 FR 16920, 16931-32 (April 13, 2009). As to 

“rated wattage,” one element of EPCA’s definitions for both “fluorescent lamp” and 

“incandescent reflector lamp” is a lamp’s rated wattage. (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(A), (C)(ii), 

and (F)) Also, EPCA prescribes maximum rated wattages as part of its energy conservation 

standards for GSIL. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(1)) Although EPCA does not define the term “rated 

wattage,” DOE’s regulations do, but the current DOE definition covers only 4-foot medium 

bipin T8, T10, and T12 fluorescent lamps. 10 CFR 430.2. 

 Therefore, DOE proposed a revised and updated definition of “rated wattage.” This 

definition included references to the current versions of applicable ANSI standards, clarified 

and improved the definition, and applied it to those lamps for which rated wattage is a key 

characteristic but to which DOE’s current definition does not apply. 74 FR 16920, 16931 

(April 13, 2009). DOE did not receive any comments in response to this proposed change. 

However, because “electrical power” is appropriately defined in paragraph 2.8 or Appendix 

R of Subpart B, DOE note that it has decided to replace the term “wattage” in parts (1)(ii) 

and (1)(iii) of the definition of “rated wattage” with “electrical power.” Therefore, for the 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
53

reasons explained above and in the April 2009 NOPR, DOE adopts the following definition 

of “rated wattage”: 

Rated wattage means: 

(1) With respect to fluorescent lamps and general service fluorescent lamps: 

(i) If the lamp is listed in ANSI C78.81–2005 or ANSI C78.901–2005, the rated 

wattage of a lamp determined by the lamp designation of Clause 11.1 of ANSI 

C78.81–2005 or ANSI C78.901– 2005; 

(ii) If the lamp is a residential straight-shaped lamp, and not listed in ANSI 

C78.81–2005, the wattage of a lamp when operated on a reference ballast for 

which the lamp is designed; or 

(iii) If the lamp is neither listed in one of the ANSI guides referenced in (1)(i) 

nor a residential straight-shaped lamp, the electrical power of a lamp when 

measured according to the test procedures outlined in Appendix R to subpart B 

of this part. 

(2) With respect to general service incandescent lamps and incandescent reflector 

lamps, the electrical power measured according to the test procedures outlined in 

Appendix R to subpart B of this part. 

2. “Colored Fluorescent Lamp” 

 With respect to the definition of “colored fluorescent lamp,” DOE first notes that 

EPCA defines general service fluorescent lamps as fluorescent lamps “which can be used to 

satisfy the majority of fluorescent [lighting] applications,” but which are not designed and 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
54

marketed for certain specifically listed “nongeneral lighting applications,” including 

“colored fluorescent lamps.” (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(B)) As with “rated wattage,” EPCA does 

not define the term “colored fluorescent lamp,” but DOE’s regulations do. The DOE 

regulations currently define the term as “a fluorescent lamp designated and marketed as a 

colored lamp” and having a CRI less than 40 or a CCT less than 2500 K or greater than 

6600 K. 10 CFR 430.2. Because lamps meeting this definition are not GSFL under EPCA, 

they are not covered by the standards applicable to GSFL. 

 After becoming aware of a lamp on the European market that is intended for general 

illumination applications but has a CCT of 17000 K and might meet DOE’s definition of 

“colored fluorescent lamp,” DOE became concerned that some new products with general 

service applications might be excluded from the coverage of standards applicable to GSFL. 

73 FR 13620, 13634 (March 13, 2008). To avoid this possibility, DOE considered adding 

the following phrase to its definition of “colored fluorescent lamp”: “...and not designed or 

marketed for general illumination applications.” Id. 

 Following publication of the March 2008 ANOPR, DOE obtained information 

indicating that, instead, it should amend the definition of “colored fluorescent lamp” both to: 

(1) exclude from the definition, and thereby place under energy conservation standards, 

lamps with CCTs from 6600 K to 7000 K; and (2) include in the definition, and thereby 

place outside the coverage of standards, all lamps with a CCT greater than 7000 K (i.e., 

regardless of how the lamp is designated and marketed). Although lamps with CCTs greater 

than 6600 K and less than or equal to 7000 K are not prevalent in the market, such lamps are 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
55

commercially available and becoming increasingly popular. Furthermore, manufacturers 

would likely be able to produce a lamp at 7000 K using the same materials as a 6500 K 

lamp (a commonly sold lamp). Thus, DOE tentatively concluded that covering such lamps 

would maintain the coverage under DOE’s energy conservation standards of GSFL serving 

general application purposes, and that the technological similarity between 6500 K and 7000 

K lamps makes it possible to establish technologically feasible efficacy levels for 7000 K 

lamps. However, very few lamps with a CCT greater than 7000 K exist in the market, and 

the inherently “blue” color of these high-CCT lamps appears to prevent their widespread 

adoption as substitutes for standard CCT lamps (e.g., 4100 K). In addition, the materials 

used in the manufacture of such lamps, as well as the design trade-offs in developing them, 

would differ from those applicable to current products serving this market. Thus, DOE 

tentatively concluded that it could not determine whether a particular standard level would 

be technologically feasible for lamps with a higher CCT, and that these lamps would not be 

expected to be a potential loophole to standards it was considering in this rulemaking. For 

these reasons, which DOE discussed in greater detail in the April 2009 NOPR, DOE 

proposed to modify the definition of “colored fluorescent lamp” by raising the upper CCT 

limit for lamps excluded from that term from 6600 K to 7000 K, and including in that term 

all lamps (regardless how the lamp is designated and marketed) with a CCT greater than 

7000 K. 74 FR 16920, 16931-32 (April 13, 2009). 

 Both EEI and NEMA agreed with the proposed definition of “colored fluorescent 

lamp.” (EEI, No. 45 at p. 2, NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. 46-47; 

NEMA, No. 81 at p. 7) However, ACEEE pointed out that at an earlier stage of the 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
56

rulemaking process, NEMA had identified an 8000 K lamp and claimed that lamps at high 

CCT values were capturing an increasing market share of general service applications. 

ACEEE argued that, if this is true, lamps with a CCT up through 8000 K should be included 

in coverage. (ACEEE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. 48). NEMA responded 

that it is not aware of an 8000 K lamp gaining market share in the general service lighting 

market because such a lamp would be too blue and not suitable for general service 

applications. (NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at pp. 49-50) 

ACEEE also suggested that DOE should reinsert the phrase “and not designed or 

marketed for general illumination applications” in the definition of “colored fluorescent 

lamp” to ensure that only specialty lamps are excluded from the definition of “general 

service fluorescent lamp.” (ACEEE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at pp. 48-49; 

ACEEE, No. 76 at p. 4) In response, DOE agrees that the intention of the exemption for 

colored fluorescent lamps is to exclude only specialty lamps from standards. DOE believes 

that the amended definition of “colored fluorescent lamp” should not become a loophole for 

fluorescent lamps that are used in general service applications, and, therefore, should be 

subject to energy conservation standards. However, DOE also maintains that there are 

enough lamps available with CCTs greater than 7000 K to determine technologically 

feasible energy conservation standards. In addition, DOE believes that the inherently “blue” 

color of these lamps may prevent widespread adoption as substitutes for standard CCT 

lamps (e.g., 4100 K). 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
57

Therefore, in this final rule, DOE is modifying the definition of “colored fluorescent 

lamp” as follows. DOE has decided to incorporate the phrase “and not designed or 

marketed for general illumination applications” into the definition of “colored fluorescent 

lamp.” This phrase will apply to those lamps with CCTs greater than 7000 K, as well as 

lamps with a CRI less than 40 and lamps with a CCT under 2500 K. However, because 

DOE believes that there is insufficient data to determine whether amended standards for 

lamps with CCTs greater than 7000 K would be technologically feasible, DOE is modifying 

the range of CCTs for which it is adopting standards. As a result, lamps referred to as 

possessing high CCTs in this standard-setting rulemaking are now being classified as those 

with a CCT greater than 4500 K and less than or equal to 7000 K (rather than simply greater 

than 4500 K). 

DOE is implementing these changes in this manner because of the anti-backsliding 

provision in EPCA. Because lamps with CCTs greater than 7000K that are not designated 

and marketed as colored lamps are currently subject to energy conservation standards, 

exempting all lamps with a CCT above 7000 K through inclusion in the definition of 

“colored fluorescent lamp” would prescribe a standard which impermissibly “decreases the 

minimum required energy efficiency, of a covered product.” (42 U.S.C. 6295 (o)(1)) Thus, 

if lamps with CCTs greater than 7000 K are used in general service applications, they will 

not be covered by the standards adopted by this final rule, although they will continue to be 

subject to the existing energy conservation standards (which have not been eliminated, 

despite being superseded in terms of efficacy levels for most – but not all, as demonstrated 

here – of those lamps upon the effective date of the updated GSFL standards). In 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
58

conclusion, DOE adopts the following definition for “colored fluorescent lamp” in this final 

rule: 

Colored fluorescent lamp means a fluorescent lamp designated and marketed as a 

colored lamp and not designed or marketed for general illumination applications 

with either of the following characteristics: (1) a CRI less than 40, as determined 

according to the method set forth in CIE Publication 13.3 (incorporated by reference; 

see § 430.3); or (2) a correlated color temperature less than 2,500K or greater than 

7,000K, as determined according to the method set forth in IESNA LM-9 

(incorporated by reference; see § 430.3). 

D. Off Mode and Standby Mode Energy Consumption Standards

Section 310(3) of EISA 2007 amended EPCA to require energy conservation 

standards adopted for a covered product after July 1, 2010 to address standby mode and off 

mode energy use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) Although the final rule in this standards 

rulemaking is scheduled for publication by June 2009 (i.e., before this statutory deadline), 

DOE nonetheless did a preliminary analysis of the potential for energy savings associated 

with the regulation of standby mode and off mode energy use in covered lamps. DOE 

tentatively determined that current technologies for the GSFL and IRL that are the subjects 

of this rulemaking do not use a standby mode or off mode, so it is neither feasible nor 

necessary to incorporate energy use in these modes into the energy conservation standards 

for GSFL and IRL. Therefore, DOE did not propose amendments to the standards to 

address lamp operation in such modes. 73 FR 13620, 13627 (March 13, 2008); 74 FR 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
59

16920, 16932-33 (April 13, 2009). DOE did not receive any comments regarding this 

subject, so DOE concludes that standby mode and off mode are not applicable to these 

products. Therefore, in this final rule, DOE is not adopting provisions to address lamp 

operation in off mode or standby mode as part of the energy conservation standards that are 

the subject of this rulemaking. 

E. Color Rendering Index Standards for General Service Fluorescent Lamps

EPCA specifies minimum levels of both lumens per watt and CRI that GSFL must 

meet. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(1)) However, EPCA authorizes DOE to consider and adopt only 

energy conservation standards that consist of energy performance requirements. (42 U.S.C. 

6291(6)) In the March 2008 ANOPR, commenters suggested that it may be necessary for 

DOE to amend the existing CRI standards to prevent the possible emergence of loopholes in 

the product class structure and standards levels. In the April 2009 NOPR, DOE concluded 

that it does not have the authority to change the CRI standard because CRI is not a measure 

of energy consumption or efficacy, but rather a measure of the color quality of the light. 74 

FR 16920, 16933 (April 13, 2009). 

In written comments, Earthjustice argued that DOE has the authority to amend 

EPCA’s Color Rendering Index (CRI) for GSFL, stating that DOE ignored the context of 

the duties that Congress imposed in 42 U.S.C. § 6295(i)(3). Earthjustice correctly noted that 

Congress included a table specifying both lamp efficacy and CRI standards for GSFL. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(i)(1)(B)). The commenter also correctly stated that Congress provided that all 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
60

GSFL “shall meet or exceed the [specified] lamp efficacy and CRI standards” (42 U.S.C. 

6295(i)(1)(B)), and directed DOE to “determine if the standards in paragraph (1) should be 

amended.” (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(3)). From there, Earthjustice took the position that Congress 

did not intend to require DOE to assess only the “energy conservation standards” 

established in 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(1), but instead to review all “standards” established in that 

paragraph, which include both lamp efficacy and CRI standards. (Earthjustice, No. 60 at pp. 

3-4) The Green Lighting Campaign also argued that DOE should place restrictions on the 

CRI of covered GSFL because CRI can be used to enhance a lamp’s visual acuity, thereby 

enabling substitution of lower-wattage lamps in a given lamp application without sacrificing 

utility. Therefore, the commenter argued that CRI affects energy efficiency and that DOE 

should screen out lamps with a CRI below 80. (Green Lighting Campaign, No. 74 at p. 2,4) 

Furthermore, Earthjustice stated that the relevant discussion in the preamble of 

DOE’s April 2009 NOPR did not clarify whether DOE believes that amendment of the CRI 

standards is foreclosed by EPCA’s plain language (which Earthjustice disputed for the 

reasons above), or that is DOE’s interpretation of an “allegedly ambiguous provision” 

(which Earthjustice asserted would be arbitrary and capricious). Earthjustice also 

commented that DOE’s rationale on this point in the April 2009 NOPR explanation cannot 

be reconciled with the purposes of the statute and the intent of Congress, which enacted 

EPCA to “conserve energy supplies through energy conservation programs” and “provide 

for improved energy efficiency of . . . consumer products.” 42 U.S.C. 6201(4) and (5). 

Finally, Earthjustice argued that DOE must consider amending EPCA’s CRI standards if an 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
61

efficacy-only standard is not sufficient to capture all technologically feasible and 

economically justified energy savings. (Earthjustice, No. 60 at pp. 3-4) 

In response, DOE disagrees with the Green Lighting Campaign and Earthjustice’s 

interpretation of the relevant statutory language. Despite the overarching energy-savings 

purposes of EPCA, Congress promulgated a highly detailed statute (both initially and 

through subsequent amendments) with numerous provisions specifying (or restricting) 

DOE’s authority. In general, Congress did not provide DOE unfettered discretion to set 

standards, but instead established detailed criteria, definitions, and other limitations on 

DOE’s authority. Consequently, when DOE faces specific provisions which limit its 

authority, it seems clear that Congress did not intend the general energy-savings provisions 

of EPCA to override such limitations. Instead, DOE interprets its mandate as to maximize 

energy savings within the confines of its statutory authority. With that said, DOE continues 

to believe that it does not have the authority to regulate CRI standards for the reasons 

discussed in the NOPR. 74 FR 16920, 16933 (April 13, 2009). That is, the language in the 

statute does not provide DOE with the authority to amend the CRI standard because it is not 

an energy performance standard. In implementing the amended standards rulemaking 

required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(3), DOE must abide by the criteria for prescribing new or 

amended standards set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). In relevant part, 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) 

provides that any new or amended “energy conservation standard” must be designed to 

achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and 

economically justified. More specifically, as discussed in the NOPR, according to 42 

U.S.C. 6291(6), “energy conservation standard” means either: (1) a performance standard 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
62

which prescribes a minimum level of energy efficiency or a maximum quantity of energy 

use; or (2) a design requirement (only for specifically enumerated products). Although CRI 

is a performance requirement, it is not an energy performance requirement within the 

meaning of the term “energy conservation standard.” Because, in the case of GSFL, DOE 

has the authority to regulate only energy conservation standards (i.e., energy performance 

requirements), DOE is not amending the existing minimum CRI requirements in this final 

rule. 

Even if DOE did have authority to amend the minimum CRI requirements, DOE 

does not believe any modification would have impacted the potential energy savings of this 

final rule. CRI does not affect energy consumption or efficacy and, therefore, would not 

affect any of the results of DOE’s analysis that are summarized in section VII. 

IV. General Discussion 

A. Test Procedures 

DOE’s test procedures for fluorescent and incandescent lamps are set forth at 10 

CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix R.8 These test procedures provide detailed instructions 

for measuring GSFL and IRL performance, as well as performance attributes of GSIL, 

largely by incorporating several industry standards. As explained in the April 2009 NOPR 

(74 FR 16920, 16933 (April 13, 2009)), DOE published a test procedure NOPR that 

proposed to update the current test procedure’s references to industry standards for 

 

8

 “Uniform Test Method for Measuring Average Lamp Efficiency (LE) and Color Rendering Index (CRI) of 

Electric Lamps.” 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
63

fluorescent and incandescent lamps, as well as to propose adoption of test procedure 

amendments to address lamps to which coverage was extended by EISA 2007 or to which 

DOE was considering extending coverage through rulemaking. 73 FR 13465, 13467-68 

(March 13, 2008)(the test procedure NOPR). The test procedure NOPR also proposed the 

following: (1) a small number of definitional and procedural modifications to the test 

procedure to accommodate technological migrations in the GSFL market and approaches 

DOE has considered in this standards rulemaking; (2) revision of the reporting requirements 

for GSFL, such that all covered lamp efficacies would be reported with an accuracy to the 

tenths decimal place; and (3) adoption of a testing and calculation method for measuring the 

CCT of fluorescent and incandescent lamps. Id. at 13472-74. The March 2008 ANOPR 

also contains a detailed discussion of these proposals and related matters. 73 FR 13620, 

13627-28 (March 13, 2008). 

 In response to the test procedure NOPR, NEMA commented that it strongly opposed 

establishing test procedures for lamps to which coverage has not yet been extended by the 

energy conservation standards rulemaking. NEMA was concerned that specifying 

mandatory test conditions prior to inclusion of coverage would inadvertently prevent new, 

high-efficient lamp designs from entering the market. (NEMA, No. 25 at p. 6-8)9

 In 

response, in the June 2009 test procedure Final Rule previously published (hereafter the test 

procedure Final Rule), DOE agreed with NEMA’s suggestion and 

 

9

 Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for General Service Fluorescent Lamps, Incandescent 

Reflector Lamps, and General Service Incandescent Lamps; Docket No. EERE-2007-BT-TP-0013; RIN 

number 1904-AB72. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
64

proceeded to finalize all other aspects of the lamps test procedure amendments but deferred 

consideration of test procedures for potentially new covered products until DOE establishes, 

by final rule, the lamps to which it is extending energy conservation standards coverage. 

Therefore, today’s final rule simultaneously adopts both energy conservation standards and 

test procedures for these “additional” GSFL. In setting test procedures for these additional 

GSFL, DOE is also responding to the public comments on that topic submitted in response 

to the March 2008 test procedure NOPR, as discussed below. 

 As discussed in section III.A, DOE has decided to adopted standards for the following 

additional GSFL: (1) 2-foot U-shaped; (2) 4-foot MBP; (3) 8-foot SP slimline; (4) 8-foot 

RDC HO; (5) 4-foot MiniBP SO; and (6) 4-foot MiniBP HO lamps. For the additional 2-

foot U-shaped and 4-foot MBP lamps, 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix R already 

contains adequate test procedures (either through existing test procedures or those newly 

adopted in the test procedure final rule). Therefore, in this final rule, DOE is not adopting 

new test procedures for those lamps. However, for the added 8-foot SP slimline, 8-foot 

RDC HO, 4-foot MiniBP SO, and 4-foot MiniBP HO lamps, DOE has determined that 

several new provisions need to be added to the existing test procedures for GSFL. 

 These provisions pertain to the adoption of reference ballast settings for lamps not 

listed in ANSI C78.81-2005 nor in ANSI C78.901-2005, as proposed in the test procedure 

NOPR. In response to that test procedure proposal, NEMA stated that instituting generic 

test conditions, particularly reference ballast settings, without knowing the specific GSFL to 

which the conditions may apply could have unexpected consequences. In particular, NEMA 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
65

argued that such test procedures could constrain innovation by affecting the introduction of 

new lamps into the market. NEMA also committed to developing standardized test 

conditions that DOE could consider for several covered lamp types for which no test 

conditions currently exist. (NEMA, No. 25 at p. 6-8)10 

 DOE does not agree that imposing test conditions for future covered products would 

limit innovation in the lighting industry. DOE maintains a test procedure waiver process 

specifically for this reason. Under 10 CFR 430.27, DOE’s regulations state, “Any interested 

person may submit a petition to waive for a particular basic model any requirements of 

§430.23, or of any appendix to this subpart, upon the grounds that the basic model contains 

one or more design characteristics which either prevent testing of the basic model according 

to the prescribed test procedures, or the prescribed test procedures may evaluate the basic 

model in a manner so unrepresentative of its true energy consumption characteristics, or 

water consumption characteristics (in the case of faucets, showerheads, water closets, and 

urinals) as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data.” (10 CFR 430.27(a)(1)) This 

waiver process exists to avoid constraining innovation in the industry. Thus, DOE believes 

it is not preventing the introduction of future products into the market by specifying generic 

test conditions in this final rule. 

 

10 Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for General Service Fluorescent Lamps, Incandescent 

Reflector Lamps, and General Service Incandescent Lamps; Docket No. EERE-2007-BT-TP-0013; RIN 

number 1904-AB72. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
66

 While DOE appreciates NEMA’s offer to develop additional standardized test 

procedure provisions, the organization did not set a timeframe for developing the new test 

conditions, and DOE believes that this final rule needs to establish test conditions for all 

lamps subject to energy conservation standards. In addition, DOE believes that the test 

conditions set forth in the March 2008 NOPR are appropriate for most commerciallyavailable lamps. DOE arrived at the ballast settings for these lamps by determining the 

appropriate lamp replacement that exists in the relevant industry standard and using the 

corresponding reference ballast settings for all lamps that fall into that category. However, 

if NEMA supplies test conditions for industry standards, DOE will consider incorporating 

them into its test procedure regulations in a subsequent rulemaking. 

 Thus, in this final rule in this final rule, DOE is adopting the following reference 

ballast settings for those additional GSFL for which it is setting standards, as proposed in 

the test procedure NOPR: 

For any 8-foot SP slimline lamp not listed in the updated ANSI C78.81–2005, the lamp 

should be tested using the following reference ballast settings: 

T12 lamps: 625 volts, 0.425 amps, and 1280 ohms. 

T8 lamps: 625 volts, 0.260 amps, and 1960 ohms. 

For any 8-foot RDC HO lamp not listed in the updated ANSI C78.81–2005, the lamp should 

be tested using the following reference ballast settings: 

T12 lamps: 400 volts, 0.800 amps, and 415 ohms. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
67

T8 lamps: 450 volts, 0.395 amps, and 595 ohms. 

For any 4-foot MiniBP standard output or high output lamp that is not listed in ANSI 

C78.81–2005, the lamp should be tested using the following reference ballast settings: 

Standard Output: 329 volts, 0.170 amps, and 950 ohms. 

High Output: 235 volts, 0.460 amps, and 255 ohms. 

B. Technological Feasibility 

1. General 

 As stated above, any standards that DOE establishes for GSFL and IRL must be 

technologically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and (o)(3)(B)) DOE considers a design 

option to be technologically feasible if it is in use by the respective industry or if research 

has progressed to the development of a working prototype. “Technologies incorporated in 

commercial products or in working prototypes will be considered technologically feasible.” 

10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, section 4(a)(4)(i). 

 This final rule considers the same design options as those evaluated in the April 2009 

NOPR. 74 FR 16920, 16933-34 (April 13, 2009) As discussed in section VI.B.2.c, DOE 

additionally considers integrally-ballasted low voltage IRL as a design option to improve 

IRL efficacy. (See the final rule TSD accompanying this notice, chapter 3.) Except for trial 

standard level (TSL) 1 for IRL, products are commercially available in the market at all of 

the TSLs evaluated for today’s rule. As to TSL1 for IRL, DOE used a design option (i.e., 

higher-efficiency gas fills) to model the performance of lamps that would meet this TSL, 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
68

and received input from manufacturers to verify that such a design option is technologically 

feasible. Therefore, DOE determined that all of the efficacy levels evaluated in this notice 

are technologically feasible. 

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels 

 As required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1), in developing the April 2009 NOPR, DOE 

identified the efficacy levels that would achieve the maximum improvements in energy 

efficiency that are technologically feasible (max-tech levels) for GSFL and IRL. 74 FR 

16920, 16933-35 (April 13, 2009). (See chapter 5 of the TSD) 

For GSFL, DOE considered five TSLs in the April 2009 NOPR, with TSL5 being 

the most stringent level for which DOE performed full analyses. 74 FR 16920, 16979-82 

(April 13, 2009). It is noted that DOE also considered the potential for a standard level 

beyond TSL5 that would require GSFL to use a higher-efficiency gas fill composition, 

which would have been the maximum technologically feasible level. Although moreefficient fill gases (often including higher molecular weight gases) are appropriate for and 

are currently used in some lamp applications, DOE is also aware employing this technology 

can cause lamp instability resulting in striations or flickering in some circumstances. DOE’s 

research indicated that a potential standard level that would require the use of higherefficiency fill gases would significantly reduce (or in some cases eliminate) the utility and 

performance of the covered GSFL, DOE concluded on this basis that a level with such an 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
69

adverse impact on product utility would not be economically justified.11 (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV) and (3)(B)) Having made this determination, there was no need or 

benefits to performing additional analyses relevant to the other statutory criteria. (See 

section I.A.2 for additional detail.) Consequently, TSL5 represents the most-efficient level 

analyzed for GSFL. 

 For IRL, as explained in the April 2009 NOPR, DOE believes that the maximum 

technologically feasible efficacy level incorporates the highest-efficiency technologically 

feasible reflector, halogen infrared coating, and filament design. Id. Combining all three of 

these high-efficiency technologies simultaneously results in the maximum technologically 

feasible level. However, this level is dependent on the use of a silver reflector, which is a 

proprietary technology. Because DOE is unaware of any alternate technology pathways to 

achieve this efficacy level, DOE did not consider it in its analysis. 

 Instead, in the April 2009 NOPR, DOE based the highest efficacy level analyzed for 

IRL on a commercially-available IRL which employs a silver reflector, an improved (but 

not most efficient) IR coating, and a filament design that results in a lifetime of 4,200 hours. 

Although this commercially-available lamp uses silver technology, DOE believes that there 

are alternate pathways to achieve this level. A combination of redesigning the filament to 

achieve higher temperature operation (and thus reducing lifetime to 3,000 hours), employing 

other non-proprietary high-efficiency reflectors, and applying a higher-efficiency IR coating 

 

11 DOE notes that it did not eliminate higher-efficiency fill gases from further consideration as a technology 

under the screening analysis, because that technology may be appropriate for low-wattage lamp applications. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
70

has the potential to result in an IRL that meets an equivalent efficacy level (for more 

information regarding these technologies, see chapter 3 of the TSD). Therefore, in the April 

2009 NOPR, DOE concluded that TSL5 is the maximum technologically feasible level for 

IRL that is not dependent on the use of a proprietary technology. Id.

 In response to the April 2009 NOPR, DOE received several comments on the 

efficiency levels analyzed and the maximum technologically feasible levels. For further 

discussion of these comments see section VI.B. For today’s final rule, the max-tech levels 

are provided in Table IV.1 and Table IV.2 below. 

Table IV.1 Max-Tech Levels for GSFL 

Lamp Type CCT Max-Tech Efficacy 

lm/W 

4-foot medium bipin ≤ 4,500K 93 

> 4,500K and ≤ 7,000K 92 

2-foot U-shaped ≤ 4,500K 87 

> 4,500K and ≤ 7,000K 85 

8-foot single pin slimline ≤ 4,500K 98 

> 4,500K and ≤ 7,000K 94 

8-foot recessed double contact HO ≤ 4,500K 95 

> 4,500K and ≤ 7,000K 91 

4-foot T5 miniature bipin SO ≤ 4,500K 90 

> 4,500K and ≤ 7,000K 85 

4-foot T5 miniature bipin HO ≤ 4,500K 76 

> 4,500K and ≤ 7,000K 72 

Table IV.2 Max-Tech Levels for IRL 

Lamp 

Wattage 

Lamp 

Type Diameter Voltage Max-Tech Efficacy 

lm/W 

40W205W 

Standardspectrum 

> 2.5 

inches 

≥ 125V 7.4P0.27

< 125V 6.4P0.27

≤ 2.5 ≥ 125V 6.2P0.27

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
71

inches < 125V 5.4P0.27

40W205W 

Modifiedspectrum 

> 2.5 

inches 

≥ 125V 6.3P0.27

< 125V 5.4P0.27

≤ 2.5 

inches 

≥ 125V 5.3P0.27

< 125V 4.6P0.27

Note 1: P is equal to the rated lamp wattage, in watts. 

Note 2: Standard Spectrum means any incandescent reflector lamp 

that does not meet the definition of “modified spectrum” in 430.2 

C. Energy Savings 

 DOE forecasted energy savings in its national impact analysis (NIA) through the use 

of an NIA spreadsheet tool, as discussed in the April 2009 NOPR. 74 FR 16920, 16935, 

16958-72 (April 13, 2009). 

 One of the criteria that governs DOE’s adoption of standards for covered products is 

that the standard must result in “significant conservation of energy.” (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(3)(B)) While EPCA does not define the term “significant,” a U.S. Court of 

Appeals, in Natural Resources Defense Council v. Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 1373 (D.C. 

Cir. 1985), indicated that Congress intended “significant” energy savings in this context to 

be savings that were not “genuinely trivial.” DOE’s estimates of the energy savings for 

energy conservation standards at each of the TSLs considered for GSFL and IRL for today’s 

rule indicate that the energy savings each would achieve are nontrivial. Therefore, DOE 

considers these savings “significant” within the meaning of Section 325 of EPCA. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
72

D. Economic Justification 

1. Specific Criteria 

 As noted earlier, EPCA provides seven factors to evaluate in determining whether an 

energy conservation standard for covered products is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The following sections discuss how DOE has addressed each of those 

seven factors in evaluating efficiency standards for GSFL and IRL. 

a. Economic Impact on Consumers and Manufacturers 

 DOE considered the economic impact of potential standards on consumers and 

manufacturers of GSFL and IRL. For consumers, DOE measured the economic impact on 

consumers as the change in installed cost and life-cycle operating costs (i.e., the LCC). (See 

sections V.C and VII.C.1.a, and chapter 8 of the TSD accompanying this notice.) DOE 

investigated the impacts on manufacturers through the manufacturer impact analysis (MIA). 

(See section VII.C.2, and chapter 13 of the TSD accompanying this notice.) The MIA is 

discussed in detail in the April 2009 NOPR. 74 FR 16920, 16972-77 (April 13, 2009). 

b. Life-Cycle Costs 

 DOE considered life-cycle costs of GSFL and IRL, as discussed in the April 2009 

NOPR. 74 FR 16920, 16950-58 (April 13, 2009). DOE calculated the sum of the purchase 

price and the operating expense—discounted over the lifetime of the equipment—to 

estimate the range in LCC benefits that consumers would expect to achieve due to 

standards. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
73

c. Energy Savings 

 Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory requirement for 

adopting an energy conservation standard, EPCA also requires DOE, in determining the 

economic justification of a proposed standard, to consider the total projected energy savings 

that are expected to result directly from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) As in 

the April 2009 NOPR (74 FR 16920, 16936 (April 13, 2009)), for today’s final rule DOE 

used the NIA spreadsheet results in its consideration of total projected savings that are 

directly attributable to the standard levels DOE considered. 

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products 

 In considering standard levels, DOE sought to avoid new standards for GSFL and IRL 

that would lessen the utility or performance of such products. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)); 74 FR 16920, 16936 (April 13, 2009)). 

e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 

 DOE considers any lessening of competition that is likely to result from standards. 

Accordingly, as discussed in the April 2009 NOPR (74 FR 16920, 16936 (April 13, 2009)) 

and as required under EPCA, DOE requested that the Attorney General transmit to the 

Secretary a written determination of the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition 

likely to result from the standards proposed in the April 2009 NOPR, together with an 

analysis of the nature and extent of such impact. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii)) 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
74

Note also that the National Impact Analysis does not consider the possibility of lessened 

competition effects, and so, depending on their magnitude, such effects may 

negatively impact the Net Present Value of the standards. 

 To assist the Attorney General in making such a determination, DOE provided the 

Department of Justice (DOJ) with copies of the April 2009 NOPR and the TSD for review. 

The Attorney General’s response is discussed in section VII.C.5 below, and is reprinted at 

the end of this rule. . For IRLs, DOJ concluded that the proposed TSL 4 could adversely 

affect competition. DOJ requested that DOE consider the possibility of new technology for 

IRLs as it settles on standards in this field (DOJ, No. 77 at pp. 1-2). Although DOJ did not 

evaluate the impacts on competition of TSL 4 for GSFL, DOE believes that TSL 4 does not 

raise competitive issues. 

f. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy 

 In considering standards for GSFL and IRL, the Secretary must consider the need of 

the Nation to conserve energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)) The Secretary recognizes 

that energy conservation benefits the Nation in several important ways. The non-monetary 

benefits of standards are likely to be reflected in improvements to the security and reliability 

of the Nation’s energy system. As discussed in the April 2009 NOPR and in section VII.C.6 

of this final rule, DOE has considered these factors in considering whether to adopt 

standards for GSFL and IRL. 74 FR 16920, 16936 (April 13, 2009). 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
75

g. Other Factors 

 The Secretary of Energy, in determining whether a standard is economically justified, 

considers any other factors that the Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) In adopting today’s standards, the Secretary considered the potential 

for GSFL and IRL standards to adversely affect low-income consumers, institutions of 

religious worship, historical facilities, institutions that serve low-income populations, and 

consumers of T12 electronic ballasts. In considering these subgroups, DOE analyzed 

variations on electricity prices, operating hours, discount rates, and baseline lamps. 74 FR 

16920, 16936 (April 13, 2009). The impact on these subgroups is summarized in section 

VII.C.1.b. 

2. Rebuttable Presumption 

 Section 325(o)(2)(B)(iii) of EPCA states that there is a rebuttable presumption that an 

energy conservation standard is economically justified if the increased installed cost for a 

product that meets the standard is less than three times the value of the first-year energy 

savings resulting from the standard, as calculated under the applicable DOE test procedure. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) DOE’s LCC and payback period (PBP) analyses generate 

values that calculate the payback period for consumers of potential energy conservation 

standards, which includes, but is not limited to, the three-year payback period contemplated 

under the rebuttable presumption test discussed above. However, DOE routinely conducts a 

full economic analysis that considers the full range of impacts, including those to the 

consumer, manufacturer, Nation, and environment, as required under 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results of this analysis serve as the basis for DOE to definitively 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
76

evaluate the economic justification for a potential standard level (thereby supporting or 

rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of economic justification). 

V. Methodology and Discussion of Comments on Methodology 

 DOE used several analytical tools that it developed previously and adapted for use in 

this rulemaking. One is a spreadsheet that calculates LCC and PBP. Another tool calculates 

national energy savings and national NPV that would result from the adoption of energy 

conservation standards. DOE also used the Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM), 

along with other methods, in its MIA to determine the impacts of standards on 

manufacturers in light of other cumulative regulatory requirements. Finally, DOE 

developed an approach using the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) to estimate 

impacts of standards for GSFL and IRL on utilities and the environment. The April 2009 

NOPR discusses each of these analytical tools in detail. 74 FR 16920, 16958, 16972, 16978-

79, 16982 (April 13, 2009). 

 As a basis for this final rule, DOE has continued to use the spreadsheets and 

approaches explained in the April 2009 NOPR. DOE used the same general methodology as 

applied in the NOPR, but revised some of the assumptions and inputs for the final rule in 

response to public comments. The following paragraphs discuss these revisions. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
77

A. Market and Technology Assessment

When beginning an energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE develops 

information that provides an overall picture of the market for the products concerned, 

including the purpose of the products, the industry structure, and market characteristics. 

This activity includes both quantitative and qualitative assessments based primarily on 

publicly available information. DOE presented various subjects in the market and 

technology assessment for this rulemaking. (See chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD.) These 

include product definitions, product classes, manufacturers, quantities and types of products 

sold and offered for sale, retail market trends, and regulatory and nonregulatory programs. 

As discussed below, commenters raised a variety of issues related to the market and 

technology assessment, to which DOE responds in the following sections. 

1. Product Classes 

In general, in evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE 

divides covered products into classes by the type of energy used, capacity, or other 

performance-related features that affect efficiency, and factors such as the utility of the 

product to users. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) 

a. General Service Fluorescent Lamps 

In the April 2009 NOPR, DOE proposed to establish product classes for GSFL based 

on the following three attributes that have differential utility and affect efficacy: (1) physical 

constraints of lamps (i.e., lamp shape and length); (2) lumen package (i.e., standard versus 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
78

high output); and (3) correlated color temperature. 74 FR 16920, 16936 (April 13, 2009). 

Based on these criteria, DOE proposed to separate coverage into six lamp types: (1) 4-foot 

medium bipin; (2) 2-foot U-shaped; (3) 8-foot single pin slimline; (4) 8-foot recessed double 

contact high output; (5) 4-foot miniature bipin T5 standard output; and (6) 4-foot miniature 

bipin T5 high output. DOE also proposed to establish separate product classes for those 

lamps with CCT less than or equal to 4,500 kelvin (K) and lamps with CCT greater than 

4,500 K. In total, therefore, DOE proposed 12 product classes for GSFL. In general 

stakeholders expressed overall agreement with the GSFL product class structure proposed in 

the April 2009 NOPR. However, DOE did receive several comments requesting additional 

product classes for specific lamps or lamp types, as discussed below. 

i. Modified-Spectrum Fluorescent Lamps 

In response to the April 2009 NOPR, GE commented that it is currently researching 

and developing a 4-foot MBP modified-spectrum fluorescent lamp that imitates the color 

quality of modified-spectrum incandescent lighting. Although not yet commerciallyavailable, GE expects to release such a product before 2012, the effective date of the energy 

conservation standard that is being established by this final rule. Expecting that these lamps 

may not be able to meet minimum efficacy requirements as amended by this rulemaking, 

GE recommended that DOE either set separate lower efficacy standards for “modifiedspectrum fluorescent lamps” or exempt these lamps from standards altogether. (GE, No. 80 

at pp. 3-6) 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
79

In response, DOE believes that it does not have the authority to exempt modified 

spectrum fluorescent lamps from standards. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1), DOE cannot 

prescribe an amended standard which “decreases the minimum required energy efficiency, 

of a covered product.” Although no such product currently exists, DOE notes that if they 

did, modified-spectrum fluorescent lamps fall under the definition of “general service 

fluorescent lamp,” so they would already be subject to the statutory minimum efficacy 

requirements. Therefore, if DOE were to exempt these lamps from any standards, this 

would constitute backsliding from the minimum efficacy requirements, which is 

impermissible, as noted above. 

With regard to setting lower minimum efficacy requirements for modified-spectrum 

fluorescent lamps, DOE generally sets separate efficiency standards for products deemed to 

be in separate product classes. While these lamps may in the future provide a distinct utility 

to consumers (a basis on which product classes may be established under 42 U.S.C. 

6295(q)), at this time, DOE has no evidence that this utility in fact exists or is even required 

of the general service fluorescent market, because there is no such product yet developed. 

Therefore, in this final rule, DOE is not establishing a separate product class for modifiedspectrum fluorescent lamps. However, DOE notes that if the company successfully 

develops its modified-spectrum fluorescent lamp and believes that it warrants exemption 

from DOE’s amended standards, it may be possible for GE to seek exception relief from 

DOE’s Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) pursuant to 10 CFR Part 1003. 

i. 25 Watt 4-foot MBP Lamps 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
80

In the April 2009 NOPR, DOE established one product class for 4-foot MBP lamps 

(of a single CCT category) that spanned the full range of covered lamp wattages (i.e., 

greater than or equal to 25W). The effects of doing this were such that at TSL5, as 

considered in the NOPR, the 25W 4-foot MBP T8 lamp was expected to be eliminated from 

the market, as it would not meet the minimum efficacy requirements. In response to the 

April 2009 NORP, the California Stakeholders and ACEEE suggested DOE should establish 

a separate product class for the 25W 4-foot T8 MBP because it represents a significant 

energy-savings opportunity. While DOE recognizes that the availability of the 25W 4-foot 

T8 MBP lamp provides additional energy savings opportunities to consumers, DOE does 

not believe that this alone is a basis to establish a separate product class for this lamp. As 

noted above, DOE establishes product classes only when a product type either: (1) 

consumes a different type of energy, or (2) has a capacity or other performance-related 

feature which justifies a higher or lower standard level. In making such a determination, 

DOE considers whether there is a differential utility which affects efficacy. To DOE’s 

knowledge, the 25W 4-foot MBP lamp does not provide any additional utility over that 

which its 32W full-wattage counterpart provides. Therefore, DOE has not established a 

different product classes for 25W lamps. 

ii. Summary of GSFL Product Classes 

Because DOE received no other comments on the GSFL product classes proposed in 

the April 2009 NOPR, DOE is not making any changes in this final rule related to GSFL 

product classes. Table V.1 summarizes the GSFL product classes for this final rule. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
81

Table V.1 Final Rule Product Classes for GSFL 

Lamp Type CCT 

4-Foot Medium Bipin ≤ 4500 K 

> 4500 K 

2-Foot U-Shaped ≤ 4500 K 

> 4500 K 

8-Foot Single Pin Slimline ≤ 4500 K 

> 4500 K 

8-Foot RDC HO ≤ 4500 K 

> 4500 K 

4-Foot Miniature Bipin SO ≤ 4500 K 

> 4500 K 

4-Foot Miniature Bipin HO ≤ 4500 K 

> 4500 K 

b. Incandescent Reflector Lamps 

For incandescent reflector lamps, in the April 2009 NOPR, DOE proposed to base its 

product class structure on: (1) lamp spectrum (modified versus standard spectrum); (2) lamp 

diameter (greater than 2.5 inches or less than or equal to 2.5 inches); and (3) rated voltage 

(less than 125V or greater than or equal to 125V). DOE received several comments on 

these product classes. The following sections summarize and address those public 

comments. 

i. Modified-Spectrum Lamps 

Modified-spectrum lamps provide a unique performance-related feature to 

consumers, in that they offer a different spectrum of light from the typical incandescent 

lamp. These lamps offer benefits such as ensuring better color discrimination and often 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
82

appearing more similar to natural daylight, possibly resulting in psychological benefits. In 

addition to providing a unique performance feature, DOE also understands that the 

technologies that modify the spectral emission from these lamps also decrease their efficacy. 

because a portion of the light emission is absorbed by the coating. Therefore, in the April 

2009 NOPR, DOE proposed to establish a separate product class for modified-spectrum 

lamps based on their unique performance feature and the impact of this performance feature 

on product efficacy. 74 FR 16920, 16938-39 (April 13, 2009). 

NEMA supported DOE’s proposal for separate product classes based on modified 

spectrum. (GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. 60; NEMA, No. 81 at p. 12) 

Conversely, ASAP, ACEEE, and the California Stakeholders commented that separate 

product classes based on spectrum are unnecessary because existing technologies such as 

LEDs and phosphor-based lamps (e.g., CFLs) can deliver the same utility to consumers that 

modified-spectrum IRL offer. ASAP stated that DOE should evaluate the unique utility of a 

product rather than the technology providing it. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

38.4, at pp. 68-69; California Stakeholders, No. 63 at pp. 2, 25) 

In response, DOE agrees that other technologies could produce modified spectrum 

light. However, DOE reiterates the point it made in the NOPR that the governing statutory 

provision directs DOE to maintain performance-related features for a covered product type. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4)) If DOE were to regulate modified-spectrum lamps within the same 

product class as standard-spectrum lamps, this could result in an energy conservation 

standard that would eliminate the modified-spectrum utility from the IRL market. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
83

Furthermore, DOE believes some consumers may find a unique utility in modified-spectrum 

IRL that does not exist in CFL or LED lamps that emit modified spectra. For example, 

modified-spectrum IRL have a higher CRI than many of their potential substitutes (e.g., 

CFL), thereby providing a different, and in some cases a preferable, quality of light. In 

addition, DOE cannot confirm that a full range of lumen outputs are currently commercially 

available from LED reflector lamps. This could potentially eliminate the modified spectrum 

utility for some consumers requiring specific lumen packages (e.g., high-lumen lamps). 

PG&E, NRDC, ASAP, and the California Stakeholders also commented that no 

efficacy allowance is necessary for modified-spectrum lamps for two main reasons. First, 

they argued that incandescent reflector technology that results in modified-spectrum 

efficacies greater that the highest standard-spectrum standard level (TSL5) already exists. 

They demonstrated these efficacies in prototypes utilizing advanced IR coatings and silver 

reflectors. Second, the stakeholders argued that there are other means (beyond the use of 

absorptive elements within the glass cover) to produce modified-spectrum lamps. They 

suggested that reflective coatings, similar to the infrared ones that already exist, could, in 

principle, be used to create a modified spectrum in a much more efficient way. (California 

Stakeholders, No. 63 at pp. 2, 25; PG&E, NRDC, ASAP, No. 59 at p. 15-16; NRDC, No. 82 

at pp. 2, 4) 

 DOE reiterates that it establishes product classes based on whether a given product 

has unique performance features that affect the efficacy of the product, not on whether it is 

technologically feasible for the product to meet another product class’s efficacy levels. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
84

Therefore, the absolute efficacy of a given modified-spectrum IRL does not play a role in 

whether DOE should or should not establish a distinct product class. Then once it is 

determined that a separate class is appropriate under the statute, an appropriate level is set 

based upon examination of lamps within that class, rather than a comparison to different 

types of lamps. What is relevant is whether there is a change in efficacy that is caused by a 

unique performance feature. DOE maintains that at this time modified spectrum IRL cannot 

achieve an equivalent maximum technologically feasible level as standard-spectrum IRL. 

To this point, the stakeholders themselves acknowledge in their comments that lenses used 

to modify the spectrum of IRL result in at least a 10 percent decrease in efficacy as 

compared to standard-spectrum lamps. (PG&E, NRDC, ASAP, No. 59 at p. 2) Although 

the stakeholders have demonstrated that modified-spectrum IRL might potentially be able to 

achieve efficacies exceeding that of the highest efficacy level analyzed for standardspectrum lamps, DOE believes that there is considerable uncertainty surrounding the 

efficacies of the prototypes provided. Therefore, DOE is not establishing minimum efficacy 

requirements based solely on these prototype efficacies. DOE further addresses its 

consideration of these prototype efficacies in section VI.B.2. 

 On the stakeholders’ second point, DOE agrees that, in principle, there may be other 

means of producing modified-spectrum lamps. However, at present, DOE is unaware of any 

commercially-available IRL or working IRL prototype using the alternative methods 

suggested by stakeholders. For all of the above reasons, DOE has decided to establish a 

separate product class for modified-spectrum incandescent reflector lamps. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
85

Also related to modified-spectrum IRL, Tailored Lighting, a specialty lighting 

company, commented that it produces specialty lamps that alter the spectrum, differently 

than modified-spectrum lamps, which the commenter claims better simulates daylight. Due 

to the different spectra of light that are filtered in Tailored Lighting’s lamps relative to 

modified-spectrum lamps, Tailored Lighting argued that their product would not qualify 

under the statutory definition of “modified spectrum.” Therefore, Tailored Lighting 

recommended that DOE should either specifically exempt their product from regulation or 

amend the definition of “modified spectrum” so as to include their products, thereby 

allowing them to have reduced minimum efficacy requirements. (Tailored Lighting, No. 73 

at p. 11) Eiko Ltd, a manufacturer of Tailored Lighting’s products supported the same 

amendments to the definition of “modified spectrum.” (Eiko, No. 79 at p. 1) 

While DOE acknowledges that many of Tailored Lighting’s products may not fall 

under the definition of “modified spectrum,” DOE notes that ”modified spectrum” is a 

statutory definition, defined by EISA 2007 for incandescent lamps, which includes both 

general service incandescent lamps and incandescent reflector lamps. (42 U.S.C. 

6291(30)(W); 42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(F)) Therefore, DOE lacks the authority to amend the 

definition of “modified spectrum.” In addition, adopting Tailored Lighting’s recommended 

amendment would not only affect minimum efficacy requirements for IRL, but would also 

result in an amendment to the general service incandescent lamp standards prescribed by 

Congress. For these reasons, DOE is leaving the definition of “modified spectrum” 

unchanged from that presented in the April 2009 NOPR. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
86

In addition, DOE notes that according to the comment, even though Tailored 

Lighting also sells 12-volt MR-16 lamps with these special daylight qualities, these lamps 

do not fall under the definition of “incandescent reflector lamp.” Tailored Lighting 

requested an exemption (or lowered minimum efficacy requirement) for its forthcoming 

PAR lamp, that would fall under the definition of “incandescent reflector lamp” and is 

currently under development. (Tailored Lighting, No. 73 at p. 4)) However, according to 

interviews and Tailored Lighting’s website, this lamp is not yet for sale. 

In response, DOE generally sets separate efficiency standards for products deemed 

to be in separate product classes. While PAR-shaped Tailor Lighting lamps may in the 

future provide a distinct utility to consumers (a basis on which product classes are 

established), at this time, because there is no product yet developed, DOE has no evidence 

that this utility in fact exists or is even required of the incandescent reflector lamp (or PARshaped) market. Therefore, in this final rule, DOE is not establishing a separate product 

class for Tailored Lighting’s products. However, DOE notes that if Tailored Lighting 

successfully develops its PAR lamp and believes that it warrants exemption from DOE’s 

amended standards, it may be possible for Tailored Lighting to seek exception relief from 

DOE’s OHA pursuant to 10 CFR Part 1003. 

ii. Lamp Diameter 

As mentioned above, DOE also proposed separate product classes for smallerdiameter lamps (i.e., lamps with a diameter less than or equal to 2.5 inches). Such lamps 

provide a distinct utility (such as the ability to be installed in smaller fixtures) which 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
87

generally results in lower efficacy because they have an inherently lower optical efficiency 

than larger-diameter lamps of similar filament size. Both NEMA and the California 

Stakeholders supported DOE’s proposal to establish a separate product class for smalldiameter lamps.. (NEMA, No. 81 at p. 7, p. 12; GE Lighting, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 38.4 at p. 60; California Stakeholders, No. 63 at p. 22) Because DOE received no other 

comments on this issue, DOE continues to set separate product classes for lamps of diameter 

less than or equal to 2.5 inches. 

iii. Voltage 

Current DOE test procedures provide for lamps rated at 130 volts (V) to be tested at 

130 V and for lamps rated at 120 V to be tested at 120 V. However, DOE is aware that a 

large number of consumers actually operate 130 V lamps at 120 V, which results in longer 

lifetime but lower efficacy. With a single efficacy level for lamps rated at each voltage, this 

situation would effectively lead to a lower efficacy requirement for these 130 V lamps that 

are run at 120 V, compared to 120 V lamps run at 120 V. These 130V lamps would not 

require the same level of technology as 120 V-rated lamps to meet the same standard, and, 

thus, they would be cheaper to produce. Therefore, setting higher standards for IRL without 

accounting for voltage differences could result in increased migration to the 130 V lamps 

and possible lost energy savings. For these reasons, in the April 2009 NOPR, DOE 

proposed to set separate standards for 130 V lamps. Specifically, DOE proposed to establish 

two separate product classes: (1) lamps with a rated voltage less than 125 V, and (2) lamps 

with a rated voltage greater than or equal to 125 V. 74 FR 16920, 16940 (April 13, 2009). 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
88

DOE also requested comment on the alternative approach of having all IRL be tested at 120 

V, the most common application voltage in the market. Id.

Philips commented that setting a 130 V-lamp efficacy level that was 15 percent 

higher than the level for 120 V lamps, as DOE proposed in the NOPR, would drive 130 V 

lamps from the market because such a level would be technologically infeasible. In 

addition, Philips and GE stated that it is not uncommon for consumers to run lamps at 130 V 

in certain regions of the country. Therefore, NEMA and Philips stated, with 130 V lamps 

gone from the marketplace, some consumers may be forced to run 120 V lamps at 130 V, 

which could cut lamp lifetime in half and cause a loss of utility for these consumers. For 

those reasons, manufacturers argued, there should be no separate product class for voltage. 

Instead, manufacturers argued that DOE should test IRL at their rated voltages and subject 

the lamps to the same standard. Supporting this idea, GE noted that even if one operates a 

130 V lamp at 120 V, power is reduced proportionally, meaning there would be lower 

energy consumption. (GE and Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at pp. 61-62, 67; 

NEMA, No. 81 at pp. 4, 7-8) 

Conversely, the California Stakeholders, EEI and ACEEE argued that 130 V lines 

are very rare. EEI stated that many utilities must follow agreements to maintain voltages in 

the residential sector within a 5 percent range of 120 V (114 V to 126 V) and agreed with 

DOE’s approach. The California Stakeholders commented that utilities are trending toward 

lower line voltage to minimize transmission losses. In addition, they stated that FTC 

labeling requirements already require manufacturers to provide power and light output for 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
89

120 V, even if the lamps are designed to be run at 130 V. Therefore, the California 

Stakeholders argued, all lamps should be regulated based on testing at 120 V. (ACEEE and 

EEI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at pp. 63-64, 66; EEI, No. 45 at p. 3; California 

Stakeholders, No. 63 at p. 25-26) 

GE argued that while utilities do face line voltage regulation, there are cases in 

which the voltage is higher than that prescribed in ANSI C-84.1, “American National 

Standard for Electric Power Systems and Equipment-Voltage Ratings (60 Hertz),” (the 

source of the prescribed voltage range that EEI referenced in the above comment). 

Therefore, the 130 V lamps have utility for consumers in these cases. (GE, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. 67) 

In response, DOE remains concerned that the operation of 130 V lamps at 120 V has 

the potential to significantly affect energy savings. As discussed above, when operated 

under 120 V conditions, lamps rated at 130 V and in compliance with existing IRL efficacy 

standards are generally less efficacious than lamps using equivalent technology rated at 120 

V. Because of this inherent difference in efficacy, it may be less costly to manufacture a 

lamp rated and tested at 130 V that complies with a standard than a similar 120 V lamp 

complying with the same standard. If DOE does not establish a separate product class and 

standard for lamps rated at 130 V, more consumers may purchase 130 V lamps because they 

may be less expensive, as they would require less costly technology. When consumers 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
90

operate these lamps at 120 V, in order to obtain sufficient light output, they may migrate to 

higher wattages and use more energy than standards-compliant 120 V lamps. 

DOE also believes, as commenters pointed out, that 130 V conditions in the 

residential sector are very rare. Indeed, in many cases such sustained voltages would violate 

electrical codes. As NEMA commented earlier, 130 V lamps “are almost always used by 

customers to achieve ‘double life’ by operating them at 120V, resulting in performance 

below 1992 EPACT levels.” (NEMA, No. 21 at p. 16) DOE acknowledges that in very rare 

cases, some consumers with 130 V power may be forced to realize shorter lifetimes. 

However, based on stakeholder comments and research into electrical codes, DOE does not 

believe the rare instances of consumers with 130V power experiencing shortened lifetimes 

offsets the benefit in energy savings from closing this potential loophole. In addition, as 

discussed in the April 2009 NOPR, because DOE considers lifetime an economic issue 

rather than a utility issue, DOE does not believe it is eliminating any unique utility of 

feature from the market by setting increased efficacy requirements for lamps rate greater 

than or equal to 125 V. 74 FR 16920, 16939 (April 13, 2009) 

Finally, stakeholders have not provided any compelling arguments for why DOE 

should amend the test procedure to test all lamps at 120V rather then set higher efficacy 

standards for these lamps. Therefore, in this final rule DOE is maintaining separate product 

classes for lamps with rated voltages less than 125 V and lamps with rated voltages greater 

than or equal to 125V. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
91

iv. IRL Summary 

In summary, DOE is not making any changes in this final rule related to IRL product 

classes from those proposed in the April 2009 NOPR. 74 FR 16920, 17027 (April 13, 

2009). Table V.2 summarizes the IRL product classes for this final rule. 

Table V.2 Final Rule Product Classes for IRL 

Spectrum Diameter Voltage 

Standard Spectrum 

> 2.5 inches ≥ 125 V 

< 125 V 

≤ 2.5 inches ≥ 125 V 

< 125 V 

Modified Spectrum 

> 2.5 inches ≥ 125 V 

< 125 V 

≤ 2.5 inches ≥ 125 V 

< 125 V 

B. Engineering Analysis

For each product class, the engineering analysis identifies potential, increasing 

efficacy levels above the level of the baseline model. Those technologies not eliminated in 

the screening analysis (design options) are inputs to this process. Design options consist of 

discrete technologies (e.g., infrared reflective coatings, rare-earth phosphor mixes). As 

detailed in the April 2009 NOPR, to ensure that efficacy levels analyzed are technologically 

feasible, DOE concentrated its efforts in the engineering analysis on developing product 

efficacy levels associated with “lamp designs," based upon commercially-available lamps 

that incorporate a range of design options. 74 FR 16920, 16941 (April 13, 2009). However, 

when necessary, DOE supplemented commercially-available product information with an 

examination of the incremental costs and improved performance attributable to discrete 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
92

technologies so that a substitute lamp at each efficacy level would be available for each 

baseline lamp. 

In energy conservation standard rulemakings for other products, DOE often develops 

cost-efficiency relationships in the engineering analysis. However, for this rulemaking, 

DOE derived efficacy levels in the engineering analysis and end-user prices in the product 

price determination. By combining the results of the engineering analysis and the product 

price determination, DOE derived typical inputs for use in the LCC and NIA. See the 

chapter 7 of the TSD for further details on the product price determination. 

1. Approach 

For the final rule, DOE is using the same methodology for the engineering analysis 

that was detailed in the April 2009 NOPR. 74 FR 16920, 16941-47 (April 13, 2009). The 

following is a summary of the steps taken in the engineering analysis: 

• Step 1: Select Representative Product Classes 

• Step 2: Select Baseline Lamps 

• Step 3: Identify Lamp or Lamp-and-Ballast Designs 

• Step 4: Develop Efficacy Levels. 

A more detailed discussion of the methodology DOE followed to perform the engineering 

analysis can be found in the engineering analysis chapter of the TSD (chapter 5). 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
93

2. Representative Product Classes 

As discussed in section V.A.1 of this notice, DOE is establishing twelve product 

classes for GSFL and eight product classes for IRL. As detailed in the April 2009 NOPR, 

DOE did not to analyze each and every product class. 74 FR 16920, 16941-42 (April 13, 

2009). Instead, DOE selected certain product classes to analyze, and then scaled its 

analytical findings for those representative product classes to other product classes that were 

not analyzed. While DOE received several stakeholder comments regarding methods of 

scaling to product classes not analyzed (discussed in section V.C.7), DOE did not receive 

objections to the decision to scale to certain product classes or the representative product 

classes proposed in the April 2009 NOPR. Id. at 16941-42. Therefore, for this final rule, 

DOE analyzed the same product classes proposed for direct analysis in the April 2009 

NOPR. 

For GSFL, the analyzed product classes included 4-foot medium bipin, 8-foot single pin 

slimline, 8-foot recessed double-contact high output, 4-foot MiniBP standard output , and 4-

foot MiniBP high output GSFL product classes, all with CCTs less than or equal to 4,500K. 

DOE did not explicitly analyze U-shaped lamps, but instead scaled the results of the 4-foot 

medium bipin class analysis, as discussed in section V.B.5.a. For IRL, the representative 

product class DOE analyzed was IRL with standard spectrum, voltage less than 125V, and 

diameter greater than 2.5 inches. For further information on representative product classes, 

see chapter 5 of the TSD. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
94

3. Baseline Models 

Once DOE identified the representative product classes for analysis, DOE selected 

the representative units for analysis (i.e., baseline lamps) from within each product class. 

These representative units are generally what DOE believes to be the most common, least 

efficacious lamps in their respective product classes. For further discussion on baseline 

lamps and lamp-and-ballast systems chosen for analysis, see the April 2009 NOPR (74 FR 

16920, 16942-45 (April 13, 2009)) and Chapter 5 of the TSD. 

In general, DOE decided to maintain the baseline models proposed in the April 2009 

NOPR. However, DOE did receive a comment on its selection of the baseline model for 4-

foot MiniBP lamps, as discussed and responded to below. In the April 2009 NOPR, DOE 

developed model T5 halophosphor lamps as the baselines for the 4-foot MiniBP SO and 4-

foot MiniBP HO product classes. To create these model T5 lamps, DOE used efficacy data 

from short halophosphor fluorescent T5 lamps currently available and developed a 

relationship between length and efficacy. DOE validated this relationship by comparing it 

to previous industry research and efficacies of other halophosphor lamps. DOE then used 

this relationship to determine the efficacies of a halophosphor 4-foot miniature bipin 

standard output lamp and a halophosphor 4-foot halophosphor T5 miniature bipin HO 

lamps. The resulting baseline efficacies for 4-foot MiniBP SO and 4-foot Mini BP HO 

lamps were 86.0 lm/W and 76.6 lm/W. 74 FR 16920, 16943 (April 13, 2009) 

In response to the April 2009 NOPR, NEMA and GE commented that baseline efficacies 

and efficacy levels for 4-foot MiniBP lamps should reflect testing at an ambient temperature 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
95

of 25° C rather than 35° C, the temperature at which standards for 4-foot MiniBP lamps in 

the April 2009 NOPR were based. GE also stated that manufacturers test 4-foot MiniBP 

lamps at 25° C and then use a relative measurement to estimate performance at 35° C. This 

additional information is provided in catalogs because many T5 lamps are operated in 

higher-temperature environments. (GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at pp. 72-73, 

76-78, NEMA, No. 81 at p.3, 7, 8, 9, 22) 

DOE has confirmed that test procedures for 4-foot MiniBP lamps in fact specify that the 

test should be performed at 25 °C. While DOE agrees that the minimum efficacy standards 

(and therefore efficacy levels) should be based on this testing condition, DOE believes that 

the efficacies and lumen outputs of lamps analyzed in the engineering analysis (and thus 

LCC and NIA) should reflect typical operating conditions. It is DOE’s understanding that 

4-foot MiniBP lamps most often operate at 35° C. Therefore DOE bases all lamp efficacies 

and lumen outputs used in the engineering, LCC, and national impacts analyses on this 

operating condition. DOE discusses its approach to establishing 4-foot MiniBP efficacy 

levels based on testing at 25° C in section V.B.4.b. 

NEMA also commented that a more accurate and straightforward approach to modeling 

the 4-foot MiniBP halophosphor baseline lamp efficacies would be to base it on the ratio of 

halophosphor to triphosphor lamp efficacies in 4-foot T8 MBP lamps (0.78). (NEMA, No. 

81 at p. 9) DOE believes that NEMA’s suggested approach is valid. However, when using 

efficacies of commercially-available 4-foot MBP halophosphor lamps (77.9 lm/W) and 

triphosphor lamps (95.4lm/W), DOE calculated an efficacy ratio of 0.82. Applying this 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
96

ratio to 35° C catalog lamp efficacies results in baseline efficacies of 4-foot MiniBP SO and 

4-foot MiniBP HO lamps of 85.5 lm/W and 76.1 lm/W. Because these efficacies are within 

an acceptable margin of uncertainty relative to the baseline efficacies used in the April 2009 

NOPR, DOE has not changed its 4-foot MiniBP baseline lamps. 

For more information about these and other baseline lamps, see chapter 5 and 

appendix 5B of the TSD. 

4. Efficacy Levels 

a. GSFL Compliance Reports 

For the March 2008 ANOPR, DOE developed candidate standards levels for GSFL 

by dividing initial lumen output by the ANSI rated wattages of commercially-available 

lamps, thereby resulting in rated lamp efficacies.12 74 FR 16920, 16945 (April 13, 2009). In 

response to the potential GSFL efficacy levels presented in the March 2008 ANOPR, 

NEMA commented on several reasons why the association believes that the efficacy levels 

need to be revised, including (1) the appropriateness of using ANSI rated wattages in the 

calculation of lumens per watt; (2) consideration of variability in production of GSFL; (3) 

manufacturing process limitations related to specialty products; (4) consideration of 

adjustments to photometry calibrations; and (5) the appropriateness of establishing efficacy 

levels to the nearest tenth of a lumen per watt. 74 FR 16920, 16945-46 (April 13, 2009). 

 

12 DOE used rated wattages listed in ANSI C78.81-2005 to determine lamp efficacies. DOE proposed a 

definition of “rated wattage” in section III.C.1 that referred to an ANSI standard to prevent manufacturers from 

circumventing standards by rating lamps at artificially low wattages. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
97

After considering NEMA’s comments, DOE agreed that tolerances incorporated into ANSI 

rated wattages and variability in production of GSFL warranted changes to the efficacy 

levels presented in the March 2008 ANOPR. Therefore, in the April 2009 NOPR, DOE 

revised the efficacy levels for GSFL by using lamp efficacy values submitted to DOE over 

the past 10 years for the purpose of compliance with existing energy conservation standards. 

Using compliance reports as a basis for efficacy standards allowed DOE to more accurately 

characterize the tested performance of GSFL, by accounting for the measured wattage 

effects and wattage and lumen output variability. 74 FR 16920, 16946-47 (April 13, 2009). 

DOE received several comments on its proposed efficacy levels in the NOPR. 

NEMA commented that the range of efficacy levels considered was appropriate. (NEMA, 

No. 81 at p. 21) Both ACEEE and NEMA supported DOE’s usage of compliance reports to 

establish efficacy levels. However, NEMA commented that it has additional data on 

variability that has been observed in lamp production. (ACEEE, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 38.4 at p. 79-80; NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at pp. 89-90) NEMA 

recommended a slight lowering of certain GSFL efficacy levels so that an assessment of 

multiple lamps in a product line would find that the lamps were in conformance when tested 

under the DOE GSFL test procedure. (NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at pp. 

90-91) NEMA also claimed that required adjustments to photometry facilities used for 

NIST and NVLAP testing over time have resulted in a reduction of reported lumens for 

some products, which DOE did not account for in the April 2009 NOPR. NEMA therefore 

advised DOE to use only “sufficiently current” compliance data to determine efficacy levels. 

(NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at pp. 75-76; NEMA, No. 81 at p.10-11) To 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
98

account for all of these factors, NEMA stated that DOE should adopt the efficacy levels 

NEMA recommended in response to the March 2008 ANOPR. These levels recommended 

by NEMA achieve the desired technology goals as outlined by DOE. (NEMA, No. 81 at pp. 

1-2, 10-11, 23) ACEEE opposed a further downward adjustment of the efficiency levels, as 

it would allow less-efficacious products to remain on the market. (ACEEE, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. 80) 

While DOE is aware that manufacturers may have additional data on production 

variability, NEMA has not provided such data to DOE. Therefore, DOE has maintained its 

approach (as presented in the April 2009 NOPR) to develop GSFL efficacy levels. 

Additionally, DOE believes that by using the compliance reports it is accounting for 

variability in production as it exists today, for the reasons that follow. First, the product 

efficacy reported for compliance purposes is related to the lower limit of the 95-percent 

confidence interval. As explained in DOE’s May 1997 lamps test procedure final rule, this 

interval represents variation over the whole population of production, not only the sample 

size. 62 FR 29222, 29230 (May 29, 1997). In addition, regarding any changes in calibration 

requirements that may have occurred that could affect reported lamp efficacy, DOE has 

reevaluated its efficacy levels based on the latest compliance reports, many of which were 

submitted to DOE after the NOPR analysis had been completed. Following the same 

methodology as presented in the April 2009 NOPR, DOE compared the efficacy values for 

each product class to all available compliance report data and assessed whether the April 

2009 NOPR levels achieved the technology goals outlined in chapter 5 of the TSD. For 4-

foot MBP lamps, DOE determined that the efficacy levels proposed in the April 2009 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
99

NOPR must be revised to accurately represent those goals. For 4-foot MBP lamps with 

CCTs less than or equal to 4500K, DOE adjusted the efficacy values because new 

compliance reports: (1) provided recent data for an existing basic model; (2) provided data 

for a new basic model; or (3) provided 12-month average production data whereas only 

initial data had been previously reported. 

NEMA also did not believe it was necessary to raise EL3 for 4-foot MBP lamps 

from their recommended 83 lumens per watt to 84 lumens per watt as proposed in the April 

2009 NOPR. NEMA stated that this increase was not required to achieve the technology 

goal specified for TSL3 and, furthermore, would have significant consequences for the 

residential consumer because it eliminated nearly all T12 lamps. (NEMA, No. 81 at p. 2) 

In response, DOE reassessed its efficacy levels based compliance report data from 

2008 and 2009. As a result of this analysis, DOE determined that the efficacy values for 4-

foot MBP low CCT EL3 and EL5 required adjustments. DOE also does not believe that the 

value for EL3 will have significant consequences for the residential consumer. See section 

V.C.8 for a discussion of this topic. 

 For 8-foot SP slimline lamps and 8-foot RDC HO lamps, DOE analyzed recent 

compliance reports and determined that not enough data existed in those reports to maintain 

all of the levels proposed in the April 2009 NOPR. Therefore, DOE modified ELs 1, 2, and 

5 for 8-foot SP Slimline lamps and EL2 for 8-foot RDC HO lamps to reflect the levels that 

NEMA recommended. The revised efficacy levels are shown in section VII.A.1. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
100

b. 4-foot MiniBP Efficacy Levels 

As discussed in the April 2009 NOPR, DOE established efficacy levels for 4-foot 

MiniBP SO and 4-foot MiniBP HO lamps based on catalog rated efficacies. 74 FR 16920, 

16947 (April 13, 2009). Then, in order to account for manufacturer variation, DOE used the 

average reductions in efficacy values due to manufacturer variation calculated for the 

highest-efficacy 4-foot T8 medium bipin lamps, and applied those same reductions to the 4-

foot miniature bipin rated efficacy values. DOE was unable to directly use 4-foot MiniBP 

lamp compliance data because these products have not been regulated in the past. 

 

As mentioned earlier, NEMA and GE commented that efficacy levels for these 4-foot 

MiniBP lamps should reflect testing at an ambient temperature of 25° C rather than 35° C, 

the temperature at which standards for 4-foot MiniBP lamps in the April 2009 NOPR were 

based. (NEMA, No. 81 at pp. 3, 7, 8, 9, 22; GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at pp. 

72-73) ACEEE agreed that 4-foot MiniBP lamps should be tested at 25° C. (ACEEE, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. 79) As stated earlier, DOE agrees that 4-foot 

MiniBP efficacy levels should be based on testing at 25° C and notes that based on catalog 

data, efficacies at 25° C are 10 percent lower than efficacies at 35° C. Therefore, in this final 

rule, DOE has revised the efficacy levels for the 4-foot MiniBP product classes accordingly. 

In addition, NEMA commented that reductions applied to the 4-foot MiniBP efficacy 

levels in the April 2009 NOPR were insufficient to fully account for variability in 

production. (NEMA, No. 81 at pp. 3, 9, 22) NEMA recommended that DOE adopt 86 lm/W 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
101

and 76 lm/W as EL1 for the 4-foot MiniBP SO and HO product classes, respectively. DOE 

recognizes that because it does not have compliance report information for 4-foot MiniBP 

lamps, it may not be able to accurately assess the manufacturing tolerance required for these 

lamps. Based on DOE’s calculations, NEMA’s recommended efficacy levels represent 

manufacturer tolerances within the range required by other lamp types. Therefore, in this 

final rule, DOE has revised EL1 for 4-foot MiniBP SO and HO lamps to be 86 lm/W and 76 

lm/W respectively. For consistency with those allowed manufacturer tolerances DOE has 

also revised EL2 for 4-foot MiniBP SO lamps to be 90 lm/W. For the purposes of 

comparison, DOE estimates that 4-foot MiniBP SO and HO halophosphor lamps would 

have efficacies of 77 lm/W and 69 lm/W when tested at 25° C. See Chapter 5 of the TSD 

for further detail on 4-foot MiniBP efficacy levels. 

c. IRL Manufacturing Variability 

For incandescent reflector lamps, in the April 2009 NOPR, DOE established efficacy 

levels based on commercially-available and prototype IRL technologies. 73 FR 16920, 

16944 (April 13, 2009). In response to those efficacy levels, Philips commented that DOE 

did not account for manufacturing variability when developing the efficacy levels for 

incandescent reflector lamps and stressed the importance of accounting for this variability 

when setting minimum efficacy standards. (Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at 

p. 102-103) Similarly, the International Association of Lighting Designers (IALD) wrote 

that there are currently IRL on the market that meet TSL4 but only by very small amounts; 

these products could be eliminated if TSL4 is not carefully set. (IALD, No. 71 at p. 2) 

Philips also wrote that it is in support of TSL4 for IRL once it is lowered to account for 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
102

manufacturing variability. (Philips, No. 75 at pp. 1-2) DOE supports the consideration of 

manufacturing variability in the development of efficacy requirements. In response, DOE 

examined IRL compliance reports submitted by manufacturers and discovered that reported 

efficacies of IRL do in fact vary from the catalog efficacies. Similar to GSFL, the efficacy 

reported for IRL product compliance is related to the lower limit of the 95-percent 

confidence interval. 62 FR 29222, 29230 (May 29, 1997). Therefore, in some cases, given 

significant variability in production, the reported efficacy of IRL may be lower than the 

long-term mean efficacy presented in lamp catalogs. The compliance reports also indicated 

that different efficacy levels (or technologies) require different efficacy reductions. Thus, 

similar to the approach taken in developing revised GSFL efficacy levels, DOE used IRL 

compliance report data to adjust the efficacy levels presented in the April 2009 NOPR 

downward to better reflect the observed efficacies of commercially-available lamps that 

feature the described technologies of each EL as discussed in chapter 5 of the TSD. Table 

VII.2 shows the final rule coefficients A in the equation A*P^0.27, which represents the 

efficacy level requirement for IRL. P is the rated wattage of the lamp. See chapter 5 of the 

TSD for further detail on the compliance reports used in the analysis. 

5. Scaling to Product Classes Not Analyzed 

a. 2-foot U-Shaped Lamps 

For the April 2009 NOPR, DOE developed efficacy levels for 2-foot U-shaped 

GSFL by assessing the catalog efficacies of U-shaped lamps that utilize the same design 

options used for the 4-foot medium bipin GSFL lamps that DOE analyzed. 74 FR 16920, 

16948 (April 13, 2009). To develop the April 2009 NOPR ELs for U-shaped lamps while 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
103

taking into account manufacturing variability, DOE assessed compliance reports of Ushaped lamps. Where U-shaped lamp compliance report data was unavailable, DOE 

augmented its assessment of manufacturing variability with compliance report data for 4-

foot medium bipin lamps due to the technological similarities between U-shaped and 4-foot 

medium bipin lamps. In the April 2009 NOPR, the maximum reduction in efficacy 

requirements for U-shaped lamps in comparison with the 4-foot medium bipin ELs was 7.7 

percent at EL1 (the 4-foot medium bipin EL1 requirement of 78 lm/W vs. the U-shaped EL1 

requirement of 72 lm/W). 

At the public meeting, GE commented that it is in general agreement with the 

approach that DOE used to develop the efficacy levels for 2-foot U-shaped lamps for the 

April 2009 NOPR. (GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. 119-120) GE indicated, 

however, that the reduction in efficacy for U-shaped lamps compared to 4-foot medium 

bipin lamps should be approximately 8 percent, as the production of the bend in U-shaped 

lamps adds additional manufacturing variability. (GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 

at pp. 123-124) In writing, NEMA then commented that the assumptions that DOE used to 

develop U-shaped lamp reduction factors were incorrect; NEMA proposed that DOE set 

EL3 at 76 lm/W for U-shaped lamps with CCTs less than or equal to 4500K and 71 lm/W 

for U-shaped lamps with CCTs greater than 4500K. NEMA warned that an EL3 efficacy 

requirement higher than these would remove all T12 U-shaped lamps from the market and 

that the setting of EL4 or higher as a standard would negatively impact competition; 

according to comment, the setting of EL5 would eliminate from the market all energyEE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
104

efficient U-shaped lamps that feature a 6-inch spacing and the ability to fit into 2x2-foot 

luminaires. (NEMA, No. 81 at pp. 2-3, 11) 

In response, DOE grouped U-shaped lamp compliance data sent to DOE in 2007 and 

2008 into efficacy levels based on the design options featured in the 4-foot medium bipin 

lamps that DOE analyzed for the April 2009 NOPR, as follows: 700-series U-shaped 40W 

T12 lamps were grouped into EL1, and 800-series U-shaped 32W T8 lamps were grouped 

into either EL3, EL4, or EL5 based on catalog efficacy. DOE did not have any compliance 

reports from 2007 and 2008 for U-shaped 34W T12 lamps. DOE found that it did not have 

enough data at ELs 1 through 5 to confidently assess the manufacturing variability of Ushaped lamps on the market. For EL1 through EL3, DOE thus selected the levels proposed 

by NEMA in response to the March 2008 ANOPR. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 7) For EL4 and 

EL5, NEMA did not propose levels for U-shaped lamps. Thus, DOE used NEMA’s 

suggested 8-percent value as a scaling factor from the linear 4-foot medium bipin efficacy 

levels. (NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at pp. 123-124). The efficacy levels 

for low-CCT U-shaped lamps for this final rule are shown in chapter 5 of the TSD. 

DOE notes that two manufacturers currently produce U-shaped lamps that meet the 

EL4 proposed in the April 2009 NOPR and retained by DOE in this final rule. DOE 

acknowledges that currently, only one manufacturer produces U-shaped lamps that meet 

EL5. DOE is not aware of technological barriers or legal barriers (such as the utilization of 

a proprietary technology by this manufacturer) that would prevent other manufacturers from 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
105

producing U-shaped lamps at EL5. For this reason, DOE is using 87 lm/W as the EL5 

efficacy level requirement for U-shaped lamps in this final rule. 

b. Lamps with Higher CCTs 

 Because DOE received a number of comments related to its determination of 

efficacy levels based on compliance reports, DOE decided to reevaluate its efficacy levels at 

higher CCT levels using the latest compliance report data. For 4-foot MBP lamps with 

CCTs greater than 4500K, DOE discovered that the efficacy values proposed in the April 

2009 NOPR required significant revision to achieve the technology goals outlined in chapter 

5 of the TSD. Therefore, to determine efficacy values for these lamps, DOE employed the 

same methodology as was used to determine efficacy values for 4-foot MBP lamps with 

CCTs less than or equal to 4500K. Thus, as summarized in section V.B.4.a, DOE selected 

commercially available lamps for each efficacy level that represented that level’s desired 

technology goal. These revised efficacy levels are supported by data contained in 

compliance reports submitted in 2008. The updated efficacy values for these lamps are 

shown in chapter 5 of the TSD. 

DOE also compared NEMA’s proposed efficacy levels for 8-foot lamps against its 

proposed efficacy levels in the April 2009 NOPR. For 8-foot SP Slimline lamps with CCTs 

greater than 4500 K, efficacy levels 1, 2, and 5 were higher than those levels proposed by 

NEMA. For 8-foot RDC HO lamps with high CCTs, only efficacy level 2 was greater than 

what NEMA proposed. DOE analyzed recent compliance reports submitted and determined 

that not enough data existed in those reports to maintain the levels proposed in the April 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
106

2009 NOPR for these lamps. Therefore, DOE modified ELs 1, 2, and 5 for 8-foot SP 

Slimline lamps and EL2 for 8-foot RDC HO lamps to reflect the levels that NEMA 

proposed. The revised efficacy levels are shown in section VII.A.1. 

For U-shaped lamps, NEMA proposed that DOE set EL1, EL2, and EL3 at 65, 67, 

and 71 lm/W, respectively, for U-shaped lamps with CCTs greater than 4500K. (NEMA, 

No. 26 at p. 7; NEMA, No. 81 at p. 2) DOE did not have enough recent compliance report 

data for U-shaped lamps with CCTs above 4500K to accurately assess the manufacturing 

variability of U-shaped lamps on the market. For this reason, DOE adopted NEMA’s 

proposed requirements for this final rule. NEMA did not propose efficacy level 

requirements at EL4 and EL5. To develop requirements at these levels for U-shaped lamps 

with CCTs above 4500K, DOE used NEMA’s suggested 8-percent value as a scaling factor 

and applied the factor to the high-CCT linear 4-foot medium bipin efficacy levels. (NEMA, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at pp. 123-124). The efficacy levels for high-CCT Ushaped lamps for the April 2009 NOPR and for this final rule are shown in section VII.A.1. 

c. Modified Spectrum IRL 

DOE received a number of comments on the reduction factor that DOE applied to 

the standard-spectrum IRL efficacy levels in order to develop efficacy levels for the 

modified-spectrum IRL product class. At the public meeting, NEMA commented that 

industry uses an efficacy reduction of 20 to 25 percent for modified-spectrum IRL (in 

comparison with standard-spectrum IRL of otherwise identical characteristics) and that the 

typical efficacy reduction is closer to 20 percent than 25 percent. (NEMA, Public Meeting 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
107

Transcript, No. 38.4 at pp. 128-129) After publication of the April 2009 NOPR, however, 

NEMA commented in writing that DOE’s April 2009 NOPR analysis was based only on 

50W modified-spectrum lamps and that DOE should choose a reduction factor of 25 percent 

for the modified-spectrum IRL product class in order to retain a diversity of modifiedspectrum products on the market. (NEMA, No. 81 at p. 12) On the other hand, PG&E, 

ASAP, ACEEE, and NRDC commented in writing that if DOE does retain a modifiedspectrum IRL product class for the final rule, the class should feature an efficacy reduction 

of no greater than 10 percent from the standard-spectrum IRL efficacy requirements so that 

manufacturers cannot produce modified-spectrum IRL using technologies that are cheaper 

than technologies that would be needed to produced a standard-spectrum IRL of the same 

efficacy level, creating a loophole. (PG&E, ASAP, NRDC, No. 59 at p. 1-2; NRDC, No. 82 

at pp. 2, 4-5; ACEEE, No. 76 at p. 5) DOE generally does not believe that a modifiedspectrum IRL product class will be utilized by manufacturers as a loophole that ultimately 

undermines energy savings. This is because DOE expects that designers of modifiedspectrum IRL will likely utilize the same design options featured in standard-spectrum IRL 

that meet a particular efficacy requirement (such as improved HIR technologies at EL4). 

Thus, in response to the comments of EEI, PG&E, ASAP, and NRDC, DOE expects 

modified-spectrum IRL to have a similar cost as standard-spectrum IRL that comply with 

standards, minimizing migration to modified-spectrum IRL on a first-cost basis. In 

addition, modified-spectrum IRL are of lower lumen output than standard-spectrum IRL that 

otherwise have the same characteristics (particularly rated wattage) due to the subtractive 

filtering that is employed for spectrum modification. Consumers replacing standardEE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
108

spectrum IRL with modified-spectrum IRL of the same rated wattage are likely to 

experience lower light levels, further discouraging migration. 

DOE acknowledges, however, that some manufacturers may attempt to produce 

modified-spectrum IRL using cheaper technologies if the efficacy reduction for modifiedspectrum IRL permits this to occur. For the April 2009 NOPR, DOE analyzed two 

modified-spectrum IRL and found an average efficacy reduction of approximately 19 

percent, in general support of NEMA’s comment concerning a 20 to 25 percent efficacy 

reduction utilized by industry. PG&E commented, however, that DOE should analyze more 

than two modified-spectrum IRL in order to determine an appropriate efficacy reduction for 

the product class. (PG&E, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. 132-133) PG&E, 

ASAP, and NRDC commented in writing that it tested commercially-available modifiedspectrum cover glasses with a variety of commercially-available IRL burner/reflector 

assemblies and found that one assembly produced a MacAdam step shift of more than six 

MacAdam steps, which is more than necessary to meet the modified-spectrum definition 

requirement of a four-MacAdam-step shift. The interested parties suggested that a smaller 

MacAdam-step shift would enable a more-efficacious lamp that still provides modifiedspectrum utility. (PG&E, ASAP, NRDC, No. 59 at p. 2) 

DOE supports the notion that additional information could enable a more accurate 

determination of the average efficacy reduction featured by modified-spectrum lamps and 

prevent a possible loophole. DOE also agrees that greater MacAdam-step shifts inherently 

reduce lamp efficacy by greater amounts, as more subtractive filtering is necessary to 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
109

produce a larger shift in color point; the setting of a standard that can be met by 

commercially-available technologies that produce color points near the four-MacAdam-step 

boundary would thus preserve modified-spectrum utility on the IRL market while reducing 

the chance of a loophole. However, DOE was unable to find more modified-spectrum 

lamps on the market than those already found and utilized for the April 2009 NOPR 

analysis. Thus, to assess the impact of varying degrees of spectrum modification through 

neodymium (which DOE found to be the most common method of modifying IRL spectra) 

in IRL cover glasses, DOE developed a model that correlated cover glass neodymium 

concentration with cover glass light output reduction and MacAdam-step shift in color 

point. Increasing neodymium concentrations produce greater light output reduction. DOE 

found that a 15-percent light output reduction correlated with a MacAdam-step shift slightly 

greater than four steps. To validate the model, DOE then obtained five commerciallyavailable HIR IRL capsules and then assembled reflector lamps utilizing the capsules in 

combination with either standard-spectrum or modified-spectrum commercially-available 

IRL cover glasses and reflectors. DOE then tested the lamps with the two cover glass types 

and determined their efficacies. The reduction in efficacy between the standard-spectrum 

and modified-spectrum lamps utilizing the five commercially-available HIR capsules 

obtained by DOE, averaged across the lamps, was approximately 16 percent. DOE believes 

that this value is in line with the output of the neodymium concentration model that it 

developed for the analysis. DOE also believes that manufacturers will be able to vary the 

neodymium concentration for cover glasses associated with a variety of lamp shapes such 

that modified-spectrum utility is preserved while standards are met. Thus, DOE is 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
110

implementing a 15-percent reduction in efficacy levels for the modified-spectrum IRL 

product class in this final rule. 

While PG&E, ASAP, and NRDC mentioned that no more than a 10 percent 

reduction would be necessary for a modified-spectrum product class, DOE believes that this 

value is specific to the IRL featuring prototype (not commercially-available) technologies 

that these interested parties tested with a modified-spectrum cover glass. In writing, the 

three interested parties acknowledged that commercially-available IRL burner/reflector 

assemblies tested with the same cover glass did not meet the modified-spectrum definition. 

(PG&E, ASAP, NRDC, Appendix 1, No. 63 at pp. 11-12) Because PG&E, ASAP, and 

NRDC did not indicate the filament temperature of the prototype IRL nor specify color 

point data, DOE could not determine the color of the IRL lumen output when operated with 

either the standard-spectrum or the modified-spectrum glasses. Thus, DOE has insufficient 

data to determine whether a 10-percent efficacy reduction could be achieved by 

manufacturers producing currently-available modified-spectrum lamps or if such a reduction 

would instead eliminate currently-available modified-spectrum lamps from the market. For 

this reason, DOE has chosen to use an efficacy reduction of 15 percent for the modifiedspectrum IRL product class in this final rule, based on commercially-available IRL 

technologies. 

d. Small Diameter IRL 

In the April 2009 NOPR, DOE recognized that the size of small-diameter (PAR20) 

lamps vs. PAR30 and PAR38 lamps provides a specific utility to consumers (e.g. the ability 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
111

to fit into smaller fixtures) but also results in an inherent efficacy reduction. Thus, DOE 

established a separate product class for small-diameter lamps in order to preserve the smalldiameter utility in the IRL marketplace in the face of standards. 74 FR 16920, 16939 (April 

13, 2009). Based on a comparison between the efficacies of commercially-available PAR20 

lamps and their PAR30 and PAR38 counterparts, DOE selected an efficacy reduction factor 

of 12 percent vs. the large-diameter IRL product class and utilized this factor to develop the 

efficacy levels for the small-diameter IRL product class. 

DOE received a number of comments on its choice of a 12-percent efficacy 

reduction factor for the small-diameter IRL product class. The California Stakeholders 

expressed that a 12-percent factor adequately describes the observed efficacy differences 

due to optics between PAR20 and larger-diameter lamps; the California Stakeholders also 

warned DOE that the selection of a larger reduction factor would allow small-diameter IRL 

to meet DOE’s standards using less-efficient components, undermining DOE’s energy 

savings goals. (California Stakeholders, No. 63 at pp. 2, 22) NEMA and GE, on the other 

hand, commented that the 12-percent reduction factor is inappropriate for the product class 

because 75W and 50W PAR20 lamps utilize single-ended halogen burner technologies and 

a double-ended burner (which is more efficacious than a single-ended burner) will not fit 

into a PAR20 lamp, thus eliminating PAR20 lamps from the market in the face of a TSL4 or 

TSL5 standard. (NEMA, No. 81 at p. 7, pp. 12-13; GE, No. 80 at p. 6-7; GE, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 38.4 at pp. 60-61) Philips acknowledged that a 12-percent factor describes 

the observed efficacy differences between PAR20 lamps and larger-diameter lamps, but the 

interested party concurred with GE and NEMA concerning technical limitations that prevent 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
112

double-ended burners from being installed into PAR20 lamps. (Philips, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. 135-136, p. 138) NEMA also commented that the smaller 

envelope featured on small-diameter lamps limits heat dissipation, which would cause such 

lamps to run hotter and increase the susceptibility to early failure if the highest-efficacy 

halogen IR burners were installed. (NEMA, No. 81 at p. 13) In writing, NEMA 

recommended that DOE employ a reduction factor of 15 percent to 25 percent from the 

large-diameter efficacy levels for small-diameter lamps; the range represents the range of 

efficacies observed across small-diameter lamps on the market (considering a variety of 

manufacturers). (NEMA, No. 81 at p. 4) The California Stakeholders then commented in 

writing that PAR20 lamps will be able to accommodate double-ended burners by utilizing 

bent burner leads or cover glasses with a greater bulge and thus reach TSL5, as illustrated 

by two sources: a Philips MR16 lamp (which has a smaller diameter than a PAR20 lamp) on 

the European market that features a double-ended burner and bulged cover glass, and 

drawings from a lighting company that show the potential for a double-ended burner with a 

bent lead to be fitted into a PAR20 without a bulged cover glass. (California Stakeholders, 

No. 63 at pp. 22-24) 

Based on comments, DOE acknowledges that the installation of double-ended 

burners into small-diameter lamps could be problematic. DOE notes that the outer 

dimensions of a PAR20 lamp, including the shape of the bulge, are dictated by ANSI 

Standard C78.21 (most recently updated in 2003). DOE notes that it is unaware of any 

standard dictating the inner dimensions of a PAR20 lamp, nor is DOE aware of a standard 

dictating the dimensions of double-ended burners. Thus, DOE believes that some technical 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
113

innovations may make the installation of a double-ended burner into a PAR20 lamp feasible. 

Interested parties did not provide additional data to DOE indicating the efficacy impacts of 

bending the lead of a double-ended burner so that it can be installed into a PAR20 lamp, 

however; DOE also could not obtain other data addressing these impacts. Also, DOE 

believes that manufacturers would not be able to position a double-ended burner at the 

optimum position for maximum efficacy in a PAR20 lamp due to the lamp’s reduced size; 

thus, DOE believes that a greater reduction factor than 12 percent is warranted for PAR20 

lamps at EL4 and EL5 even if a double-ended burner could be fitted into a PAR20 lamp. 

DOE acknowledges the Philips MR16 lamp that features a double-ended burner and 

also acknowledges that the MR16 format is smaller than the PAR20 format. The MR16 

format, however, is a low-voltage format, and low-voltage lamps have different inherent 

characteristics than lamps designed for line-voltage operation. DOE thus does not believe 

that it can make assumptions about line-voltage small-diameter lamp designs by assessing 

low-voltage lamps. The California Stakeholders provided information showing a prototype 

low-voltage lamp with integrated transformer that can meet the April 2009 NOPR level of 

EL5 for IRL, but this interested party did not provide details about the lifetime of the lamp 

or the impacts of the transformer on efficacy. (CA Stakeholders, Appendix 4, No. 63 at pp. 

1-5) While DOE is aware of low-voltage PAR20 lamps utilizing integrated transformers for 

direct connection to line-voltage sources, DOE does not have the data required to assess the 

impacts of such transformers on IRL efficacy; DOE thus could not confidently develop an 

efficacy level based on an IRL with an integrated transformer. See section VI.B.2.c for a 

further discussion of the integrated-transformer IRL design option. Because DOE cannot 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
114

assess the effects of bent burner leads on lamp efficacy, acknowledges that double-ended 

burners cannot be optimally positioned in PAR20 lamps, cannot make design assumptions 

for line-voltage lamps based on low-voltage lamps, and cannot assess the impacts of an 

integrated transformer on lamp efficacy, DOE is revising its PAR20 EL4 and EL5 efficacy 

requirements in this final rule so that PAR20 lamps will not require double-ended burners to 

meet a standard established at EL4 or EL5. 

In order to determine the efficacy reduction that would result from using an singleended burner instead of a double-ended burner in a lamp, DOE obtained a commerciallyavailable single-ended HIR capsule and measured the location and dimensions of the lead 

wire inside of the capsule, which prevents a certain amount of energy from reaching the 

capsule wall and being reflected back to the capsule filament. (A double-ended 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.) DOE then created a model to 

determine the efficacy impacts of the lead wire’s presence inside of the capsule. DOE also 

simulated manufacturing variability by modeling the effects of changing the capsule 

dimensions and lead wire positioning. With the resulting data from the model, DOE 

determined the reduction in efficacy that results from the presence of the lead wire inside of 

a single-ended HIR capsule in comparison with a double-ended capsule, which features an 

external lead wire. This reduction was determined to be approximately 3.5 percent. For 

EL4 and EL5, DOE is thus changing the reduction factor for small-diameter lamps from the 

April 2009 NOPR value of 12 percent to the value of 15.5 percent for this final rule. This is 

within the reduction factor range proposed by NEMA for small-diameter IRL. (NEMA, No. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
115

81 at p. 4) The small-diameter IRL reduction factors in the April 2009 NOPR and in this 

final rule are shown in Table V.3. 74 FR 16920, 16950 (April 13, 2009). 

Table V.3 Small-Diameter IRL Reduction Factors in the April 2009 NOPR and in this 

Final Rule 

Efficacy Level NOPR Final Rule 

EL1 12% 12% 

EL2 12% 12% 

EL3 12% 12% 

EL4 12% 15.5% 

EL5 12% 15.5% 

Concerning heat dissipation, DOE acknowledges that the smaller size of a PAR20 in 

comparison with larger-diameter lamps limits heat dissipation, which would cause a given 

filament to operate at a higher temperature if simply transplanted from a larger-diameter 

lamp to a PAR20 lamp without any other changes. DOE notes, however, that HIR R20 

lamps currently exist on the market, thus proving that high temperature-HIR technology in 

small diameter lamps is technologically feasible. In addition, in its research, DOE found no 

ANSI standard that indicated a required seal temperature. In fact on product specifications, 

DOE found that commercially-available lamps have a variety of seal temperatures. In 

consideration of all of these factors, DOE believes that the 15.5 percent reduction for EL4 

and EL5 are appropriate for small diameter lamps. 

e. IRL With Rated Voltages Greater Than or Equal To 125 Volts 

In the April 2009 NOPR, DOE proposed that covered IRL with rated voltages 

greater than or equal to 125V must be 15 percent more efficacious than covered IRL with 

rated voltages less than 125V. At the public meeting, DOE received numerous comments 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
116

on this proposal. NEMA commented that the proposed standard for 130V would not be 

technically feasible to achieve; 130V IRL are less efficacious than 120V IRL so that lifetime 

is preserved, and the effective elimination of 130V IRL would reduce utility for certain 

regions of the country with line voltages near 130V (since 120V IRL operated at 130V have 

reduced lifetimes). (NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at pp. 60-62, 66-67, 139-

140) NEMA instead requested the elimination of a 130V IRL product class and the 

development of standards based strictly upon lamps’ rated voltages. (NEMA, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at pp. 61-62, 67; NEMA, No. 81 at pp. 7, 24) On the other 

hand, EEI commented in writing on its support of higher efficacy standards for lamps with 

rated voltages higher than 125V, while ACEEE commented at the public meeting that many 

130V IRL are used on 120V lines as longer-life lamps. (EEI, No. 39 at p. 3; ACEEE, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. 65-66) Philips acknowledged that 130V IRL lose 15 

percent in efficacy when operated at 120V but commented that there were other ways apart 

from separate product classes to prevent the usage of 130V IRL on 120V lines. (Philips, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. 62, 139-140) 

DOE shares ACEEE’s concern that without a more-stringent 130V IRL product 

class, 130V IRL that meet a particular IRL efficacy requirement will be purchased and used 

on 120V lines as longer-life lamps that no longer meet the efficacy requirement. While 

DOE agrees with NEMA’s comment that 130V lamps use less power than their rated power 

when operated at 120V, DOE also supports NEMA’s comments that 130V lamps are less 

efficacious than 120V lamps. (NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. 67; 

NEMA, No. 81 at p. 13) Specifically, a 130V lamp with a specific rated power, rated lumen 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
117

output, efficacy, and rated lifetime will have lower power consumption, lower lumen output, 

lower efficacy, and longer lifetime when operated at 120V. By maintaining a separate 

product class for 130V IRL with a 15 percent increase in stringency relative to 120V IRL 

standards, DOE ensures that 130V IRL operated on 120V lines will be as efficacious during 

operation as 120V IRL that comply with standards. DOE acknowledges that designers of 

130V IRL may have to make certain tradeoffs to meet the efficacy requirements, but DOE 

also believes that there are a number of ways to make compliant 130V IRL (such as by 

adjusting lamp lifetime). Therefore, DOE has kept the 130V IRL product class and its 

associated 15-percent stringency increase for the Final Rule. 

In writing, EEI also asked for clarification that the efficacy requirements shown in 

the April 2009 NOPR for IRL with rated voltages greater than or equal to 125V apply when 

the IRL are tested at 120V. (EEI, No. 39 at p. 3) In response, DOE notes that IRL must be 

tested for compliance according to the test procedure in section 4.3 of Appendix R to 

Subpart B of 10 CFR 430, which states in part that “[l]amps shall be operated at the rated 

voltage.” Thus, IRL rated at 130V should be operated at 130V during the efficacy 

measurement process. DOE believes that IRL operated at 130V are generally 15 percent 

more efficacious than when they are operated at 120V; thus, retaining a separate product 

class for 130V IRL, with a 15-percent increase over 120V IRL standards, allows DOE to 

take into account the efficacy reduction that 130V IRL will experience when operated at 

120V. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
118

C. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

This section describes the LCC and payback period analyses and the spreadsheet 

model DOE used for analyzing the economic impacts of possible standards on individual 

consumers. Details of the spreadsheet model, and of all the inputs to the LCC and PBP 

analyses, are contained in chapter 8 and appendix 8A of the TSD. DOE conducted the LCC 

and PBP analyses using a spreadsheet model developed in Microsoft Excel. When 

combined with Crystal Ball (a commercially-available software program), the LCC and PBP 

model generates a Monte Carlo simulation13 to perform the analysis by incorporating 

uncertainty and variability considerations. For further details on the LCC and PBP Monte 

Carlo simulations, see the TSD appendix 8B, in which probable ranges of LCC results are 

presented. 

The LCC analysis estimates the impact of a standard on consumers by calculating 

the net cost of a lamp (or lamp-and-ballast system) under a base-case scenario (in which no 

new energy conservation standard is in effect) and under a standards-case scenario (in which 

the proposed energy conservation regulation is applied). As part of the LCC and PBP 

analyses, DOE developed data that it used to establish product prices, sales taxes, 

installation costs, disposal costs, operating hours, product energy consumption, energy 

prices, product lifetime, and discount rates. 

 

13 Monte Carlo simulations model uncertainty by utilizing probability distributions instead of single values for 

certain inputs and variables. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
119

As discussed in the April 2009 NOPR, the life-cycle cost of a particular lamp design 

is a function of the total installed cost (which includes manufacturer selling price, sales 

taxes, distribution chain mark-ups, and any installation cost), operating expenses (due to 

purchases of energy as well as repair and maintenance costs), product lifetime, and discount 

rate. 74 FR 16920, 16950 (April 13, 2009). DOE also incorporated a residual value 

calculation to account for any remaining lifetime of lamps (or ballasts) at the end of the 

analysis period. 74 FR 16920, 16950 (April 13, 2009). The residual value is an estimate of 

the product’s value to the consumer at the end of the life-cycle cost analysis period, which 

embodies the assumption that a lamp system continues to function beyond the end of the 

analysis period. DOE calculates the residual value by linearly prorating the product’s initial 

cost consistent with the methodology described in the Life-Cycle Costing Manual for the 

Federal Energy Management Program.

14

DOE also calculates a payback period for each standards-case lamp or lamp-andballast system. The payback period is the change in total installed cost of the more-efficient 

product compared to the baseline product, divided by the change in annual operating cost of 

that product compared to the baseline product. Stated more simply, the payback period is 

the time period for which a consumer must operate a more-efficient product to recoup the 

assumed increased total installed cost (compared to the baseline product) through savings 

from reduced operating costs. DOE expresses this period in years. 

 

14 Fuller, Sieglinde K. and Stephen R. Peterson, National Institute of Standards and Technology Handbook 

135 (1996 Edition); Life-Cycle Costing Manual for the Federal Energy Management Program (Prepared for U. 

S. Department of Energy, Federal Energy Management Program, Office of the Assistant Secretary for 

Conservation and Renewable Energy)(Feb. 1996). Available at: 

http://fire.nist.gov/fire/firedocs/build96/PDF/b96121.pdf. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
120

 In addition, in the April 2009 NOPR and in today’s final rule, DOE analyzes five 

types of events that would prompt a consumer to purchase a fluorescent lamp. These events 

account for the various economic impacts incurred by consumers depending upon the 

situations under which they are purchasing a lamp., Described in detail in the April 2009 

NOPR, these events are : Lamp Failure (Event I), Standards-Induced Retrofit (Event II), 

Ballast Failure (Event III), Ballast Retrofit (Event IV), and New Construction and 

Renovation (Event V). 74 FR 16920, 16958 (April 13, 2009). Although described primarily 

in the context of GSFL, lamp purchase events can be applied to IRL as well. However, 

considering that IRL are generally not used with a ballast, the only lamp purchase events 

applicable to IRL are lamp failure (Event I) and new construction and renovation (Event V). 

Table V.4 summarizes the approach and data that DOE used to derive the inputs to 

the LCC and PBP calculations for the April 2009 NOPR and the changes made for today’s 

final rule. The following sections discuss the comments DOE received regarding its 

presentation of the LCC and PBP analyses in the April 2009 NOPR and the responses and 

changes DOE made to these analyses as a result. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
121

Table V.4 Summary of Inputs and Key Assumptions Used in the NOPR and Final 

Rule LCC Analyses 

Inputs April 2009 NOPR Changes for the Final Rule 

Consumer 

Product 

Price

Applied discounts to manufacturer 

catalog (“blue-book”) pricing in 

order to represent low, medium, 

and high prices for all lamp 

categories. Discounts were also 

applied to develop a price for 

ballasts.

No change. 

Sales Tax Derived weighted-average tax 

values for each Census division 

and four large States from data 

provided by the Sales Tax 

Clearinghouse.2

Updated the sales tax using the latest 

information from the Sales Tax 

Clearinghouse.3 Updated population 

estimates using 2008 U.S. Census 

Bureau data.4

Installation 

Cost

Derived costs using the RS Means 

Electrical Cost Data, 20075 to 

obtain average labor times for 

installation, as well as labor rates 

for electricians and helpers based 

on wage rates, benefits, and 

training costs. For GSFL, included 

2.5 minutes of installation time to 

the new construction, major 

retrofit, and renovation events in 

the commercial and industrial 

sectors to capture the time needed 

to install luminaire disconnects.

No change. 

Disposal 

Cost 

GSFL: Included a recycling cost of 

10 cents per linear foot in the 

commercial and industrial sectors.

IRL: Not included. 

No change. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
122

Inputs April 2009 NOPR Changes for the Final Rule 

Annual 

Operating 

Hours

Determined operating hours by 

associating building-type-specific 

operating hours data with regional 

distributions of various building 

types using the 2002 U.S. Lighting 

Market Characterization6 and the 

Energy Information 

Administration’s (EIA) 2003 

Commercial Building Energy 

Consumption Survey (CBECS),7

2001 Residential Energy 

Consumption Survey,8 and 2002 

Manufacturing Energy 

Consumption Survey.9

Updated the regional distribution of 

residential buildings using the 2005 

Residential Energy Consumption 

Survey.10

Product 

Energy 

Consumption 

Rate

Determined lamp input power (or 

lamp-and-ballast system input 

power for GSFL) based on 

published manufacturer literature. 

Used a linear fit of GSFL system 

power on several different ballasts 

with varying ballast factors in order 

to derive GSFL system power for 

all of the ballasts used in the 

analysis.

No change. 

Electricity 

Prices

Price: Based on EIA’s 2006 Form 

EIA-861 data.11 

Variability: Regional energy prices 

determined for 13 regions.

Updated with EIA’s 2007 Form EIA861.12

Electricity 

Price Trends 

Forecasted with EIA’s Annual 

Energy Outlook (AEO) 2008.

13 

Updated with EIA’s April 2009 

AEO2009, which includes the impacts 

of the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of February 2009.14 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
123

Inputs April 2009 NOPR Changes for the Final Rule 

Lifetime Commercial and industrial sector 

ballast lifetime based on average 

ballast life of 49,054 from 2000 

Ballast Rule;15 developed separate 

ballast lifetime estimate for the 

residential sector using measured 

life reports. Lamp lifetime based 

on published manufacturer 

literature where available. DOE 

assumed a lamp operating time of 3 

hours per start. Where 

manufacturer literature was not 

available, DOE derived lamp 

lifetimes as part of the engineering 

analysis. 

Residential GSFL: 4-foot medium 

bipin lamp lifetime is dependent on 

the fixture lifetime (i.e., for 

average residential lamp operating 

hours, the fixture reaches end of 

life before the lamp reaches end of 

life, and, thus, the lamp is retired 

before it fails.). 

DOE added residential sector GSFL 

LCC analysis scenarios where a 

consumer preserves the lamp during a 

fixture replacement and installs the 

preserved lamp on a new fixture. The 

analysis periods for these scenarios are 

based on the full lifetime of the 

baseline lamp. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
124

Inputs April 2009 NOPR Changes for the Final Rule 

Discount 

Rate 

Residential: Approach based on the 

finance cost of raising funds to 

purchase lamps either through the 

financial cost of any debt incurred 

to purchase product or the 

opportunity cost of any equity used 

to purchase equipment, based on 

the Federal Reserve’s Survey of 

Consumer Finances data16 for 

1989, 1992, 1995, 1998, 2001, and 

2004. 

Commercial and industrial: 

Derived discount rates using the 

cost of capital of publicly-traded 

firms in the sectors that purchase 

lamps, based on data in the 2003 

CBECS,17 Damodaran Online, 18

Ibbotson’s Associates,19 the 2007 

Value Line Investment survey,20

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) Circular No. A-94,21 2008 

State and local bond interest 

rates,22 and the U.S. Bureau of 

Economic Analysis.23

For the residential sector, included data 

from the 2007 Survey of Consumer 

Finances and the Cost of Savings Index 

dataset covering 1984 to 2008.24 

Analysis 

Period 

Commercial and industrial GSFL: 

Based on the longest baseline lamp 

life in a product class divided by 

the annual operating hours of that 

lamp. 

Residential GSFL: Based on the 

useful lifetime of the baseline 

lamp. 

No change. 

Lamp 

Purchasing 

Events 

Commercial and industrial sectors: 

DOE assessed five events: lamp 

failure, standards-induced retrofit, 

ballast failure (GSFL only), ballast 

retrofit (GSFL only), and new 

construction/renovation. 

Residential sector: DOE assessed 

three events: lamp failure, ballast 

failure (GSFL only), and new 

construction/renovation. 

No change. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
125

Inputs April 2009 NOPR Changes for the Final Rule 

1

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Table Containing History of CPI-U U.S. All Items Indexes and Annual 

Percent Changes from 1913 to Present (Last accessed Feb. 20, 2009). Available at: 

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt.

2

 The four large States are New York, California, Texas, and Florida. 3

 Sales Tax Clearinghouse, Aggregate State Tax Rates (2009) (Last accessed Feb. 20, 2009). Available at: 

http://thestc.com/STrates.stm. The February 20, 2009 material from this website is available in Docket # EE–

2006–STD–0131. For more information, contact Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945. 

4

 U.S. Census Bureau, Population change: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2008 (NST-EST2008-popchg2000-2008). 

Last accessed February 20, 2009. Available at: http://www.census.gov/popest/states/files/NST-EST2008-

popchg2000-2008.csv. 5

 R. S. Means Company, Inc., 2007 RS Means Electrical Cost Data (2007). 6

 U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Energy Conservation 

Program for Consumer Products: Final Report: U.S. Lighting Market Characterization, Volume I: National 

Lighting Inventory and Energy Consumption Estimate (2002). Available at: 

http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/info/documents/pdfs/lmc_vol1_final.pdf. 7

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

Survey: Micro-level data, file 2 Building Activities, Special Measures of Size, and Multi-building Facilities 

(2003). Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/public_use.html. 8

 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Residential Energy Consumption Survey: 

File 1: Housing Unit Characteristic (2006). Available at: 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2001/publicuse2001.html. 9

 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey, 

Table 1.4: Number of Establishments by First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel) (2002). 

Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mecs/mecs2002/data02/shelltables.html. 10 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Residential Energy Consumption Survey: 

File 1: Housing Unit Characteristics (2008). Available at: 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recspubuse05/datafiles/RECS05file1.csv. 11 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-861 for 2006 (2006). Available 

at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia861.html. 12 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-861 for 2007 (2007). Available 

at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia861.html. 13 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2008 with 

Projections to 2030 (June 2008). Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/aeo08/index.html. 14 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, An Updated Annual Energy Outlook 2009 

Reference Case Reflecting Provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and Recent Changes in 

the Economic Outlook (April 2009). Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/stimulus/index.html. 15 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office of Building Research and 

Standards, Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Standards for Consumer Products: Fluorescent 

Lamps Ballast Final Rule (Sept. 2000). Available at: 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/gs_fluorescent_0100_r.html 

16 The Federal Reserve Board, Survey of Consumer Finances. Available at: 

http://www.federalreserve.gov/PUBS/oss/oss2/scfindex.html. 17 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Commercial Building Energy Consumption 

Survey (2003). Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/. 18 Damodaran Online, The Data Page: Historical Returns on Stocks, Bonds, and Bills – United States (2006) 

(Last accessed Sept. 12, 2007). Available at: http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar. The September 12, 2007 

material from this website is available in Docket # EE–2006–STD–0131. For more information, contact 

Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945. 

19 Ibbotson’s Associates, Stocks, Bonds, Bills, and Inflation, Valuation Edition, 2001 Yearbook (2001). 20 Value Line, Value Line Investment Survey (2007). Available at: http://www.valueline.com. 21 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Circular No. A-94 Appendix C (2008). Available at: 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a094/a094.html. 22 Federal Reserve Board, Statistics: Releases and Historical Data - Selected Interest Rates – State and Local 

Bonds (2008). Available at: http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/data/Monthly/H15_SL_Y20.txt. 23 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Table 1.1.9 Implicit Price Deflators for Gross 

Domestic Product (2008). Available at: http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/SelectTable.asp?Selected=N. 24 Mortgage-X, Mortgage Information Service. Cost of Savings Index (COSI), Index History. 2009. Last 

accessed, February 25, 2009. http://mortgage-x.com/general/indexes/default.asp. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
126

1. Consumer Product Price 

In the April 2009 NOPR, DOE used a variety of sources to develop consumer 

equipment prices, including lamp and ballast prices in manufacturers’ suggested retail price 

lists (“blue books”), State procurement contracts, large electrical supply distributors, 

hardware and home improvement stores, Internet retailers, and other similar sources. DOE 

then developed low, medium, and high prices based on its findings. 74 FR 16920, 16952 

(April 13, 2009). 

At the public meeting, Philips commented that DOE’s estimated costs of IRL in the 

residential sector reported in the proposed rule appear too low in comparison with the costs 

of commercial IRL. (Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at pp. 179-181) In 

response, DOE notes that the costs of all commercial IRL in the LCC and PBP analyses 

include $1.10 to account for the labor cost of a four-minute installation time at a labor rate 

of $16.55 per hour. (Using the consumer price index for 2008, the labor rate for this final 

rule was inflated to 2008 dollars, as compared to the April 2009 NOPR value of $15.94 per 

hour in 2007 dollars.) Conversely, DOE assumes that consumers in the residential sector 

will replace their own lamps and, therefore, does not model labor costs for IRL in the 

residential sector; this difference in methodology contributes to the relative price difference 

between commercial and residential IRL. In addition, DOE acknowledges that lamps sold 

through various distribution chains may have differing end-user prices. For this reason, 

DOE conducts the LCC analysis on the high and low lamp prices as sensitivities, DOE 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
127

believes that the sources and methodologies used to develop IRL prices for the April 2009 

NOPR reflect the variety of IRL prices encountered by consumers in the residential and 

commercial sectors. The results of the IRL price sensitivities analysis can be found in 

Appendix 8B of the TSD. 

 

Philips also commented that the incremental price differential for more-efficacious 

IRL appears too small. (Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at pp. 179-181) 

Additionally NEMA and Philips stated that the prices of IRL will be uncertain due to 

expected capacity constraints in 2012. (NEMA, Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 

at pp. 286-287) 

 DOE recognizes that the imposition of a standard will commoditize higher-efficacy 

IRL that may be sold today as premium products at higher markups (from manufacturing 

costs to end-user prices) than lower-efficacy IRL. Prices of IRL in DOE’s analysis are 

meant to reflect commoditization of these higher-efficacy products in the face of standards. 

DOE assessed discounts between blue book prices and end-user prices of currently-available 

lower-efficacy IRL to obtain information about how commoditization affects IRL price. 

DOE took this information into account during the development of prices for the IRL that 

comply with each EL shown in today’s final rule. Furthermore, although DOE recognizes 

that there may be uncertainty regarding future IRL prices, interested parties did not provide 

additional data to DOE as would cast doubt on its overall pricing methodology or as would 

support an alternative methodology. For these reasons, DOE has not changed the April 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
128

2009 NOPR IRL methodologies or prices for this final rule. For further information on the 

development of IRL prices, see chapter 7 of the final rule TSD. 

2. Sales Tax 

In the April 2009 NOPR, DOE obtained State and local sales tax data from the Sales 

Tax Clearinghouse. (April 2009 NOPR TSD chapter 7) The data represented weighted 

averages that include county and city rates. DOE used the data to compute populationweighted average tax values for each Census division and four large States (New York, 

California, Texas, and Florida). For the final rule, DOE retained this methodology and used 

updated sales tax data from the Sales Tax Clearinghouse15 and updated population estimates 

from the U.S. Census Bureau.16

3. Annual Operating Hours 

As discussed in the April 2009 NOPR, DOE developed annual operating hours for 

IRL and GSFL by combining building type-specific operating hours data from the 2002 

U.S. Lighting Market Characterization (LMC)17 with data in the 2003 Commercial Building 

 

15 Sales Tax Clearinghouse, “Aggregate State Tax Rates” (2009) (Last accessed February 20, 2009). Available 

at: http://thestc.com/STrates.stm. The February 20, 2009, material from this website is available in Docket 

#EE–2006–STD–0131. For more information, contact Brenda Edwards at (202) 586 2945. 

16 U.S. Census Bureau, “Population Change: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2008” (July 2008). Available at: 

http://www.census.gov/popest/states/files/NST-EST2008-popchg2000-2008.csv. 17 U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, “U.S. Lighting Market 

Characterization. Volume I: National Lighting Inventory and Energy Consumption Estimate (2002).” 

Available at: http://www.netl.doe.gov/ssl/PDFs/lmc_vol1_final.pdf. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
129

Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS),18 the 2001 Residential Energy Consumption Survey 

(RECS),19 and the 2002 Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey (MECS),20 which 

describe the probability that a particular building type exists in a particular region. 74 FR 

16920, 16954-55 (April 13, 2009). For this final rule, DOE updated the residential annual 

operating hours estimates using the 2005 RECS. 21 Residential-sector average operating 

hours changed from 789 to 791 hours per year for GSFL and from 884 hours per year in the 

April 2009 NOPR to 889 hours per year for this final rule for IRL. DOE did not receive any 

further comments on residential-sector operating hours. For further details on the annual 

operating hours used in the analyses, see chapter 6 of the TSD. 

4. Electricity Prices and Electricity Price Trends 

 As explained in the April 2009 NOPR, DOE determined energy prices by deriving 

regional average prices for 13 geographic areas consisting of the nine U.S. Census divisions, 

with four large States (New York, Florida, Texas, and California) treated separately. 74 FR 

16920, 16955-56 (April 13, 2009). For the April 2009 NOPR, DOE derived electricity 

prices based on data from the 2006 publication of EIA Form 861. Id. At the public 

 

18 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Agency, “Commercial Building Energy Consumption 

Survey: Micro-Level Data, File 2 Building Activities, Special Measures of Size, and Multi-building Facilities 

(2003).” Available at: www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/public_use.html.

19 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Residential Energy Consumption Survey: 

File 1: Housing Unit Characteristic (2006). Available at: 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2001/publicuse2001.html. 20 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Agency, “Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey, 

Table 1.4: Number of Establishments by First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel) (2002).” 

Available at: www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mecs/mecs2002/data02/shelltables.html. 

21 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Residential Energy Consumption Survey: 

File 1: Housing Unit Characteristic (2009). Available at: 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recspubuse05/pubuse05.html. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
130

meeting, ACEEE commented that DOE should use the latest available electricity prices and 

electricity price trends in its analysis for the final rule. (ACEEE, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 38.4 at pp. 154-155) 

DOE agrees with ACEEE and has updated the related electricity price and electricity 

price trend sources for the final rule analysis. For electricity price data, the analysis now 

utilizes EIA’s Form 861 electricity price data from the year 2007.22 DOE obtained 

electricity price trend data from EIA’s latest AEO2009,

 23 which was published in April 

2009 and is a special update of the March 2009 AEO2009 (the initial release of EIA’s 

AEO2009)

 24 that includes the impacts of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

(ARRA) of February 2009 (Pub. L. 111-5). To project electricity prices to the end of the 

LCC analysis period, DOE used the reference economic growth projection in the April 

AEO2009. As done for the April 2009 NOPR, DOE used the price trend average rate of 

change during 2020-2030 to estimate the price trends after 2030. See chapter 8 of the April 

2009 NOPR TSD25 as well as chapter 8 of the final rule TSD. The spreadsheet tools and 

LCC sensitivity scenarios featured in the April 2009 NOPR also included high-economicgrowth and low-economic-growth electricity price trend cases from EIA. The April 2009 

AEO2009 did not include these cases, however. To generate them, DOE utilized the 

 

22 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-861 for 2007 (2007). Available 

at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia861.html. 23 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, An Updated Annual Energy Outlook 2009 

Reference Case Reflecting Provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and Recent Changes in 

the Economic Outlook (April 2009). Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/stimulus/index.html. 24 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2009 with 

Projections to 2030 (March 2009). Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/. 25 U.S. Department of Energy. Chapter 8: Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses. Available at: 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/ch_8_lamps_standards_nopr_tsd.

pdf. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
131

difference between the reference economic-growth case and the high- and low-economicgrowth cases in the March 2009 AEO2009 as scaling factors to produce high- and loweconomic-growth estimates for the spreadsheet tools and LCC sensitivity scenarios 

addressed in this final rule.

The results of DOE’s analysis using the reference economic-growth projections are 

presented in this notice, with a full set of results displayed in chapter 8 of the TSD. DOE 

also presents LCC and PBP results for the low-economic-growth and high-economic-growth 

cases from AEO2009 in appendix 8B of the final rule TSD. 

5. Ballast Lifetime 

 For the April 2009 NOPR, DOE used a commercial and industrial sector ballast 

lifetime of approximately 50,000 hours, which is the average ballast life used in the 2000 

final rule for fluorescent lamp ballasts (2000 Ballast Rule).26 65 FR 56740 (Sept. 19, 2000). 

In the primary commercial sector LCC and PBP analysis, this is equivalent to a lifetime of 

approximately 14.2 years (based on an average of 3,435 operating hours per year in the 

commercial sector). 

At the public meeting, Lutron Electronics agreed that a ballast lifetime of 50,000 

hours is common, and a 14.2 year lifetime is appropriate for a ballast that is operated 

 

26 U.S. Department of Energy. April 2009 NOPR Technical Support Document. Chapter 4. Life-Cycle Costs 

and Payback Periods. Available at: 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/chap4.pdf. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
132

approximately 3,500 hours per year. However, Lutron Electronics also commented that the 

ballast service life (in years) will change as operating hours change. (Lutron Electronics, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at pp. 152-153) DOE agrees with Lutron Electronics 

and verifies that in its commercial and industrial LCC analyses, for the Monte Carlo 

simulations (that analyze a distribution of operating hours) and for the consumer subgroup 

analyses, DOE varies ballast service life as operating hours change. 

For the residential sector LCC and PBP analysis in the April 2009 NOPR, DOE used 

a ballast lifetime of 15 years, based on measure life reports that discuss ballast lifetime in 

terms of years.27 28 74 FR 16920, 16959 (April 13, 2009). In other words, DOE assumed that 

a ballast installed in the residential sector would remain in place for an average of 15 years, 

regardless of its annual operating hours. The measure life reports, published in 2005 and 

2007, incorporate both magnetic and electronic ballasts. DOE used the measure life reports 

because DOE believes they best capture the true service life of ballasts in the residential 

sector. 

At the NOPR public meeting, ACEEE stated that in 2005, the vast majority of 

ballasts were magnetic, suggesting that the measure life that DOE assumed may not be 

appropriate. ACEEE also commented that the ballast lifetimes, when expressed in hours (15 

years in place is equivalent to 11,869 hours of life based on average residential GSFL 

 

27 GDS Associates, Inc., Engineers and Consultants, Measure Life Report: Residential and 

Commercial/Industrial Lighting and HVAC Measures (The New England State Program Working 

Group)(2007). 

28 Economic Research Associates, Inc., and Quantec, LLC, Revised/Updated EULs Based On Retention And 

Persistence Studies Results (Southern California Edison) (2005). 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
133

operating hours), appeared too low for the residential sector. (ACEEE, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 38.4 at pp. 154, 169-170) In response, DOE notes that it did not receive any 

data that indicate the measure life of electronic ballasts differs from magnetic ballasts. 

Thus, DOE does not believe there is a difference in the lifetimes of the two ballast types that 

is substantial enough to affect the results of the analyses. First, it is worth noting that the 

2000 Ballast Rule assumes no difference between the two ballast lifetimes. 29 Second, 

manufacturer product literature does not generally suggest or market a difference in 

lifetimes between magnetic and electronic ballasts. Third, in interviews, manufacturers 

mentioned that there was no substantial difference in reliability (a proxy for service life) 

between magnetic and electronic ballasts. Finally, DOE understands that most ballasts are 

rated for longer lifetimes (in hours) than the lifetimes that DOE used in its analyses. DOE 

reiterates, however, that the measure life reports estimate the lifetimes of actual ballasts in 

the field, accounting for not only ballast failure at its rated life, but also premature failure, 

fixture removal, and replacement during renovation. For all of these reasons, DOE 

continues to use the measure life reports to determine ballast service life in the residential 

sector. 

6. Lamp Lifetime 

 When possible, for the April 2009 NOPR, DOE used manufacturer literature to 

determine lamp lifetimes. 74 FR 16920, 16956-57 (April 13, 2009). When published 

manufacturer literature was not available—as was the case for some IRL—DOE derived 

 

29 U.S. Department of Energy. Chapter 4. Life-Cycle Costs and Payback Periods. Available at: 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/chap4.pdf. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
134

lamp lifetimes as part of the engineering analysis. DOE also considered the impact of group 

re-lamping practices on GSFL lifetimes in the commercial and industrial sectors in this final 

rule. 74 FR 16920, 16954 (April 13, 2009). For details, see chapter 5 of the final rule TSD. 

For GSFL, DOE based its lamp lifetimes on lamp start cycles of 3 hours per start. 

At the public meeting, Southern California Edison commented that residential GSFL may 

experience much shorter start cycles than 3 hours per start, thereby lowering their lifetimes 

from rated values. (Southern California Edison, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at pp. 

166-167) DOE acknowledges that some residential GSFL may indeed experience shorter 

start cycles than 3 hours per start, thereby reducing lamp lifetime due to increased electrode 

degradation. Research indicated to DOE that the effective lifetimes of lamps operated at 

start cycles other than 3 hours per start is highly variable and depends directly on the lamp 

type as well as the type of ballast (i.e., program start, instant start, or rapid start) to which 

the lamp is connected. Southern California Edison did not provide data to illustrate the 

expected lifetimes of any of the residential GSFL (either base-case or standards-case) 

featured on any of the ballasts that DOE presents in the LCC analysis, nor did it provide 

data indicating the prevalence of various start cycles in the residential sector. In response to 

these comments, DOE conducted research but was unable to find data sources for the 

residential sector that specified any of this information. For this reason, DOE has chosen to 

maintain the usage of rated lamp lifetimes based on 3 hour start cycles for this final rule. 

 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
135

7. Discount Rates 

 In the April 2009 NOPR, DOE derived residential discount rates by identifying all 

possible debt or asset classes that might be used to purchase replacement products, including 

household assets that might be affected indirectly. DOE estimated the average proportions 

of the various debt and equity classes in the average U.S. household equity and debt 

portfolios using data from the Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) sources from 1989 to 

2004. DOE used the mean share of each class across the six sample years as a basis for 

estimating the effective financing rate for replacement equipment. DOE estimated interest 

or return rates associated with each type of equity and debt using SCF data and other 

sources. The mean real effective rate across the classes of household debt and equity, 

weighted by the shares of each class, was 5.6 percent for the April 2009 NOPR. 74 FR 

16920, 16957 (April 13, 2009). For this final rule, DOE updated the sources used to 

compute the discount rate in the residential sector. The analysis now features data from the 

2007 Survey of Consumer Finances and the Cost of Savings Index dataset covering 1984 to 

2008. Based on these updates, the residential sector average discount rate for the final rule 

is 4.8 percent. 

 For the commercial sector and industrial sector, DOE derived the discount rate from 

the cost of capital of publicly-traded firms in the sectors that purchase lamps, as done for the 

April 2009 NOPR 74 FR 16920, 16957 (April 13, 2009). Because DOE received no 

comments on its commercial and industrial sector discount rates and all sources used remain 

the most current sources available, for this final rule, DOE has continued to use discount 

rates of 7.0 percent and 7.6 percent for the commercial and industrial sectors, respectively. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
136

8. Residential Fluorescent Lamp Analysis 

In the April 2009 NOPR, DOE produced a residential sector GSFL life-cycle cost 

and payback period analysis based upon measure life reports that indicated an average 

residential GSFL fixture lifetime of 15 years. 74 FR 16920, 16956 (April 13, 2009). Under 

average operating hours (791 hours per year), DOE determined that a 4-foot MBP lamp 

would live approximately 19 years. In the April 2009 NOPR LCC analysis, DOE assumed 

that consumers would discard their lamps during fixture replacement, effectively ending the 

life of the lamps, thus resulting in no lamp-only replacements in the residential sector under 

average operating hours. The 2.5-year analysis period used by DOE for the residential 

GSFL lamp failure events represented DOE’s belief that under high operating hours (1,210 

hours per year), if a baseline lamp and fixture were purchased at the same time, the baseline 

lamp would fail after approximately 12.5 years and the fixture would be replaced 2.5 years 

after the lamp failure (for a total fixture life of 15 years). Thus, after a lamp failure, the 

replacement lamp would have 2.5 years in which to operate before the fixture is replaced. 

DOE’s analysis period for calculating the LCC savings for residential consumers responding 

to a lamp failure was therefore 2.5 years. 

Both Southern California Edison and the California Stakeholders commented that 

the 2.5-year analysis period utilized by DOE in the NOPR to model the residential GSFL 

lamp failure events is too short and that the energy savings should be considered over the 

full life of the replacement lamp, in other words 12.5 years. In their suggested revisions to 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
137

the LCC analysis, the stakeholders imply that upon fixture replacement, consumers will 

retain their previously-installed replacement lamp and reinstall it on a new fixture. 

According to the comments, analyzing such a scenario under high operating hours results in 

significant life-cycle cost savings for the residential lamp failure event when consumers are 

forced to retrofit their T12 systems with T8 systems. (Southern California Edison, No. 53 at 

p. 1-7; California Stakeholders, No. 63 at p. 9) 

DOE acknowledges that in the residential sector, consumers may choose to preserve 

a lamp instead of discarding it upon fixture replacement, though in its research, DOE was 

unable to determine which situation was more likely. DOE recognizes that retaining a lamp 

beyond the fixture or ballast life would extend the useful lamp life, and, thus, the analysis 

period. Modeling this scenario would take into account operating cost savings over a longer 

period of time and additional equipment costs to the consumer, who in the base case is 

replacing their T12 lamp and will need to purchase a new ballast at some point in the future. 

Therefore, for this final rule, DOE has analyzed an additional scenario in the residential 

sector LCC analysis modeling this preservation of lamp behavior. This analysis shows that 

some residential consumers with T12 systems do in fact obtain LCC savings when forced to 

retrofit their T12 ballast with a T8 system. However, DOE also notes that the results of this 

analysis are highly dependent on the remaining years of lifetime left on the T12 ballast 

when the lamp is replaced. DOE presents the LCC results for this additional scenario in 

section VII.C.1.a of this final rule as well as in chapter 8 and appendix 8B of the TSD. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
138

In contrast to Southern California Edison and the California Stakeholders who 

implied that DOE’s analysis understated the consumer economic savings to the residential 

sector of retrofitting from a T12 to T8 system, GE commented that such a retrofit presents a 

best-case estimate of a 50-year payback period, and, therefore, is not economically justified. 

(GE, No. 80 at pp. 1-3; GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38 at p. 81) 

While DOE acknowledges that the standards presented in this final rule place some 

burden on some residential T12 GSFL users, DOE believes that the LCC analysis performed 

for this final rule accurately reflects this burden. DOE notes that as discussed below, 

payback period calculations do not account for expenses incurred by consumers who 

purchase new fixtures in the middle of the analysis period. In addition, DOE notes that the 

assumptions of electricity prices, labor rates, system energy savings, and operating hours 

that GE used to produce the payback estimate in its written comment do not align with the 

inputs that DOE presented in the April 2009 NOPR and updated for this final rule. DOE 

recognizes that there may be some variability in these inputs, but believes that DOE 

estimates represent those experienced for the average consumer. In addition, DOE notes 

that it did not receive specific adverse comments on these inputs themselves. 

9. Rebuttable Payback Period Presumption 

 The payback period (PBP) is the amount of time it takes a consumer to recoup the 

assumed incremental costs of a more-efficient product through lower operating costs. In the 

April 2009 NOPR and today’s final rule, DOE used a “simple” PBP, so named because the 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
139

PBP does not take into account other changes in operating expenses over time or the time 

value of money. 74 FR 16920, 16957-58 (April 13, 2009). As inputs to the PBP analysis, 

DOE used the total installed cost of the product to the consumer for each efficacy level, as 

well as the first year annual operating costs for each efficacy level. The calculation requires 

the same inputs as the LCC, except for energy price trends and discount rates; only energy 

prices for the year the standard takes effect (2012 in this case) are needed. 

At the public meeting, Earthjustice commented that there is a presumption that an 

energy conservation standard is economically justified if the payback period of products that 

comply with the standard is less than three years. (Earthjustice, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 38.4 at pp. 186-187) Earthjustice further stated that DOE did not calculate a rebuttable 

presumption payback period for each trial standard level presented in the April 2009 NOPR 

and that DOE cannot ignore the rebuttable presumption payback period out of preference for 

the seven-factor test described in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). ACEEE similarly commented 

in writing that “[a] higher burden of proof is required to overcome the rebuttable 

presumption.” (Earthjustice, No. 60 at p. 6; ACEEE, No. 76 at p. 6) DOE is aware of the 

rebuttable presumption payback period test in 42 U.S.C 6295(o)(B)(iii), which states that 

“[i]f the Secretary finds that the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product 

complying with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three times the value 

of the energy . . . savings during the first year that the consumer will receive as a result of 

the standard, as calculated under the applicable test procedure, there shall be a rebuttable 

presumption that such standard level is economically justified.” While DOE acknowledges 

that the rebuttable presumption payback period computation can have value, DOE 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
140

emphasizes that the presumption is rebuttable, specifically because DOE is required by law 

to consider the specific criteria in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) when prescribing new 

standards, such as impacts on utility, competition, and the Nation as a whole. Thus, DOE’s 

analyses of these criteria serve to either support or rebut any initial determination that a 

standard is economically justified based on the rebuttable payback period presumption. 

There is no statutory provision that requires DOE to emphasize the rebuttable presumption 

payback period test over the specific criteria that must be considered according to 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i); thus, DOE disagrees that “[a] higher burden of proof is required to 

overcome the rebuttable presumption.” There is also no statutory requirement for DOE to 

present a single rebuttable presumption payback period for each trial standard level. DOE 

has conducted the full set of economic analyses required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(B)(i) for this 

final rule. The results of this analysis serve as the basis for DOE to definitively evaluate the 

economic justification for a potential standard level. 

The payback periods shown in chapter 8 and appendix 8B of the final rule TSD are 

“simple payback periods” computed using the same methodology that would be utilized to 

compute payback periods for a rebuttable presumption payback period test; DOE’s sevenfactor analysis serves to confirm or rebut any assumption of economic justification based on 

payback periods that are shorter than three years. DOE stresses, however, that there are 

several factors for which the LCC analysis accounts, but the payback period analysis does 

not. For example, the LCC analysis includes financing effects and utilizes energy costs that 

vary over time. In addition, DOE notes that the simple payback period values computed for 

some lamp purchase events and scenarios do not fully express the equipment costs 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
141

experienced by consumers in these scenarios. Payback period calculations take into account 

only the installed costs incurred at the very beginning of the analysis period. Thus, the 

calculation excludes the economic impacts of any additional costs (e.g., a new ballast 

purchase, recycling costs) that may be incurred in the middle or at the end of the analysis 

period. For these reasons, DOE believes that the LCC analysis and other analyses 

performed for this final rule serve as a higher-fidelity assessment of economic impacts than 

the computation of payback periods alone. In other words, the LCC results serve to support 

or rebut the results of the PBP analysis. Therefore, DOE is continuing to utilize these 

higher-fidelity analyses as a definitive evaluation of the economic impacts of the standards 

presented and chosen in this final rule. 

D. National Impact Analysis–National Energy Savings and Net Present Value Analysis 

DOE’s NIA assesses the national energy savings (NES) and the national net present 

value (NPV) of total customer costs and savings that would be expected to result from new 

standards at specific efficacy levels. 

For the final rule analysis, DOE used the same spreadsheet model (with updated 

inputs as discussed below) described and used in the NOPR to calculate the NES and NPV 

based on the annual energy consumption and total installed cost data employed in the LCC 

analysis. (74 FR 16920, 16958-71 (April 13, 2009). DOE forecasts energy savings, energy 

cost savings, equipment costs, and NPV for each product class from 2012 through 2042. 

The forecasts provide annual and cumulative values for all four output parameters. DOE 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
142

also examines impact sensitivities by analyzing various lamp shipment scenarios (such as 

Roll-up and Shift). 

To arrive at these output parameters, DOE first develops a base-case forecast for 

each analyzed lamp type. This forecast characterizes energy use and consumer costs (lamp 

purchase and operation) in the absence of new or revised energy conservation standards. To 

evaluate the impacts of such standards on these lamps, DOE compares this base-case 

projection with projections characterizing the market if DOE were to promulgate new or 

amended standards (i.e., the standards case). In characterizing the base and standards cases, 

DOE considers historical shipments, its shipment projections, emerging technologies, the 

mix of efficacies sold in the absence of any new standards, and how that mix might change 

over time. Inputs and issues associated with the NIA and any changes made in this final 

rule are discussed in more detail immediately below. 

1. Overview of NIA Changes in This Notice 

Based on the comments it received regarding the April 2009 NOPR, DOE made a 

number of changes to the NIA. Table V.5 summarizes the approach and data DOE used to 

derive the inputs to the NES and NPV analyses for the April 2009 NOPR, as well as the 

changes it made for this final rule in response to comments and updated information. As 

demonstrated by the table, DOE changed several inputs due to the availability of updated 

sources. For example, DOE updated projected electricity prices from EIA’s AEO2008

estimates to AEO2009. In addition, DOE calculated new annual marginal site-to-source 

conversion factors based on the version of the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
143

that corresponds to AEO2009. Following the table, DOE details additional inputs and 

changes, and summarizes and responds to each of the NIA-related comments it received at 

the public meeting and in written comments. See TSD chapters 10 and 11 for further 

details. 

Table V.5 Approach and Data Used to Derive the Inputs to the National Energy 

Savings and Net Present Value Analyses 

Inputs April 2009 NOPR Description Changes for the Final Rule 

Shipments Annual shipments from 

shipments model. 

See Table V.6 and Table V.7. 

Effective date of 

standard 

2012. No change. 

Analysis period 2012 to 2042. No change. 

Unit energy 

consumption 

(kWh/yr) 

Established in the energy-use 

characterization, TSD chapter 6, 

by lamp or lamp-and-ballast 

design and sector. 

Residential operating hours 

updated based on RECS 2005 

(from RECS 2001). 

Total installed cost Established in the product price 

determination, TSD chapter 7 

and the LCC analysis, chapter 8, 

by lamp-and-ballast designs. 

No change. 

Electricity price 

forecast 

Based on AEO2008 forecasts (to 

2030) and an extrapolation for 

beyond 2030. (See TSD chapter 

8.) 

Updated for AEO2009 (used 

version informed by impacts of the 

American Reinvestment and 

Recovery Act). 

Energy site-tosource conversion Conversion varies yearly and 

was generated by DOE/EIA’s 

NEMS program (a time-series 

conversion factor; includes 

electric generation, 

transmission, and distribution 

losses). 

Conversion factors for beyond 

2030 are held constant. 

 Updated for AEO2009 (used 

version informed by impacts of the 

American Reinvestment and 

Recovery Act). 

HVAC interaction 

savings 

6.25% of total energy savings in 

all sectors. 

No change. 

Rebound effect 1% of total energy savings in the 

commercial and industrial 

No change. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
144

sectors. 

8.5% of total energy savings in 

the residential sector. 

Discount rate 3% and 7% real. No change. 

Present year Future costs and savings are 

discounted to 2007. 

Future costs and savings are 

discounted to 2009. 

2. Shipments Analysis 

Lamp shipments are an important input to the NIA. In the April 2009 NOPR, DOE 

explained how it developed separate shipment models for GSFL and IRL. 74 FR 16920, 

16959-70 (April 13, 2009). In general, to forecast shipments for these two categories of 

lamps, DOE followed a four-step process. First, DOE used 2001-to-2005 historical 

shipment data from NEMA and other publicly-available sources to estimate the total 

historical shipments (i.e., NEMA member and non-NEMA member shipments) of each lamp 

type analyzed. Second, based on these historical shipments and the average service lifetime 

of each lamp type, DOE calculated the installed stock of lamps for each lamp type in 2005. 

Third, by modeling lamp purchasing events, and applying growth rate, replacement rate, and 

emerging technologies penetration rate assumptions, DOE developed annual shipment 

projections from 2006 to 2042. (NEMA had not provided publically-available data for years 

after 2005). Specifically, DOE modeled lamp (and ballast for GSFL) shipments based on 

four lamp-purchasing market events: (1) new construction; (2) ballast failure (GSFL only); 

(3) lamp replacement; and (4) standards-induced retrofit (for the standards case). DOE also 

calibrated its shipments model to reflect confidential shipment data provided by NEMA for 

2006 and 2007. Finally, because the shipments of lamp designs and lamp-and-ballast 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
145

designs (for GSFL) often depend on their properties (e.g., ballast factor and efficacy), DOE 

developed base-case and standards-case market-share matrices as another model input. The 

market-share matrices characterize the efficacy, power rating, light output, and lifetime of 

the lamp and lamp-and-ballast designs. The matrices input the percentage market share of 

each design into the shipment model. DOE used these market-share matrices to forecast 

lamp stock and shipments, taking into account each design’s respective lifetime. 

Table V.6 and Table V.7 summarize the approach and data DOE used for GSFL and 

IRL, respectively, to derive the inputs to the shipments analysis for the April 2009 NOPR, 

as well as the changes DOE made for the final rule. A discussion of comments DOE 

received on these inputs and of the changes implemented for the final rule follows. 

Table V.6 Approach and Data Used to Derive the Inputs to GSFL Shipments Analysis 

Inputs 2009 NOPR Description Changes for the Final Rule 

Historical shipments 2001-2005 shipment data 

provided publicly by NEMA 

(except for T5 lamps; see 

NOPR TSD chapter 10). 

Assumed NEMA data 

represented 90 percent of 

GSFL shipments. Calibrated 

2006-2007 forecasted 

shipments based on 

confidential historical 

shipment data NEMA 

provided for those years. 

No change. 

Lamp inventory Calculated stock in 2005. 

Then used growth, emerging 

technologies, and shipment 

assumptions to establish lamp 

inventory from 2006 to 2042. 

No change. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
146

Growth Based commercial and 

residential growth on 

AEO2008 estimates for future 

floor space growth. For the 

residential sector, modeled 

variations in number of lamps 

per new home. For the 

industrial sector, projected 

floor space growth using the 

2002 Manufacturer Energy 

Consumption Survey (MECS 

2002). 

Updated commercial and 

residential growth for AEO2009

(used version informed by impacts 

of the American Reinvestment and 

Recovery Act). 

Base-case scenarios Developed two base-case 

scenarios, one of which 

modeled the market 

penetration of LEDs based on 

projected payback period. 

Updated LED prices and 

performance projections for 

DOE’s Solid State Lighting 

Research and Development MultiYear Program Plan FY’09-FY’15. 

Market-share 

matrices 

Developed product 

distributions based on 

comments, interviews, and 

catalog research. Matrices 

apportion a share of shipments 

for each lamp-and-ballast 

design option. 

Revised product distributions 

based on comments, NEMA 

survey data and further research. 

Standards-case 

scenarios 

Considered two sets of 

scenarios to characterize 

consumer behavior in response 

to standards: the Shift and 

Roll-up scenarios and the 

High and Market SegmentBased Lighting Expertise 

scenarios. 

No change. 

 

Table V.7 Approach and Data Used to Derive the Inputs to IRL Shipments Analysis 

Inputs 2009 NOPR Description Changes for the Final Rule 

Historical 

shipments 

2001-2005 shipment data 

provided publicly by NEMA. 

Assumed NEMA data 

represented 85 percent of IRL 

shipments. Calibrated 2006-

2007 projected shipments based 

Received additional historical 

shipments (2004-2008) from 

NEMA with which DOE verified 

growth, projected shipments, and 

emerging technologies 

assumptions. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
147

on confidential historical 

shipment data NEMA provided 

for those years. 

Lamp inventory Calculated stock in 2005 based 

on average lifetime and 

historical shipments. Then used 

growth, replacement rate, and 

emerging technologies 

assumptions to establish lamp 

inventory from 2006 to 2042. 

No change. 

Growth Shipment growth driven by 

socket growth. Socket growth 

based on AEO2008 estimates 

for future commercial floor 

space and residential buildings. 

Also accounted for trend of 

increasing sockets per home. 

Updated for AEO2009 (used 

version informed by impacts of 

the American Reinvestment and 

Recovery Act). 

Base-case R-CFL 

and emerging 

technologies 

Developed two base-case 

scenarios modeling the market 

penetration of light emitting 

diodes (LEDs), ceramic metal 

halides (CMH), and reflector 

compact fluorescent lamps (RCFL) based on projected 

payback period. 

Updated LED prices and 

performance projections for 

DOE’s Solid State Lighting 

Research and Development 

Multi-Year Program Plan FY’09-

FY’15. 

Market-share 

matrices 

Considered mix of technologies 

consumers select in the base 

case and standards case, as well 

as each of the scenarios 

analyzed. 

No change. 

Standards-case 

scenarios 

Modeled both Roll-up and Shift 

scenarios. 

Revised BR lamp sensitivity 

scenario, creating two new 

standards-case scenarios also 

accounting for additional 

migration to R-CFL: “Product 

Substitution” and “No Product 

Substitution.” 

Modeled migration to only 

exempted BR lamps in the new 

“BR Product Substitution” 

scenario, which replaced the “No 

Product Substitution” scenario. 

Modeled migration to only RCFL in the new “R-CFL Product 

Substitution,” which replaced the 

“Product Substitution” scenario. 

Added the “Baseline Lifetime” 

scenarios modeling sale of lamps 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
148

with lifetimes similar to the 

baseline lamps in the standards 

case. (See section VI.C) 

3. Macroeconomic Effects on Growth 

In the April 2009 NOPR, as part of its shipments forecasts, DOE established 

commercial floor space and residential buildings growth based on AEO2008. Because 

AEO2008 does not provide industrial floor space forecasts, DOE used historical MECS 

floor space values to establish a growth rate for the industrial sector. 74 FR 16920, 16961 

(April 13, 2009). OSI stated that growth will be subject to economic shocks over time, and 

pointed to the current decline in the commercial market as evidence to that fact. (OSI, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. 213-214) Southern California Edison commented 

that DOE should look at past economic dislocations to better forecast lamp shipments 

through 2042. (Southern California Edison, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. 214) 

The California Stakeholders urged DOE not to change its NIA assumptions with respect to 

the recent macroeconomic downturn reasoning that such a modification would add no value 

to DOE’s analysis because no one can accurately predict the timing and extent of an 

economic recovery. An attempt by DOE to do so would unduly burden its efforts to publish 

a final rule by the deadline. (California Stakeholders, No. 63 at p. 8) 

While DOE agrees that future shipments will be subject to general economic shocks 

over time, DOE believes there is no practical way of projecting the timing of those shocks 

throughout the analysis period. DOE’s projections (of sockets and thus shipment growth) 

incorporate AEO2009’s assumption of average gross domestic product (GDP) growth of 2.5 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
149

percent annually. That is consistent with historical growth, which has averaged 2.85 percent 

annually over the last 30 years, covering both recessionary and expansionary cycles.30 

Because of this consistency with historical trends and the incorporation of future economic 

growth considerations, DOE believes its approach of using AEO’s projections is superior to 

extrapolating from specific historical economic events. 

4. Reflector Market Growth 

To establish IRL shipment forecasts in the April 2009 NOPR, DOE first modeled the 

projected growth in the total reflector lamp market. To do this, DOE utilized the year-toyear commercial floor space and residential building growth projections in AEO2008. DOE 

also accounted for a trend toward more fixtures in new and renovated homes. To do this, 

DOE obtained historical California data31 on recessed cans per home, categorized by home 

age. Using this data, DOE estimated the average number of recessed cans per home to grow 

from 4.82 in 2005 to 8.52 in 2042. To estimate the growth rate in each year, DOE 

multiplied this growth in the number of recessed cans in homes by the projected stock of 

homes according to AEO2008. Combining these two sources, DOE predicted an average 

growth rate of sockets of 2.6 percent between 2006 and 2042. 74 FR 16920, 16961 (April 

13, 2009). 

 

30 National Economic Accounts, Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce (Last accessed 

on Feb. 28, 2009). Available at: http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/Index.asp. 31 RLW Analytics, Inc., “California Statewide Residential Lighting and Appliance Efficiency Saturation 

Survey” (August 2005)(Last accessed on Sept. 29, 2008). Available at: 

www.calresest.com/docs/2005CLASSREPORT.pdf. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
150

In response to DOE’s shipment forecasts, NEMA commented that DOE’s stated 

average annual growth rate of 2.6 percent for IRL was not realistic. NEMA also provided 

additional historical IRL shipment data from 2004 to 2008 that show shipments of PAR38 

lamps decreasing approximately 8 percent per year and shipments of PAR30 and PAR20 

lamps only marginally increasing. (NEMA, No. 81 at p. 14-15) In response, DOE notes 

that the 2.6 percent growth rate in sockets presented in the April 2009 NOPR does not 

represent growth in overall IRL shipments. DOE used that growth in sockets and then 

applied varying penetrations of non-IRL technologies into those sockets to determine IRL 

shipment forecasts, as discussed in section V.D.5. In fact, after accounting for these nonIRL technologies, DOE’s resulting 2004 to 2008 IRL shipments decline at a rate consistent 

with NEMA’s historical shipments. 

At the NOPR public meeting, EEI commented that data from RECS show that 

California homes historically have been smaller than the national average. Therefore, using 

the California study as a proxy for the nation as a whole may not be appropriate. 

Additionally, in recent years, EEI stated that new U.S. homes have stopped growing in 

terms of average floor space. EEI suggested that DOE research other State studies and 

regional studies from the National Association of Home Builders to obtain more values for 

growth rates of lighting fixtures. Philips agreed and stated a preference for much more 

pessimistic IRL growth projections than those used by DOE, due to the economic 

slowdown, houses getting smaller, and the penetration of CFLs and other emerging 

technologies. (EEI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at p.196; Philips, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 38.4 at p.197; EEI, No. 38.4 at pp. 3,4) 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
151

In response, DOE agrees that RECS data shows that the average home in California 

is smaller than the average home in the U.S. However, that fact does not mean DOE’s 

extrapolation of the California trend (showing increasing number of light sources per home) 

to the nation is inappropriate. As discussed above and in TSD chapter 10, DOE used the 

growth rate of sockets per California home as an input into its national shipment projections, 

not the absolute number of sockets per home. It is the growth in the size of California 

homes relative to the growth of all U.S. homes that is important to the analysis, not the 

absolute size of the homes. Therefore, as long as the floor space growth rate of new homes 

in California is consistent with rest of the country, the trend toward more sockets in 

California is applicable in this instance to the country as a whole. To that point, Census data 

from 1973 to 2008 show that average floor space of new homes in the West has grown at 

roughly the same rate as in the nation overall—1.11 percent versus 1.20 percent. Therefore, 

DOE believes the application of the California data to the rest of the country is appropriate 

in this instance and has not changed its methodology for the final rule. 

With regard to the comment that homes are no longer growing in size, DOE’s 

analysis of census housing data shows positive annual single-family home floor space 

growth in each year from 1994 to 2007. In 2008, the overall U.S. average did indeed 

decline by 0.5 percent. However, while year-to-year average growth has varied over 35 

years, the long-term trend is clearly upward—as mentioned above, the average floor space 

of new homes has grown at a compounded annual rate of 1.2 percent since 1973. AEO2009

projections for average residential square footage, which incorporate macroeconomic 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
152

effects, also predict a long-term trend of positive floor space growth. Therefore, DOE 

believes projecting continued growth in the number of sockets per home is appropriate and 

has not changed its methodology for the final rule. This enables DOE to continue to use 

AEO forecasts, which capture macroeconomic conditions--as many comments have urged 

DOE to do--in its socket and shipment growth projections. With regard to the comment 

suggesting DOE obtain more regional housing data, DOE notes that AEO2009 projections 

for residential housing stock growth are based off Census data on the nine Census Divisions. 

AEO projects housing stocks separately for each Census Division. Given the purposes of 

this analysis and the nationwide applicability of standards, DOE believes this methodology 

incorporates a sufficient level of geographic granularity. 

5. Penetration of R-CFLs and Emerging Technologies 

As discussed in more detail in the April 2009 NOPR (74 FR 16920, 16962-63 (April 

13, 2009)) DOE developed and analyzed two base-case shipment scenarios for IRL that 

estimated varying penetrations of non-IRL technologies into the reflector market. For the 

Existing Technologies scenario, DOE only considered the market penetration of 

technologies that are currently readily available and have reached maturation in terms of 

price and efficacy, namely R-CFL. In the Emerging Technologies scenario, DOE attempted 

to forecast the market penetration of mature technologies and those technologies that are 

still undergoing significant changes in price and efficacy. Specifically, DOE considered the 

market penetration of R-CFL, LED lamps, and CMH lamps in the Emerging Technologies 

scenario. Because the lamps employing emerging technologies are beyond the scope of the 

rulemaking, DOE did not consider them design options for improving IRL or GSFL 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
153

efficacy. Instead, DOE considered these technologies potential substitutes for the lamps 

covered in this rulemaking. DOE assumed that the price of emerging technologies relative 

to covered technologies is related to the likelihood that a consumer will buy an emerging 

technology instead of a covered lamp. 

DOE developed price, performance, and efficacy forecasts for each of the analyzed 

R-CFL and emerging technologies. For the LED forecasts, DOE used data from its Solid 

State Lighting Multi-Year Program Plan. (For this final rule, DOE updated its LED 

forecasts for DOE’s latest Multi-Year Program Plan.32) With these inputs, DOE calculated 

the payback period (PBP) of each technology in the relevant sector using the difference 

between its purchase price, annual electricity cost, and annual lamp replacement cost 

relative to the lamp it replaces. (See TSD chapter 10 for further details.) DOE then used a 

relationship between PBP and market penetration to predict the market penetration of each 

technology in the relevant sector in every year from 2006 to 2042. DOE received several 

comments on how it estimated R-CFL and emerging technologies penetrations into the IRL 

market, as discussed below. 

At the public meeting, EEI commented that dimmable CFLs could dramatically 

impact IRL growth if the dimmable technology improves. (EEI, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 38.4 at p. 202) In contrast, ADLT commented that DOE overestimated the penetration 

of R-CFLs in the commercial market in its April 2009 NOPR analysis. ADLT stated that 

 

32 Multi-Year Program Plan FY’09 to FY’15: Solid-State Lighting Research and Development (March 2009). 

Available at: http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/ssl_mypp2009_web.pdf. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
154

many commercial lighting applications require directional lighting for which R-CFLs are 

ineffective. (ADLT, No. 72 at p. 5) 

In response to EEI’s comment, DOE agrees that enhanced utility features of various 

emerging technologies may change the rate at which they are adopted. DOE also 

acknowledges that there is considerable uncertainty in predicting the penetration of non-IRL 

technologies into the IRL market. It is for this very reason that DOE models two base-case 

scenarios that encompasses a large range of potential penetrations. DOE believes that its 

Emerging Technologies forecast adequately captures the effects of any increased penetration 

of R-CFLs through advances in dimming technology. As discussed in TSD chapter 10, 

based on payback period calculations, in the Emerging Technologies forecast, DOE predicts 

that R-CFLs will have a significant impact on IRL shipments only in the first few years of 

the analysis period. Thereafter, LEDs, which have dimming capability (and thus can 

provide the utility at issue in the comment), become more cost-effective and dominate the 

emerging technologies forecast, despite any potential future improvement in R-CFL 

dimming capabilities. 

 With regard to ADLT’s comment, DOE recognizes that there are several qualities of 

R-CFLs (such as form factor, beam spread, color quality, directionality, and dimming 

capability) which may result in consumers’ unwillingness to purchase them for IRL 

applications. DOE has attempted account for these factors by reducing the penetration of RCFLs by approximately 40 percent relative to the penetrations predicted by the payback 

period-penetration calculations. However, considering the significant uncertainty regarding 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
155

these penetrations, DOE verified its R-CFL penetration by comparing its modeled shipments 

from 2005 to 2008 to NEMA’s historical shipments. As discussed earlier, DOE found that 

during this time period, the rate of decline in historical IRL shipments (which is primarily 

due to R-CFL penetration) is consistent with DOE’s modeled shipments. For this reason, 

DOE does not feel it necessary or that there is an analytical basis and data to modify its RCFL penetration estimates. 

 Pertaining to the Emerging Technology forecasts, NEMA commented that the April 

2009 NOPR analysis incorrectly projected IRL shipments to increase after reaching a 

minimum level. NEMA asserted that DOE should remodel its expected energy savings with 

a continued decline in IRL shipments after 2024. (NEMA, No. 81, p. 15) DOE believes that 

its IRL forecasts are reasonable. As emerging technologies continue to improve and their 

prices continue to decrease, DOE agrees that IRL shipments will further decline as market 

share shifts from IRL to LED. However, as these emerging technologies reach maturation, 

DOE believes that their relative market share will stabilize, consistent with their mature cost 

and performance features. Thus, as the total number of reflector lamp sockets continues to 

increase (due to new construction), it is reasonable to predict that IRL shipments will 

experience a moderate increase as well. However, as DOE acknowledges that there is 

considerable uncertainty regarding its forecasts, DOE performed a sensitivity analysis for 

the Emerging Technologies scenario in which IRL shipments continue to decline until 

emerging technologies reach a maximum market penetration, which is upheld for the rest of 

the analysis period. This sensitivity analysis results in approximately a 6 percent decrease 

in energy savings over the analysis period. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
156

6. Building Codes 

In response to the April 2009 NOPR, GE commented that increasingly-stringent 

building codes will most likely be phased in over time, causing IRL growth to slow and 

decline. (GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at pp. 205-206) EEI also stated that the 

most recent model building codes would have an effect on lighting technologies and 

efficiencies. EEI added that the 2009 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) for 

residential construction calls for 50 percent of lighting to be high-efficiency. Once DOE 

certifies the IECC, EEI stated, States have one year to update their codes to meet or exceed 

the IECC 2009, which will alter the growth of IRL. (EEI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

38.4, pp. 206-207, 315; EEI, No. 45 at pp. 5-6) 

In response, to evaluate the effects of more-stringent building codes being phased in 

over the analysis period, DOE identified and evaluated three of the most influential building 

codes across the country. These included: (1) California’s Title 2433, which is mandatory in 

the State; (2) the latest International Energy Conservation Code (IECC 2009), which is a 

model energy code and which some States voluntarily incorporate by reference into their 

building codes, and (3) ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1—2004. Each code has sections 

that pertain to residential and commercial lighting. For example, IECC 2009 requires that 

 

33 California Energy Commission, “Residential Compliance Manual For California’s Energy Efficiency 

Standards,” Chapter 6 (April 2005) (Last accessed: June 18, 2009). Available at: 

http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005publications/CEC-400-2005-005/chapters_4q/6_Lighting.pdf. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
157

high-efficacy light bulbs be installed in at least 50 percent of permanent lighting fixtures in 

new residential homes. “High-efficacy” is defined as: 

“A lighting fixture that does not contain a medium screw base socket (E24/E26) and 

whose lamps have a minimum efficacy of: 

1. 60 lumens per watt for lamps over 40 watts, 

2. 50 lumens per watt for lamps over 15 watts to 40 watts, 

3. 40 lumens per watt for lamps 15 watts or less.”34

 

The California Building Standards Code (Title 24) requires that all luminaires that 

are permanently installed via new construction, alterations, or additions (including 

replacements) be high-efficacy. Title 24’s definition of “high-efficacy” is very similar to 

that in IECC 2009. 

DOE also researched ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1—2004, a commonlyreferenced code for commercial buildings. Although it rarely references lumen-per-watt 

metrics directly, the code does impose lighting power density requirements and requires 

controls for many building types and sizes, while providing various allowances and 

exemptions for many applications. 

 

34 International Code Council, “International Energy Conservation Code: Excerpt From the 2007 Supplement” 

(July 2007) (Last accessed: June 18, 2009). Available at:: http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/codes/2007-

08cycle/2007Supplement/IECC07S.pdf. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
158

When evaluating how such codes will affect lamp shipments, it is important to note 

that DOE does not have the authority to mandate that States enact residential building codes, 

as EEI suggested (although for commercial codes DOE can require the adoption of a certain 

code it determines will improve the energy efficiency of the nation’s commercial building 

stock). (42 U.S.C.6833(b)(2)(A)) To clarify, EPCA requires DOE to determine whether 

updates to IECC’s residential energy efficiency code will improve the energy efficiency of 

the nation’s residential housing stock. When DOE makes such a positive determination, 

States are required to review (but not necessarily adopt) the energy provisions of the code 

and to determine whether it would be appropriate to revise residential building codes to 

meet or exceed the model code on which DOE made a positive determination. (42 

U.S.C.6833(b)(1)). States must complete their review within two years of DOE’s positive 

determination. Given a variety of policy considerations and the absence of a direct mandate 

under EPCA that States adopt such building codes, currently, the stringency of residential 

codes adopted varies widely throughout the country.35 The most recent and stringent codes 

are not necessarily adopted by States. Furthermore, in some States, local governments have 

authority over their building codes (known as “Home Rule”), making it even more likely 

that the stringency of building codes will vary widely throughout the country. For these 

reasons, DOE does not believe that it should explicitly assume that new, more stringent 

codes will necessarily be adopted, implemented, and enforced. Furthermore, building codes 

are informed by product capabilities, IESNA recommended light levels, and lamp and 

ballast efficiencies, rather than vice versa. With that said, however, while not a driver of 

 

35 See: http://www.energycodes.gov/implement/state_codes/index.stm. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
159

development of more efficient technology, DOE agrees that increasingly-stringent 

residential building codes are likely to contribute to a greater share of shipments being 

higher-efficacy lamps by the end of the analysis period as compared to the start of the 

period. Consistent with this trend, DOE’s market share matrices show migration to higherefficacy lamps in the base case, which allow for the effects of more–energy-efficient 

building codes, although DOE did not directly analyze those effects. See chapter 10 of the 

TSD for the full market-share matrices in 2012 and 2042. 

7. GSFL Shipments Growth 

NEMA also commented on several aspects of the GSFL shipment forecasts. NEMA 

commented that DOE should forecast shipments that account for a migration to GSFL with 

longer lifetimes. NEMA argued that this phenomenon, currently occurring through both the 

increased shipments of T8 lamps relative to T12 lamps and through a movement from shortlife T8 lamps to long-life T8 lamps, will result in a decline of overall GSFL shipments. 

NEMA stated that such an effect would materially affect DOE’s economic justification of 

GSFL standard levels. (NEMA, No. 81 at p. 14) In response to NEMA’s concern, DOE 

agrees that it is important to account for the economic effects of consumers purchasing 

longer-life GSFL and has done so. In its NOPR analyses and in chapter 11 of the TSD, 

DOE has fully accounted for this migration toward longer-life lamps in its calculations of 

consumer equipment costs and industry revenues, which are inputs into its calculations of 

NPV and INPV. According to the NIA model, the average commercial sector 4-foot MPB 

T8 shipped in 2012 has a lifetime of approximately 6 years; in 2042, the average lifetime is 

approximately 7 years. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
160

NEMA also commented that DOE overlooked the trend toward more lighting 

controls and occupancy sensors in the commercial sector and, therefore, did not account for 

this effect in slowing shipment growth and reducing potential energy savings. NEMA 

asserted that this highlights the flaw in the current rulemaking approach (e.g., considering 

lamps instead of lighting systems). (NEMA, No. 81 at p. 14) 

In response, DOE researched the issue of lighting controls and how their deployment 

may affect the potential energy savings from more-efficient lamps. DOE agrees that 

lighting controls are penetrating the commercial buildings sector and as these technologies 

advance, building managers seek to control costs, and more recent commercial building 

energy codes are adopted. DOE’s research suggested this trend is almost entirely in the new 

construction and major renovation market segments. A 2003 study suggested such controls 

are already common to roughly 60 percent of newly-constructed commercial square 

footage.36 DOE has determined that the impacts of lighting controls are captured by the 

operating-hours data derived from CBECS and employed in DOE’s analysis. However, as 

NEMA pointed out, given the additional time for the continued market penetration of these 

controls throughout the analysis period and the fact that buildings larger than 5,000 square 

feet require automatic shutoff controls to be in compliance with the most recent versions of 

the most referenced energy codes,37 higher penetration rates are possible in the future. 

 

36 DiLouie, Craig, “Lighting Controls: Current Use, Major Trends and Future Direction,” Lighting Controls 

Association (2003). 

37 See, for example, http://resourcecenter.pnl.gov/cocoon/morf/ResourceCenter/article/1566. (Last accessed 

June 16, 2009). 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
161

Therefore, to evaluate the potential increased penetration of lighting controls, DOE 

conducted a sensitivity analysis in which it estimated that all new commercial building floor 

space after 2012 featured automated lighting controls, such as occupancy sensors and 

scheduling systems. 

Next, DOE estimated the reduced operating hours due to these lighting controls 

based on industry references. A Lighting Research Center study on savings potential from 

occupancy sensors found a range of 17 percent to 60 percent, depending on the application 

and tenant behavior. 38 This finding was in line with other industry estimates. For its 

analysis, DOE assumed the midpoint of these findings (38.5 percent) as the energy savings 

achieved by new commercial buildings employing lighting controls. DOE then reduced 

commercial operating hours by the product of the energy savings, increase in commercial 

square footage with lighting controls, and the average proportion of the lighting market 

serving newly-constructed commercial buildings over the analysis period. Based on these 

inputs, DOE calculated approximately a 0.5 percent decline in national energy savings and 

an average reduction in shipments of 0.5 percent over the analysis period. Although this 

reflects a relatively small impact, DOE considered this information in weighing the 

economic justification of the final rule. See TSD chapter 11 for more details on the lighting 

controls sensitivity analysis. 

 

38 VonNeida, Bill; Maniccia, Dorene; Tweed, Alan, An Analysis of the Energy and Cost Savings Potential of 

Occupancy Sensors for Commercial Lighting Systems, Lighting Research Center and Environmental 

Protection Agency (August 2000).

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
162

8. Residential Installed GSFL Stock 

In the April 2009 NOPR, DOE allotted a portion of the 4-foot MBP installed stock in 

2012 to the residential sector. To model this, DOE chose the representative system as a 

40W T12, 4-foot MBP lamp on a magnetic low-ballast-factor ballast. 74 FR 16920, 16942-

16943 (April 13, 2009). DOE received comments on its residential sector analysis for the 

GSFL NIA. These comments are discussed below. 

NEMA stated that DOE’s analysis overlooked the fact that a small portion of the 

residential installed base is already composed of T8 lamps, thereby resulting in an 

overstatement of energy savings. NEMA stated that fixture manufacturers have begun to 

sell more T8 fixtures for the residential sector and that one luminaire manufacturer reported 

sales in the sector are currently split evenly between T8 and T12 fixtures. (NEMA, No. 81 at 

p. 8) 

DOE acknowledges that in there is some present migration to T8 lamps in the residential 

sector. However, DOE also believes that the vast majority of the installed GSFL stock in 

the residential sector is T12 lamps. This view was communicated in public meetings, 

comments, and manufacturer interviews, as noted in the April 2009 NOPR. 74 FR 16920, 

16942 (April 13, 2009). For example, in earlier comments, NEMA stated that the 

residential sector is projected to use more than 75 percent of all 4-foot medium bipin T12 

lamps sold by 2012 and this level would be expected to persist, given that the 2000 Ballast 

Rule allows continued use of the most common residential magnetic ballast. (NEMA, No. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
163

21, at p. 20; OSI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at p. 276) DOE’s estimates are roughly 

in line with this estimate. Furthermore, DOE’s approach is consistent with a 2008 PG&E 

study that assumed, based on discussions with fixture manufacturers and distributors, all 

current residential fixtures were T12 systems.39 Based on these comments, interviews, and 

its own research, DOE chose to analyze the 4-foot medium bipin T12 lamp as the 

representative system in the residential sector. Taken together, PG&E’s study and the 

public comments DOE received do not compel a change in this approach. However, DOE 

does assume and account for rapid migration to T8 lamps in the residential sector in the base 

case, reflecting the trend noted by NEMA. For example, in the base case, DOE assumes the 

stock of 4-foot medium bipin T8 lamps in the residential sector will grow more than 10-fold 

in the first decade after the effective date, or roughly at a 28-percent compounded annual 

growth rate. Therefore, DOE has retained its methodology in this respect. 

EEI commented that 34W T12 lamps are being sold now in hardware stores for the 

residential market, and, therefore, DOE should not assume that the entire residential market 

is composed of 40W T12 lamps. Southern California Edison commented that only about 25 

percent of T12 lamps are 40W (DOE’s baseline lamp) in California. On the other hand, GE 

commented that the overwhelming majority of GSFL in the residential market are 40W 

lamps. (EEI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. 222; Southern California Edison, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at pp. 188-189; GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

38.4 at p. 189) 

 

39 ‘‘Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) Initiative for PY2008: Title 20 Standards Development,’’ Analysis of Standards Options for Linear 

Fluorescent Fixtures (Prepared for PG&E by ACEEE, Lighting Wizards, and Energy Solutions). (Last modified May 14, 2008)

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
164

DOE acknowledges that some 34W T12 lamps may be sold to residential consumers. 

Therefore, DOE has revised its residential 4-foot T12 market-share matrix to reflect this 

effect. In addition, DOE revised its 4-foot T12 market-share matrices in both the 

commercial and residential markets to better reflect confidential manufacturer survey data, 

as it relates to triphosphor and halophosphor shipment categories. As a result of these two 

changes, DOE now assumes that in the 2012 base case, 8 percent of 4-foot T12 lamp 

shipments in the residential sector are 34W, and 92 percent are 40W (down from 100 

percent in the April 2009 NOPR). Overall, for this final rule, DOE allocated 90 percent (up 

from 67 percent) of the commercial 4-foot T12 market to 34W lamps and 10 percent to 

40W. 

9. GSFL Lighting Expertise Scenarios 

In the April 2009 NOPR, DOE considered two sets of standards-case scenarios for 

GSFL shipments: (1) Roll-up and Shift scenarios; (2) High and Market Segment-Based 

Lighting Expertise scenarios. 74 FR 16920, 16967-16968 (April 13, 2009). The Roll-up and 

Shift scenarios address the issue of whether consumers who currently purchase lamps with 

efficacies that exceed (not just meet) the minimum standard would be likely to shift to even 

higher efficacy lamps in the face of amended standards. These scenarios and the comments 

DOE received on them are described below. For further details on the scenarios DOE 

analyzed and developed, see TSD chapter 10. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
165

For the April 2009 NOPR, DOE modeled the Lighting Expertise scenarios that 

analyzed the lamp and ballast purchase decisions consumers are likely to make when 

required to purchase higher-efficacy lamps. DOE analyzed these scenarios because how 

consumers respond to this situation could substantially affect the potential energy savings 

and NPV that will result from amended standards. For example, to maintain lumen output 

with a new higher-efficacy lamp, some consumers may select a reduced-wattage lamp to 

replace a less-efficacious predecessor. Others may simply replace the lamp with one of the 

same wattage, not make any other adjustments, and accept higher light output. For GSFL, 

which operate on ballasts, consumers may also choose to run the higher-efficacy lamps on 

lower–ballast-factor ballasts. To the extent that lower ballast factors (BF) can achieve the 

appropriate lumen output, DOE incorporated them into the technology choices facing 

consumers. 

The Lighting Expertise scenarios estimate the extent to which consumers in the 

standards case may migrate to energy-saving, reduced-wattage lamps, or, when reducedwattage lamps are not available or feasible, pair the new lamps with a lower-BF ballast (i.e., 

ballast factor “tuning”). With the results of this analysis, DOE developed two standardscase scenarios called the “High” and “Market Segment-Based” Lighting Expertise scenarios. 

This set of scenarios characterizes the likelihood consumers will maintain equivalent light 

output upon the purchase of a new higher-efficacy lamp or accept higher lighting levels. In 

the High Expertise scenario, consumers who can maintain lumen levels, do so. Conversely, 

in the Market Segment-Based scenario, DOE assumes only a percentage of consumers will 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
166

have the expertise, based primarily on their market segment and purchase event, to make 

this energy savings decision. 

In general, NEMA supported the modeling of the Market Segment-Based Lighting 

Expertise scenario as the more realistic outcome of amended energy conservation standards. 

NEMA stated that despite an increase in efficacy, triphosphor lamps (particularly those at 

TSL4 and TSL5) will not save consumers any energy, because the lamps will be the same 

wattage as those they replace (with consumers simply realizing higher lighting levels). 

(Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at pp. 253-254; GE, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 38.4 at pp. 256-7; NEMA, No. 81 at p. 19) NEMA also commented that 

original equipment manufacturer (OEM) sales data indicates that roughly 90 percent of 

OEM luminaires (used in the fixture replacement, renovation, and new construction 

markets), are shipped with ballasts with a normal ballast factor. Therefore, NEMA 

commented, DOE’s estimate of consumers with high expertise for new construction and 

renovation in the commercial sector (69 percent and 78 percent, respectively) are likely 

overstated and should probably be closer to what it estimates for the fixture replacement (34 

percent) market. (OSI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4. at pp. 233-235, NEMA, No. 

81, pp. 15-16) 

In response to the comments it received, DOE conducted further research and 

interviews on this issue. Specifically, DOE reevaluated its assumptions based on 

confidential sales channel data on instant-start electronic T8 ballast sales that DOE received. 

The data were categorized by ballast type (standard or high-efficiency), ballast factor, and 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
167

sales channel. OEM sales, which represent ballasts generally sold to fixture manufacturers, 

best match the fixture replacement, renovation, and new construction purchase events in 

DOE’s analysis. 

While the OEM sales data suggest, as NEMA noted, that most ballasts shipped for 

new fixtures have normal ballast factors, DOE does not believe such a distribution will 

necessarily characterize the lamp/ballast market in the standards case for the following 

reasons. First, the current distribution of ballast factors cannot be assumed to be predictive 

of the standards-case distribution. As more efficient lamps are introduced, a key variable—

lumen output—in the utility of fixtures will have changed, all other things being equal. If, 

in the standards case, fixture OEMs were agnostic to ballast factor and continued to 

purchase the same distribution of high, normal, and low ballast factors, they would be 

altering and perhaps jeopardizing this utility the consumer derives from their product. 

Because fixtures are often designed and marketed for a typical lumen output, DOE does not 

believe it is likely that OEMs would be disinterested in the light output of their product in 

the standards case. This is reinforced by the emphasis on the cost of ownership estimates 

provided by fixture manufacturers in their specifications sheets and marketing materials. 

Given higher-efficacy lamps, DOE believes fixture manufacturers will continue to market 

energy savings as before, which will require pairing reduced-wattage lamps (if sold with the 

fixture) or low BF ballasts with their fixtures. 

Next, discussions with fixture manufacturers and DOE’s product research indicate 

fixture manufacturers have the flexibility to meet the demand of their end-users. There are 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
168

no inherent substitutability issues that would pose obstacles in migrating from normal 

ballast factor to a low ballast factor. In interviews, fixture manufacturers communicated 

their desire and that of their customers to “match” lumens— i.e., not over-light or underlight relative to the system being replaced. For example, one fixture manufacturers noted 

that it was common for them to replace three-lamp fixtures with two-lamp fixtures. 

Manufacturers stated during the public meeting that the commercial sector is mostly 

characterized by a high level of lighting sophistication. (Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 38.4 at pp. 239-240) For all of these reasons, DOE believes that fixture OEMs would 

be likely to consider lower BF ballasts, if more-efficacious lamps were required due to 

standards. Therefore, DOE decided not to change its lighting expertise assumptions for this 

final rule and continues to use the results of its analysis to characterize the Market-SegmentBased Lighting Expertise scenario. However, whereas DOE believes it has modeled market 

behavior which is consistent with the available research, DOE acknowledges the uncertainty 

in these estimates, and, therefore, modeled a sensitivity scenario in which it assumed that 34 

percent (as recommended by NEMA) of consumers in the new construction and renovation 

markets migrate to lower-ballast-factor ballasts or low-wattage lamps. Generally, this 

sensitivity scenario reduces energy savings and NPV by approximately 20 percent and 25 

percent, respectively (depending on the TSL and scenario). NPV and NES remain highly 

positive. See TSD chapter 11 for results of this sensitivity analysis. 

In the April 2009 NOPR, DOE characterized residential consumers as having low 

lighting expertise in the Market-Segment-Based Lighting Expertise scenario and assumed 0 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
169

percent of these consumers would migrate to lower-BF ballasts or lower-wattage lamps in 

this standards-case scenario. 74 FR 16920, 16968 (April 13, 2009). ASAP commented that 

the residential consumer’s expertise, or lack thereof, is not as relevant as what is on the store 

shelf and what is on sale. Therefore, ASAP argued, 0 percent choosing a lower BF ballast 

or reduced wattage is likely not accurate for fixture replacement in the residential sector. 

(ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at pp. 236-237) 

DOE reiterates that how consumers behave in this respect is highly uncertain. What 

is on sale in the store clearly has an effect, but to assert that it is the only determinate would 

be to disregard the impact of consumer choice. Additionally, what is on sale depends 

largely on the expertise of the agent deciding what the store should stock, and how 

responsive this agent is to consumer demand. As discussed in the April 2009 NOPR, 

because of the uncertainty around this issue DOE decided to consider both the High and 

Market Segment-Based Lighting Expertise scenarios. 74 FR 16920, 16967-68 (April 13, 

2009). With these scenarios, DOE attempts to capture this range of potential impacts, with 

the Market Segment-Based scenario characterizing the lower bound. DOE decided for this 

final rule to continue to assume, in the Market Segment-Based lighting expertise scenario, 

that 0 percent of residential fixture replacement purchases will pair lower ballast factors 

with higher-efficacy lamps, or purchase reduced-wattage lamps. In contrast, the High 

Lighting Expertise scenario is meant to represent the upper bound of impacts and assumes 

that 100 percent of residential decision-makers have high lighting expertise. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
170

10. IRL Product Substitution Scenarios 

In the April 2009 NOPR, DOE modeled two sets of standards-case scenarios for 

IRL: Shift/Roll-up and Product Substitution/No Product Substitution. 74 FR 16920, 16969-

70 (April 13, 2009). Similar to GSFL, the Shift/Roll-up scenarios consider whether 

consumers purchasing lamps with efficacies that exceed (not just meet) the minimum 

standard would be likely to shift to even higher efficacy lamps in the face of amended 

standards. In the Product Substitution scenario, DOE assumed consumers purchasing 

covered IRL in the base case do not necessarily continue to purchase regulated IRL in the 

standards case. Accordingly, DOE modeled a shift to both exempted BR lamps (namely the 

65W BR30 lamp) and to R-CFL in the standards case. In the “No Production Substitution” 

scenario, DOE assumed consumers who purchase covered IRL technology in the base case 

continue to purchase covered IRL technology in the standards case (i.e., the total number of 

installed covered IRL in the base case is the same as that in the standards case throughout 

the analysis period). In this scenario, DOE did not model any additional shift in the 

standards case to non-regulated reflector technologies. For more information about the IRL 

standards-case scenarios, see chapter 10 of the NOPR TSD. 

DOE received several comments on the merits of modeling the Product Substitution 

and No Product Substitution scenarios. ASAP and the Alliance to Save Energy commented 

that DOE should model migration to R-CFL and migration to exempt BR lamps separately 

in order to better determine the effects of standards. ASAP suggested that DOE’s decision 

to simultaneously model R-CFL and BR lamps obscured standards-case impacts because it 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
171

combined two offsetting effects—migration to BR lamps, which would decrease energy 

savings, and migration to R-CFL, which would increase energy savings. (ASAP, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4. at p. 241; Alliance to Save Energy, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No 38.4. at pp. 243-244). ACEEE and ADLT commented that because DOE 

intends to cover previously-exempted lamps in a separate rulemaking, it should eliminate or 

greatly reduce modeled migration to these lamps in the standards case. (ACEEE, No. 76 at 

p. 6, ADLT, No. 72 at p. 4) Philips also commented that DOE’s assumption in the No 

Product Substitution scenario—that consumers who purchase covered IRL in the base case 

will continue to do so in the standards case—is incorrect because standards will increase the 

cost of covered IRL. This increase will tend to accelerate the penetration of competing 

technologies, which the No Product Substitution scenario fails to incorporate. (Philips, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. 239) 

First, DOE notes that currently exempted BR lamps, which are not included in the 

current rulemaking but are largely at issue in this discussion, may be analyzed for energy 

conservation standards in a separate rulemaking. At this time, DOE cannot predict what 

minimum efficacy requirements, if any, may be established for BR lamps. Therefore, it is 

impossible to determine how lamps exempted from this rulemaking (BR lamps) will 

compare in cost and efficacy to those IRL covered by today’s final rule. As a result, there is 

a great deal of uncertainty in estimating the number of consumers likely to migrate to BR 

lamps. For this very reason, DOE maintains the following two scenarios. In the first 

scenario, no migration to the exempted 65W BR lamp is modeled (representative of a 

situation in which the exempted lamps are regulated at the same efficacy level as those IRL 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
172

in this rulemaking) and only migration to R-CFL occurs. In the second scenario, DOE 

models the same migration to the 65W BR lamp as in the NOPR (representative of a 

situation in which the exempted lamps remain unregulated). 

However, DOE agrees that modeling the two separate offsetting standards-case 

impacts (migration to R-CFL and migration to the 65W BR lamp together) conflates two 

variables that may be more illustrative when modeled separately. Therefore, for this final 

rule, DOE is modifying what was called the Product Substitution scenario in the April 2009 

NOPR and by dividing it into two scenarios and renaming them the “R-CFL Product 

Substitution” and “BR Product Substitution” scenarios, respectively. In the R-CFL Product 

Substitution scenario, DOE models migration to only R-CFL in response to standards, (for 

the reasons addressed in the comments and responses above). Similarly, in the BR Product 

Substitution scenario, DOE models migration only to BR lamps. DOE believes this 

approach best isolates the potential energy savings impacts of migration to the two different 

technologies. DOE has maintained its approach of modeling incrementally greater 

migration to R-CFL and BR lamps for higher TSLs in these scenarios; it also maintained the 

magnitude of these increases. In consideration of Philips’s comment, DOE is no longer 

analyzing the “No Product Substitution Scenario.” DOE received several comments on the 

merits of modeling the “No Product Substitution” scenario for determining manufacturer 

impacts due to standards. These comments are discussed in section V.F. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
173

Philips commented that it would be unlikely for the commercial sector to migrate to 

BR lamps in the standards case because the sector is driven by life-cycle costs (which are 

generally higher for BR lamps) and because most commercial entities have high lighting 

knowledge. As for the residential sector, Philips noted that BR lamps are not suitable for 

outdoor applications, limiting the pool of applications for which BR lamps are suitable to be 

potential replacements for covered IRL in the standards case. (Philips, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. 239) 

DOE agrees that PAR lamps may be more suitable for outdoor applications than the 

exempted BR lamps. However, as noted in the April 2009 NOPR and based on residential 

estimates that 40 percent of all residential IRL are PAR lamps,40 DOE believes that a 

considerable portion of residential PAR lamps are used in non-outdoor applications that are 

suitable for both PAR and the exempted BR lamps. 74 FR 16920, 16970 (April 13, 2009). 

Thus, DOE maintains for this final rule that some residential consumers may move to 

exempted IRL in the standards case, although a great deal of uncertainty remains. For this 

reason DOE models a separate scenario which reflects no migration to the 65W BR lamps. 

Regarding NEMA’s assertion that commercial consumers are more sensitive to life-cycle 

cost, DOE agrees that the penetration rates of less-cost-effective lamps will be lower in the 

commercial sector than the residential sector. In the April 2009 NOPR, DOE took this 

factor into account in its analysis by using separate payback period-penetration relationships 

 

40 New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, Incandescent Reflector Lamps Study of 

Proposed Energy Efficiency Standards for New York State (2006) (Last accessed Oct. 7, 2006). Available at: 

<http://www.nyserda.org/publications/Report%2006-07-Complete%20report-web.pdf>. . 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
174

for each sector. 74 FR 16920, 16963 (April 13, 2009). For the reasons discussed above, for 

this final rule, DOE maintains the same migration to the 65W BR lamp as modeled in the 

April 2009 NOPR in the Product Substitution scenario. 

IALD commented that DOE did not consider all the possible substitution scenarios 

in the April 2009 NOPR. For example, consumers may switch to fixtures with exempted 

AR (aluminum reflector) and MR (multi-faceted reflector) lamps because of the lower 

upfront cost, or lamp manufacturers may choose to produce 39W lamps (outside the scope 

of coverage of DOE’s regulations). (IALD, No. 71 at p. 2, 3) In response, DOE believes 

that a migration to AR and MR lamps is unlikely to have a material impact on energy 

savings due to the unique characteristics (e.g., lamp size, voltage, or socket) of these lamps 

and because they generally cannot be interchanged with other reflectorized lamps.41 In 

addition, DOE does not expect a significant migration to 39W lamps as a result of standards 

for the following reason. If these lamps were manufactured at lower efficacies without 

halogen technology (thereby circumventing the standard), they would likely have much 

lower lumen output than needed to meet the demand of consumers of the existing lamp, 

thereby making it an unacceptable replacement. 

 

For more information about the R-CFL Product Substitution and BR Product 

Substitution standards-case scenarios, see chapter 10 of the TSD. 

 

41Lighting Resource Center, NLPIP Lighting Answers: Volume 6, Issue 2 (Sept. 2002) (Last accessed: June 

21, 2009). Available at: http://www.lrc.rpi.edu/programs/nlpip/lightingAnswers/mr16/reflectorizedLamps.asp. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
175

11. Discount Rates 

In its analyses, DOE multiplies monetary values in future years by a discount factor 

in order to determine its present value. DOE estimated national impacts using both a 3-

percent and a 7-percent real discount rate as the average real rate of return on private 

investment in the U.S. economy. NRDC argued that DOE should use a 2-percent or 3-

percent discount rate and should not apply it to the value of carbon emissions. (NRDC, No. 

82 at p. 5) 

In response, DOE notes that it follows the guidelines on discount factors set forth by 

the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Specifically, DOE uses these discount rates 

in accordance with guidance that OMB provides to Federal agencies on the development of 

regulatory analysis (OMB Circular A-442 (Sept.17, 2003), particularly section E, 

“Identifying and Measuring Benefits and Costs”). Accordingly, DOE is continuing to use 3-

percent and 7-percent real discount rates for the relevant calculations for this final rule. 

Furthermore, DOE continues to report both undiscounted and discounted values of carbon 

emission reductions. DOE believes this allows for consideration of a range of policy 

perspectives, one of which is the view that a reduction in emissions today is more valuable 

than one in thirty years. 

 

42 Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/regulatory_matters_pdf/a-4.pdf. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
176

E. Consumer Sub-Group Analysis

In analyzing the potential impact of new or amended standards on commercial 

customers, DOE evaluates the impact on identifiable groups (i.e., sub-groups) of customers, 

such as different types of businesses that may be disproportionately affected by a National 

standard level. In the April 2009 NOPR, DOE identified low-income consumers, 

institutions of religious worship, and institutions that serve low-income populations, and 

consumers of T12 electronic ballasts as lamp consumer sub-groups that could be 

disproportionately affected, and examined the impact of proposed standards on this group. 

74 FR 16920, 16971-72 (April 13, 2009). DOE determined the impact on this consumer 

sub-group using the LCC spreadsheet model. DOE did not receive comments on sub-groups 

chosen to analyze nor on the assumptions applied to those sub-groups. DOE relied on the 

same methodology outlined in the April 2009 NOPR for the final rule analysis. The results 

of DOE’s LCC sub-group analysis are briefly summarized in section VII.C.1.b and 

described in detail in chapter 12 of the TSD. 

F. Manufacturer Impact Analysis

DOE performed a manufacturer impact analysis (MIA) to estimate the financial 

impact of energy conservation standards on manufacturers of GSFL and IRL, and to assess 

the impact of such standards on employment and manufacturing capacity. DOE’s MIA 

methodology is discussed in detail in the April 2009 NOPR (74 FR 16920, 16972-77 (April 

13, 2009)) and in chapter 13 of the TSD. DOE conducted the MIA for GSFL and IRL in 

three phases. Phase 1 (Industry Profile) consisted of preparing an industry characterization, 

including data on market share, sales volumes and trends, pricing, employment, and 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
177

financial structure. Phase 2 (Industry Cash Flow Analysis) focused on the industries as a 

whole. In this phase, DOE used the Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM) to 

prepare an industry cash-flow analysis for each industry (GSFL and IRL). Using publiclyavailable information developed in Phase 1, DOE adapted the GRIM's generic structure to 

perform an industry cash flow analysis for manufacturers of GSFL and IRL both with and 

without energy conservation standards. In Phase 3 (Sub-Group Impact Analysis) DOE 

conducted interviews with manufacturers representing the majority of domestic GSFL and 

IRL sales. During these interviews, DOE discussed engineering, manufacturing, 

procurement, and financial topics specific to each company and obtained each 

manufacturer's view of the industries. The interviews provided valuable information DOE 

used to evaluate the impacts of an energy conservation standard on manufacturer cash flows, 

manufacturing capacities, and employment levels. DOE then finalized its assumptions for 

the cash flow analysis and described the qualitative impacts on manufacturers due to 

amended energy conservation standards. 

 The GRIM inputs consist of data regarding the cost structures for GSFL and IRL 

industries, shipments, and revenues. These include information from many of the analyses 

described above, such as retail prices from the product price determination analysis and 

shipments forecasts from the NIA. 

 For the final rule, DOE incorporates a number of changes to GRIM inputs that were 

made in the other analyses for this rulemaking. The GRIM uses the medium prices in the 

product price determination analysis to calculate the manufacturer production costs (MPCs) 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
178

for each equipment class at each TSL. By multiplying the production costs by different sets 

of markups, DOE derives the manufacturer selling prices used to calculate industry 

revenues. Following the NOPR, DOE updated its product price determination analysis using 

the CPI. DOE uses these updated prices in the GRIM for the final rule. 

 The GRIM estimates manufacturer revenues based on total-unit-shipment forecasts 

and the distribution of these shipments by efficacy. Changes in the efficacy mix at each 

standard level are a significant driver of manufacturer finances. For the final rule analysis, 

DOE updated the GSFL and IRL MIA results based on the total shipments and efficacy 

distribution estimated in the final rule NIA. 

 As described in section V.D.10, DOE updated the substitution scenarios in the IRL 

GRIM. For the April 2009 NOPR, DOE modeled a set of standards-case IRL scenarios 

called the “Product Substitution” and “No Product Substitution” scenarios. 74 FR 16920, 

16969-70 (April 13, 2009). In the Product Substitution scenario, DOE assumed consumers 

purchasing covered IRL in the base case do not necessarily purchase covered IRL in the 

standards case. DOE modeled a shift to both exempted BR lamps and to R-CFL in the 

standards case. In the “No Production Substitution” scenario, DOE assumed consumers 

who purchase covered IRL technology in the base case continue to purchase covered IRL 

technology in the standards case. 

 In response to comments by ASAP, for today’s final rule, DOE modified the IRL 

shipments scenarios. The Product Substitution is modified by dividing it into two and 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
179

renaming them the “R-CFL Product Substitution” and “BR Product Substitution” scenarios. 

In the R-CFL Product Substitution scenario, DOE models migration to only R-CFL in 

response to standards. Similarly, in the BR Product Substitution scenario, DOE models 

migration only to BR lamps. For further detail in DOE’s modification of the Product 

Substitution scenarios and its response to ASAP’s comments regarding this issue, see 

section V.D.10 of today’s notice. 

 For the April 2009 NOPR, DOE determined the total capital conversion costs that 

would be required for the IRL industry to convert existing production to meet demand at 

each TSL. For the NOPR, DOE scaled the IRL capital conversion costs using the Existing 

Technologies base-case shipments to account for the decline in shipments before standards 

become effective. DOE used the same capital conversion costs for all scenarios. For today’s 

final rule, DOE updated the capital and product conversion costs to 2008$ using the PPI for 

NAICS code 335110 (electric lamp bulb and part manufacturing) for both GSFL and IRL. 

Additionally, for the final rule, DOE is using two sets of capital conversion costs. For all 

IRL scenarios in the Existing Technologies base case, DOE scales its updated estimate of 

the capital conversion costs using the Existing Technologies base-case shipments. For all 

IRL scenarios in the Emerging Technology base case, DOE scales its updated estimate of 

the capital conversion costs using the Emerging Technologies base-case shipments. Scaling 

the IRL capital conversion costs for each base case results in lower capital conversion costs 

in the Emerging Technologies base case than in the Existing Technologies base case. DOE 

believes this approach to scaling capital conversion cost with shipments more accurately 

captures the capital costs that the IRL industry could incur in each scenario. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
180

 

 For today’s final rule and in response to comments, DOE developed a shortened 

lifetime scenario for IRL to investigate the effects of shorter lamp lifetime at higher TSLs. 

In this sensitivity scenario, DOE changes the lifetime and prices of the higher-efficacy 

representative lamps at TSL 4 and TSL 5. These changes in characteristics also simulate 

certain lamps becoming a commodity product in response to energy conservation standards. 

These alterations cause higher shipments in the standards case and result in reduced 

negative impacts on the industry. See section VI.C.1 of today’s final rule for an explanation 

of the lifetime sensitivity scenario. For the INPV results in the lifetime sensitivity scenario, 

see section VII.C.2.aof today’s notice and chapter 13 of the TSD. 

 For the April 2009 NOPR, DOE used a set of markup scenarios to calculate 

manufacturer selling prices in order to estimate industry revenues in its cashflow analysis. 

74 FR 16920, 16977 (April 13, 2009). In both the IRL and GSFL GRIM, DOE modeled a 

Flat Markup scenario. This scenario assumed that the cost of goods sold for each lamp is 

marked up by a flat percentage to cover standard selling, general, and administrative 

(SG&A) expenses, research and development (R&D) expenses, and profit. To derive this 

percentage, DOE evaluated publicly-available financial information for manufacturers of 

lighting equipment. For today’s final rule, DOE continues to model a Flat Markup scenario 

in both the IRL and GSFL GRIM. 

 For GSFL only, DOE also modeled a Four-Tier markup scenario for the April 2009 

NOPR. 74 FR 16920, 16977 (April 13, 2009). In this scenario, DOE assumed that the 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
181

markup on lamps varies by efficacy in both the base case and the standards case. DOE used 

information provided by manufacturers, the medium prices in its product price 

determination, and industry average gross margins to estimate markups for GSFL under a 

four-tier pricing strategy in the base case. In this scenario premium products have a higher 

markup at each increasing tier of efficacy (i.e., a higher markup for each increasing 

phosphor series). In the standards case, DOE modeled the situation in which a reduction in 

product portfolios squeezes the margins of higher-efficacy products as they are “demoted” 

to lower-relative-efficacy-tier products. 

 For today’s final rule, DOE incorporates additional assumptions in its Four-Tier 

markup scenario for both the base case and standards case. For the final rule, DOE 

continues to model a base-case pricing strategy in which each phosphor series earns a 

separate markup. However these mark-ups are changing over time during the analysis 

period to take into account commoditization of more-efficient lamps as they gain market 

share. Depending on the product class of GSFL, the market share of either 800 or 800 plus 

series lamps overtakes the market share of 700 series lamps. This capture of market share is 

fully realized at later dates (between 2035 and 2040, depending on the base-case scenario 

and product class). The original markups for 700, 800, and 800 plus series lamps converge 

to a single, lower markup over time. The Four-Tier markup standards case continues to 

“squeeze” the margins of commoditized lamps, but the impacts are reduced because the 

margins are already lowered in the base case. For an extensive explanation of the revised 

Four-Tier markup scenario, see chapter 13 of the TSD. 

 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
182

During the NOPR public meeting OSI commented that the INPV results for GSFL 

show that the manufacturer impacts were taken into consideration in DOE’s arrival at the 

appropriate proposed energy conservation standard. However, the negative INPV results for 

IRL, especially at the proposed TSL 4, indicated that the impact on manufacturers was not 

considered in DOE’s proposed energy conservation standard for IRL (OSRAM/Sylvania, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38 at pp 284 – 286). Similarly, NEMA commented that 

DOE failed to give adequate consideration to the negative INPV at TSL4 (NEMA, No. 81 at 

p. 4). Philips added that the analysis for IRL showed a large increase in NPV at TSL 3, the 

first TSL to require exclusively infrared technology. The benefit to consumers moving past 

TSL 3 was incremental whereas the impacts on manufacturers were worse at TSL 4 than 

TSL 3 (Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38 at pp 292 – 293). 

For the April 2009 NOPR, DOE presented the results of the MIA and its 

determination of proposed energy conservation standard levels for GSFL and IRL based on 

the EPCA criteria. Specifically, EPCA provides that any such standard for a covered 

product must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that 

the Secretary determines is technologically feasible and economically justified and that 

results in significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and (3)(B)) In 

determining whether a standard is economically justified, the Secretary must determine 

whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens, to the greatest extent practicable, 

considering the seven factors. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE believes that the industry 

commenters took a contrasting approach to the agency’s analysis under the relevant 

statutory criteria by attempting to frame the issue as one of comparing incremental benefits 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
183

to consumers relative to impacts on manufacturers at in moving from TSL3 to TSL 4. 

Instead, DOE interprets the proper application of statutory criteria, to require atop-down 

approach, which implies DOE must first analyze the TSL that would save the maximum 

amount of energy. If that TSL is not economically justified (i.e., the benefits do not exceed 

the burdens), DOE must then analyze the TSL with the next greatest energy savings until it 

reaches a TSL that it determines is economically justified and technologically feasible. 

Impacts on manufacturers and consumers are specific criteria that DOE must consider in its 

analysis. (42 U.S.C. 6295 (o)(2)(B)(i)(I)) In the April 2009 NOPR, DOE found that TSL 5 

was not economically justified for IRL. DOE then analyzed TSL 4 and found that it was 

economically justified and technologically feasible. 74 FR 16920, 17018 (April 13, 2009). 

For the April 2009 NOPR, DOE considered the negative impacts on INPV for IRL 

manufacturers at TSL 4. However, the Secretary reached the initial conclusion that the 

benefits of energy savings, emissions reductions, the positive net economic savings to the 

Nation, and positive life-cycle cost savings at TSL 4 would outweigh the potentially large 

reduction in INPV for manufacturers. 74 FR 16920, 17018 (April 13, 2009). For the final 

rule, DOE continues to base its determination of whether a standard level is economically 

justified using all seven EPCA factors. While the impacts on consumers and manufacturers 

are both considered in making this determination, none of these factors are reviewed in 

isolation. Although DOE gathers information on each of the seven statutory factors 

individually, the Secretary must ultimately consider the seven factors collectively in 

determining whether a standard is economically justified. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
184

 In its comments on DOE’s April 2009 NOPR, ADLT stated that DOE's use of longer 

lifetimes at TSL 4 and TSL 5 is counter to manufacturer interviews. According to ADLT, 

because longer lamp lifetimes would have a significant impact on IRL shipments, the MIA 

overstates the impact on manufacturers. (ADLT, No. 72 at p. 3) 

 DOE acknowledges that lifetimes of analyzed lamps have a significant impact on IRL 

shipments. For the April 2009 NOPR, DOE presented its assumptions for lamp lifetimes 

and shipment projections. 74 FR 16920, 16956-57, 16959-65 (April 13, 2009). DOE also 

acknowledges that shipments are a significant driver of INPV results, especially in the IRL 

industry. To analyze the effects of lower lifetimes on IRL shipments at TSL 4 and TSL 5, 

DOE included a lifetime sensitivity analysis for today’s final rule. The INPV results for the 

sensitivity scenario show that reduced lamp lifetimes at TSL 4 and TSL 5 significantly 

reduce the negative impacts on IRL manufacturers. DOE agrees with ADLT that the 

impacts on the IRL industry would be lower if manufacturers reduced lamp lifetimes in 

response to the energy conservation standards, See section VI.C.1 of today’s final rule for 

an explanation of the lifetime sensitivity scenario. For the INPV results in the lifetime 

sensitivity scenario, see section VII.C.2.aof today’s notice and chapter 13 of the TSD. 

The CA Stakeholders are concerned that DOE’s analysis of the burden on the GSFL 

industry may have focused primarily on the worst case scenario, rather than on the more 

likely combination of scenarios. The CA Stakeholders argue that if DOE were to average 

the impacts on GSFL manufacturers in the 16 possible scenarios, the industry losses would 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
185

be less than half of the losses associated with the worst case scenario (CA Stakeholders, No. 

63 at p. 11). 

In arriving at the energy conservation standards in this final rule, DOE considered 

the full range of potential impacts on GSFL manufacturers. To determine the range of 

potential impacts on GSFL manufacturers, DOE performed an analysis which included 16 

different industry cash flow scenarios. These scenarios considered numerous variables 

which influence the analysis (level of emerging technologies, markup strategies, product 

substitution, consumer lighting expertise, and product mix). To better explain the basis of its 

decision DOE describes how it balanced the likelihood of the scenarios and the range of 

uncertainty in arriving at today’s standards. For a more detailed explanation of how DOE 

arrived at its decision for today’s final rule decision, see section VII.D of today’s notice. 

All manufacturers expressed the view that the supply of standards-compliant lamps 

would be constrained. OSI commented that the large, negative INPV impacts for IRL 

manufacturers show that after the effective date of the standard, only the current volumes of 

standards-compliant lamps will be produced by manufacturers. (OSI, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 38 at p. 286). Philips stated that there is not an opportunity to invest in IRL 

because of negative impacts on manufacturers at the proposed level and the limited time 

horizon of the investment due to emerging technology. According to Philips, these factors 

could cause the IRL industry to experience a capacity constraint of HIR lamps (Philips, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38 at pp. 287 – 288). GE agreed that this rulemaking forces 

a decision upon manufacturers in terms of whether to invest in a technology whose market 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
186

is expected to decline over time. This limited investment will lead to a constrained IRL HIR 

lamp market (GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38 at pp. 292-293). Similarly, NEMA 

commented that TSL4 or above is essentially unthinkable for the industry and would cause 

capacity issues., NEMA added that TSL3 or above for IRL would require manufacturers to 

over-invest to increase capacity of HIR lamps that will no longer be needed in a few years. 

NEMA believes these investments, which may never be recovered, cannot be justified 

financially and economically because of the diminishing market of covered IRL as a result 

of emerging technology. (NEMA, No. 81 at pp. 5, 10) 

In the April 2009 NOPR, DOE included the capital conversion costs that would be 

required to meet the entire industry demand at each TSL. 74 FR 16920, 17001-02 (April 13, 

2009). DOE based these estimates on interviews with manufacturers that produce the vast 

majority of IRL for sale in the United States. DOE obtained financial information through 

these manufacturer interviews and aggregated the results to mask any proprietary or 

confidential information from any one manufacturer. These estimates were found to be 

consistent with financial ratios for plant, property, and equipment reported in manufacturer 

financial statements. For TSL 5, because some manufacturers did not provide capital costs 

since they had no access to the needed technology, DOE supplemented manufacturer 

information with information provided by a supplier of coating technology. Therefore, 

DOE believes that the large capital conversion costs identified are representative of the 

expenditures that would be required for the industry to increase the production of higherefficacy lamps at each TSL. DOE also cited these large capital conversion costs as a 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
187

primary driver of the large, negative impacts on INPV. 74 FR 16920, 17002-03 (April 13, 

2009). 

In the April 2009 NOPR, DOE acknowledged manufactures’ concern about the 

potential for emerging technologies to further erode the IRL market. 74 FR 16920, 17002-

03 (April 13, 2009). DOE also noted that an IRL standard would be unique because it 

would force investments in a market that could shrink over the entire lifetime of the 

investment. These large capital conversion costs continue to be significant driver of the 

large, negative INPV values. 

DOE believes that the large, negative INPV results compared to the industry value 

using the Emerging Technologies base case accurately captures manufacturer concerns 

about the lack of a financial return from large capital conversion in a shrinking market. 

Philips commented that the capacity constraint would be worse at TSL 4 than at TSL 

3, even though both these TSLs involve HIR technology. According to Philips, the 

additional time needed for the manufacturing processes associated with IRL lamps that meet 

TSL 4 could lead to additional capacity constraints because fewer products can be produced 

after the effective date of the standards. (Phillips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38 at pp. 

292 – 293) 

DOE agrees that the INPV impacts at TSL 4 are larger than at TSL 3. The 

production of improved infrared capsules is more time consuming than the production of 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
188

standard HIR lamps. The improvements to standard HIR lamps lower the output of each 

coating machine because production run would require additional cycle time for the coating 

process and quality control. The additional capital conversion costs at TSL 4 include the 

additional production equipment required to meet industry demand with a lower production 

output rate. DOE believes that there is sufficient lead time for manufacturers to convert 

their existing facilities to meet market demand with standards-compliant lamps. 

Manufacturers could mitigate possible capacity constraints by installing additional coaters, 

purchasing infrared burners from a supplier, and using existing excess capacity. 

 

The CA Stakeholders and ACEEE commented that DOE’s capital conversion and 

product conversion costs for IRLs should have addressed the fact that massive investments 

in advanced IR technologies will likely be happening absent standards. According to the CA 

Stakeholders, due to great potential improvements and consumer preferences, IRL 

manufacturers will already be making investments in advanced burner technology to meet 

the EISA 2007 requirement for general service incandescent lamps. These investments 

include coating machines and coating technology that can be applied to both general service 

lamp burners and reflector lamp burners. (CA Stakeholders, No. 63 at p. 27) (ACEEE, No. 

76 at p. 5) 

DOE believes that the energy conservation standards set by today’s final rule are 

more stringent than the EISA 2007 requirements for general service incandescent lamps in 

2012, and, therefore, these GSIL investments are not pertinent to the IRL analysis. The 

EISA 2007 GSIL standards that are effective in 2020 are similar to the IRL energy 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
189

conservation standards for today’s final rule. If manufactures use the same technology in 

2020, improved capsule technology could be used to reach prescribed GSIL efficacy levels. 

However, it is uncertain that a similar pathway for GSIL will be used to reach the prescribed 

efficacy levels in 2020 since emerging technologies may offer a better solution. Because 

the GSIL regulation is effective eight years after the effective date for today’s IRL energy 

conservation standard and because manufacturers will have already made investments for 

IRL, any GSIL investments to meet the 2020 requirements will not impact the magnitude of 

investments needed by the IRL industry to meet today’s final rule. 

OSI stated that an additional concern about the declining market share of IRL due to 

emerging technology is that IRL are manufactured mostly in the United States, whereas the 

alternative technologies are not. The commenter argued that a standard that hastens the shift 

to alternative technologies would have negative impacts on domestic employment in the 

IRL industry. (OSI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38 at p. 286) 

In response, DOE notes that in the April 2009 NOPR, DOE includes two base-case 

scenarios which examine the employment impacts of energy conservation standards. The 

Emerging Technologies base case models the situation in which emerging technologies such 

as LED and CMH lamps take an increasing share of covered IRL. Shipments of IRL are 

eroded in both the Existing Technologies and Emerging Technologies scenarios by R-CFL 

(a fully mature technology). In the Emerging Technology base case, IRL shipments are 

replaced by CMH, LEDs, and other emerging technologies that have the potential to replace 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
190

a greater percentage of recessed can fixtures. DOE treats the erosion of the IRL market as a 

base-case issue, since the market decline is occurring without standards. In the April 2009 

NOPR and in today’s final rule, DOE acknowledges that the differential between 

employment levels in the Existing Technologies and Emerging Technologies base cases is 

large. However, the impact caused by standards is much less than the difference in 

employment between the two base cases. In any scenario, energy conservation standards 

have a small impact on the average employment levels in the IRL industry. 

 

At the NOPR public meeting, GE expressed concern that the GSFL energy 

conservation standards could shift production overseas. (GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

38 at pp. 278 – 279) 

DOE agrees that energy conservation standards will require significant capital 

conversion costs that could cause manufacturers to consider sourcing decisions, but DOE 

believes that many other factors could mitigate the decision to relocate production facilities 

abroad in response to amended standards. For example, the majority of GSFL are produced 

domestically on high-speed lines. The large capital conversion costs required at higher 

TSLs involve converting these existing high-speed lines to ones capable of producing 

smaller-diameter lamps. While these capital conversion costs are large, moving production 

outside the United States would require additional costs to transport existing production 

lines and to build a green field facility, none of which would eliminate the cost to convert 

the lines for smaller-diameter lamps. Furthermore, the highly-capitalized production 

process causes the labor content of GSFL to be a relatively small portion of the overall cost 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
191

of each lamp. Because the vast majority of GSFL production costs are material costs, the 

labor cost savings from moving abroad would be relatively low. Most of the GSFL labor 

cost results from skilled workers that monitor and control the production process. There are 

relatively few unskilled workers in the production process, which further reduces the labor 

cost savings from relocation. Instead, the labor content of GSFL represents intellectual 

capital for GSFL production, so this would present another hurdle that would need to be 

addressed with relocation. A final mitigating factor that could prevent relocation of 

domestic production is increased shipping costs. Higher shipping costs, especially if 

production required oceanic freight, would likely outweigh any labor cost savings. For 

further information of conversion costs and possible employment impacts due to today’s 

energy conservation standards, see chapter 13 of the TSD. 

While DOE describes the factors that could mitigate a decision by U.S. 

manufacturers to relocate production facilities abroad due to amended energy conservation 

standards, DOE also recognizes that access to rare earth phosphors could also impact 

sourcing decisions. As described in section VI.G, most of the current supply of rare earth 

phosphors is controlled by China. A drastic change to export quotas or tariffs could 

influence the sourcing decision of U.S. manufacturers more significantly than amended 

energy conservation standards. If export quotas continue to decrease, companies could 

decide to relocate to China in order to gain access to the available rare earth phosphors 

supply, regardless of the energy conservation standard. However, DOE’s direct 

employment conclusions do not account for the possible relocation of domestic 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
192

manufacturing to other countries as a result of changes in export quotas or tariffs on 

materials used (e.g., rare earth phosphors) because the potential for relocation is uncertain. 

During the public meeting, Energy Solutions inquired if the IRL analysis considered 

that emerging technology and other IRL replacements are often made by the same 

manufacturers (Energy Solutions, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38, at pp. 288-289). The 

CA Stakeholders, ACEEE, and NRDC commented that DOE’s INPV analyses should 

consider the positive impacts to lamp manufacturers associated with the increased sales of 

the non-covered products resulting from standards. (CA Stakeholders, No. 63 at p. 4) 

(ACEEE, No. 76 at p. 6) (NRDC, No. 82 at pp. 4-5) The CA Stakeholders, ACEEE, and 

NRDC claimed the MIA impacts are overstated because the IRL and GSFL products that 

might see a reduction in shipment volume are generally made by the same manufacturers 

who sell the emerging technologies that may see a resulting increase in shipment volume. 

(CA Stakeholders, No. 63 at p. 7) (ACEEE, No. 76 at p. 6) (NRDC, No. 82 at pp. 4-5) 

Accordingly, the CA Stakeholders agreed with the petitioners’43 argument in appealing that 

the Secretary must fully consider, “the economic impact of the standard on the 

manufacturers . . . of the products subject to such standard.” (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)I). 

The CA Stakeholders stated that because one of the impacts "of the standard on the 

manufacturers" of IRL and GSFL products will be increased sales (at higher markups) of 

exempt or non-covered lamps made by the same manufacturers, the statutory language 

 

43 (States of New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, and California, 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, City of New York, and California Energy Commission) in the 

United States Court of Appeals in a petition regarding DOE’s Furnace Rulemaking (State of New York v. U.S. 

Dep’t of Energy, No. 08- 0311 (2d Cir. filed January 17, 2008)) 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
193

requires that these positive impacts also be taken into account. Similarly, EEI commented 

that manufacturer impacts should account for the lost sales of baseline products as well as 

increased sales of high-efficiency products. (EEI, No. 39 at p. 4) 

In response, the Emerging Technologies scenario describes how emerging 

technologies may erode the market for covered products in the base case, absent standards. 

The penetration of emerging technology reduces the number of covered lamps sold in future 

years in the same manner as a reduction in commercial floor space over time might reduce 

demand for covered IRL and GSFL lamps. The level of base-case reduction in lamp sales is 

independent of the energy conservation standard. The Emerging Technologies base case has 

lower energy savings in the NIA and lower base-case INPV in the GRIM, as compared to 

the Existing Technologies scenario. 

The situation described for the furnaces and boilers rulemaking only exists for IRL 

in this rulemaking. In the furnaces and boilers rulemaking, the MIA analysis captured the 

product switching from gas furnaces to electric heat pumps induced by amended energy 

conservation standards. 72 FR 65136, 65158-61 (Nov. 19, 2007). The analogous situation 

for IRL occurs when the higher prices of covered lamps induce sales of non-covered BR 

lamps and R-CFLs. This migration from covered IRL to non-covered products was modeled 

in the April 2009 NOPR in the Product Substitution scenario. 74 FR 16920, 16969-70 

(April 13, 2009). For the final rule, this situation was modeled in both the BR Product 

Substitution scenario and the R-CFL Product Substitution scenario. Thus, DOE modeled 

the impacts on the IRL industry from reduced sales of covered IRL due to price effects. The 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
194

difference in INPV of including or excluding the sales of non-covered products was found 

to be small. Including these sales in the GRIM is not a major driver of the INPV results. 

Instead, the larger declines in INPV in the Emerging Technologies scenario 

(compared to the Existing Technologies scenario) are not due to the exclusion of emerging 

technology sales from the analysis or to the declining sales of covered products, since the 

covered products are also declining in the base case. Instead, the larger impacts are caused 

by the overinvestment in the standards-compliant technology. In the Emerging 

Technologies scenario, manufacturers must invest in production levels anticipated for 2012, 

but the sales of covered products immediately begin to fall. In the base case, sales of 

covered products also decline, but manufacturers do not need to make extraordinary capital 

expenses. These extraordinary capital expenses cause the industry’s cash flow to decrease 

significantly in comparison to the base case, causing an overall decrease of estimated INPV. 

The CA Stakeholders claimed that by focusing on decreased sales of the specific 

technology being regulated, DOE is interpreting the statute to favor the status quo over 

more-efficient alternative technologies that are not being specifically regulated. According 

to the CA Stakeholders, there is nothing in the statue that limits DOE's review to only 

consider the impacts on regulated IRL and GSFL. (CA Stakeholders, No. 63 at p. 8) The CA 

Stakeholders recommended that DOE should focus its analysis on the economic impact on 

lighting manufacturers as a whole, rather than on the impacts of the specific technology 

being regulated. (CA Stakeholders, No. 63 at p. 8) Similarly, EarthJustice commented that 

the INPV results shown in the MIA should be bounded around the corporation, not the profit 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
195

center that makes the covered products (EarthJustice, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38, at 

p. 295). Agreeing with EarthJustice, the Appliance Standards Awareness Project stated that 

INPV impacts shown in the MIA should be bounded around the corporation and added that 

the difficulty in analyzing the impacts at the corporation level does not remove DOE’s 

obligation to do so (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38, at pp. 290-291 and pp. 295-

297). EEI also commented that DOE should not try to analyze the impacts of the lighting 

standard on all operations of manufacturers, especially those with multiple product lines and 

multiple global production facilities. EEI stated that such an analysis would take too much 

time and could possibly delay the issuance of a standard. (EEI, No. 39 at p. 4) 

In response, DOE recognizes that the energy conservation standards may induce 

sales of non-covered products which are in whole or in part manufactured by the same 

manufacturers as the products covered by this rulemaking. These sales will increase the 

revenues and possibly increase the profits of the manufacturers that make covered IRL and 

GSFL. To include these revenues and profits in the GRIM analysis requires the same level 

of information about the product costs, required investments to increase sales, and the 

profitability as covered products. This information greatly increases both the complexity 

and uncertainty of the analysis of the products covered by this rulemaking. Much of this 

analysis is also outside the scope of this rulemaking. However, understanding that this can 

be a major driver of the GRIM results for some rulemakings, DOE attempted to bound the 

potential impact of the product substitutions on the industry value. For this reason, in the 

April 2009 NOPR, DOE ran the No Product Substitution scenario in the GRIM analysis. 

For today’s final rule, DOE ran both the BR Substitution and the R-CFL Substitution 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
196

scenarios. The difference in impacts between the Product Substitution and No Product 

Substitution scenarios represented the lost sales and profits to manufacturers. The difference 

in industry value from including the revenue from induced sales of BR lamps in the BR 

Product Substitution scenario and excluding the revenue represents the potential benefits of 

these sales to manufacturers of covered IRL. The difference in industry value from 

including the revenue from induced sales of R-CFL lamps in the R-CFL Product 

Substitution scenario and excluding the revenue represents the potential benefits of these 

sales to manufacturers of covered IRL. DOE reports these differences and qualitatively 

describes those factors which might mitigate the impact on those firms which produce both 

types of produces. The analysis shows that the inclusion of the additional revenues has 

minimum impacts on the estimated INPVs. For further qualitative and quantitative 

information on the scenarios and results for the MIA, see chapter 13 of the TSD. 

Although IRL manufacturers may receive revenue from additional sales of R-CFL 

and exempted BR lamps, it is not certain that this would be a net benefit to manufacturers. 

In both the R-CFL Substitution and BR Substitution scenarios, covered IRL sales are not 

completely replaced by the additional sales of R-CFL and exempted BR lamps.. To 

provide an upper bound of the potential benefit to IRL manufacturers, DOE includes the 

revenue from R-CFL and exempted BR lamps but does not consider any capital conversion 

costs to increase sales of these products. In any scenario, the potential benefits of these 

sales to IRL manufacturers have far less impact on INPV than the capital and product 

conversion costs needed to reach higher TSLs for covered IRL. In any of the April 2009 

NOPR and today’s final rule substitution scenarios, the large capital conversion costs are the 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
197

biggest driver of the large, negative impacts on INPV. Thus, any additional benefit from 

sales of non-covered IRL products are not enough to mitigate the impacts on INPV due to 

the necessary estimated capital and product conversion costs. 

The CA Stakeholders, ACEEE, and NRDC commented that the American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) has tax provisions that could possibly mitigate the 

impacts on manufacturers due to energy conservation standards. Specifically, the 

commenters cited provisions in ARRA offer low-interest “industrial development bonds" for 

expanding manufacturing capabilities, as well as an advanced energy project tax credit for 

manufacturers of covered products. According to the commenters, these provisions would 

help manufacturers cover possible conversion costs associated with energy conservation 

standards. (CA Stakeholders, No. 63 at p. 7) (ACEEE, No. 76 at pp. 5-6) (NRDC, No. 82 at 

p. 3) 

 

 DOE acknowledges that manufacturers of GSFL and IRL may qualify for the 

industrial development bonds and advanced energy project tax credit programs. If GSFL 

and IRL manufacturers do apply and receive the bonds and/or tax credit, these benefits 

could help mitigate some of the impacts of energy conservation standards. However, 

structures for the industrial development bonds and advanced energy project tax credit 

programs have not been finalized, and there is insufficient information available to do a 

thorough analysis of their potential impacts. Accordingly, DOE cannot determine with 

certainty that manufacturers of covered IRL and GSFL are eligible for either program. Any 

quantitative analysis of the industrial development bonds program or the advanced energy 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
198

project tax credit program and their possible impacts on the GSFL and IRL industry would 

be highly speculative. Therefore, DOE did not include the bonds or tax credit in its analysis 

of potential impacts on the GSFL and IRL industries. 

According to the CA Stakeholders and ACEEE, the MIA does not consider pending 

legislation that could help mitigate the impacts due to energy conservation standards. 

Specifically, the CA Stakeholders cite three examples of pending legislation that could help 

to mitigate the impacts on GSFL and IRL manufacturers due to amended energy 

conservation standards: (1) Restoring America's Manufacturing Leadership through Energy 

Efficiency Act of 2009; (2) 21st Century Energy Technology Deployment Act of 2009; and 

(3) American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. (CA Stakeholders, No. 63 at p. 7) 

(ACEEE, No. 76 at p. 6) 

 If adopted in present form, DOE acknowledges that the proposed legislation cited by 

the CA Stakeholders could potentially mitigate the impacts of energy conservation standards 

on GSFL and IRL manufacturers if they were to qualify for the benefits in the proposed 

legislation. However, because the legislation is pending and has not become public law, 

passage of such proposed legislation or the final form of those provisions are the matters of 

speculation. Therefore, DOE does not include the proposed legislation’s potential to 

mitigate the impacts on GSFL and IRL manufactures in its analysis nor has it considered the 

pending legislation in its decision for today’s rule. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
199

The CA Stakeholders commented that energy conservation standards have 

consistently spurred innovation, resulting in even higher-efficiency products. However, in 

its analysis, DOE assumes that high-lumen T8 lamps represent the only opportunity for 

manufacturers to maintain profit margins through 2042. (CA Stakeholders, No. 63 at p 13) 

Additionally, the CA Stakeholders and ACEEE argued that DOE did not consider that 

GSFL manufacturers at TSL 4 and TSL 5 will be able to maintain high margins on a variety 

of other covered and non-covered products in their portfolio. These other covered products 

include T5s and extremely–high-lumen T8s, while non-covered products include solid state 

lighting such as LEDs. According to the CA Stakeholders, ACEEE, and NRDC, GSFL 

have other characteristics that could command higher margins besides efficacy, including 

long life, low wattage, resistance to high and low temperature, and low mercury content. If 

any of these upsell opportunities commanded higher markups, the positive impacts on INPV 

would be significant and should be reflected in DOE’s analysis. (CA Stakeholders, No. 63 at 

pp. 13-14) (ACEEE, No. 76 at p. 4) (NRDC, No. 82 at p. 3). 

In response, DOE recognizes that manufacturers will attempt to devise product 

differentiation strategies to compensate for a compression of the efficacy range of their 

product lines as a result of energy conservation standards. These strategies may include 

redefining efficacy tiers to more narrow bands, introducing more efficacious lamps than are 

currently offered, or stressing product attributes other than efficacy. The great number of 

assumptions required to model all possible markup strategies in the GRIM would not add to 

DOE’s qualitative description of how these upsells would impact INPV. As described 

previously, the Flat Markup scenario captures the INPV effects, assuming that 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
200

manufacturers fully compensate for a reduced range of efficacy values in their product 

portfolio. Thus, DOE’s consideration of the factors evoked by the CA Stakeholders and 

ACEEE is encompassed in the inclusion of a Flat Markup scenario and in its discussion of 

the relative weight it places on the markup scenarios for each of the TSLs. 

In comments on DOE’s April 2009 NOPR, the CA Stakeholders stated that based on 

a sensitivity analysis of the GSFL GRIM, DOE’s concern that standards could eliminate 

higher margins currently earned by more-efficacious products was a significant driver in 

determining the total impacts on the GSFL industry. The CA Stakeholders pointed out that 

the Four-Tier markup scenario had the greatest effect in determining the INPV impacts on 

the GSFL industry. (CA Stakeholders, No. 63 at p. 12) 

For the April 2009 NOPR, DOE modeled two different markup scenarios to capture 

potential pricing schemes manufacturers apply to their products. 74 FR 16920, 16977 (April 

13, 2009). The Flat Markup scenario applies a single markup to all products regardless of 

their efficacy. This scenario also assumes that manufacturers maintain their gross margin as 

a constant percentage throughout the analysis period, regardless of standards. The Four-Tier 

markup scenario applied a different markup to four different tiers of products (that 

correspond to the four phosphor series). As higher efficacies are required by energy 

conservation standards, manufacturers’ product portfolios are reduced, squeezing the gross 

margins of higher-efficacy products as they are ‘‘demoted’’ to lower-relative-efficacy-tier 

products. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
201

DOE agrees with the CA Stakeholders that the markup strategy is the primary driver 

of INPV for GSFL manufacturers. Therefore, to capture the full range of potential impacts 

of energy conservation standards on the GSFL INPV, DOE used the two markup scenarios 

for the April 2009 NOPR. For today’s final rule, DOE continues to use both the Flat 

Markup and the Four-Tier markup scenarios to bound the potential impacts of energy 

conservation standards on the GSFL INPV. 

The CA Stakeholders and ACEEE commented that the base cases overestimated the 

margins that manufacturers will be able to maintain for high-lumen T8 lamps as the market 

naturally shifts to more-efficient products. (CA Stakeholders, No. 63 at p. 4) (ACEEE, No. 

76 at p. 4) Additionally, the CA Stakeholders commented that as products become more 

efficient, absent standards and in a competitive market, higher-efficacy products will not 

maintain their current margins. (CA Stakeholders, No. 63 at p. 12) The CA Stakeholders 

also argued that DOE’s Four-Tier markup analysis for the four-foot medium bi-pin lamps 

appears to show manufacturers will maintain the estimated markup for 800 series highlumen T8 lamps meeting TSL 5 indefinitely. According to the CA Stakeholders, high-lumen 

T8s have been available for several years and are already being commoditized. However, 

DOE’s own analysis has shown that the market is shifting to higher-efficacy products 

without energy conservation standards. (CA Stakeholders, No. 63 at p. 12) 

 For the April 2009 NOPR, DOE modeled two different markup scenarios. 74 FR 

16920, 16977 (April 13, 2009). The first scenario applies a single markup to all products 

regardless of their efficacy. The second markup scenario applies a different markup to four 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
202

tiers of product efficacies that correspond to the four phosphor series. As the CA 

Stakeholders correctly stated, DOE assumed these two markup structures would be 

maintained throughout the analysis period. The CA Stakeholders also correctly stated that 

markups are the primary driver of INPV for GSFL. The CA Stakeholders believe that 

higher-efficacy lamps are already being commoditized and that non-covered, emerging 

technology will command high margins for manufacturers. While this assumption is not 

certain, DOE agrees that the premium GSFL covered in this rulemaking will likely follow a 

typical product life cycle, in which the average margins decrease over time in the base case, 

thereby resulting in a lower INPV than quantified by the Four-Tier markup scenario 

presented in the April 2009 NOPR. DOE also agrees that it is likely that as moreefficacious lighting products enter or replace GSFL in the market, premium products which 

currently command higher markups will become commoditized over time, and margins will 

erode. As non-covered emerging technologies reduce the size of the GSFL market, the 

overall margins of the GSFL market will also be reduced. Based on these additional 

assumptions, DOE has revised the Four-Tier markup scenario for today’s final rule as 

previously described. DOE estimates that this commoditization reduces the base-case 

industry value and, to a lesser degree, the INPV impacts in the standards case. For further 

explanation of the Four-Tier markup scenario and the revised INPV results, see chapter 13 

of the TSD. 

NRDC commented that commoditization of features and margin reduction will occur 

regardless of the standard set for the GSFL industry, but technological innovation will result 

in the introduction of new premium products as well. NRDC added that DOE has 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
203

forecasted two scenarios and compared them to determine the manufacturer impact. 

According to NRDC’s comments, the reality will certainly be somewhere in between a nostandards situation and the product commoditization scenario. NRDC concluded that the 

MIA results are likely to be significantly overstated because the true impacts will be in 

between these two situations (NRDC, No. 82 at p. 3). 

 In the April 2009 NOPR, DOE requested comment on the ability of GSFL 

manufacturers to maintain margins through differentiation by other means and how the 

ability to differentiate products might vary over time. 74 FR 16920, 17001 (April 13, 2009). 

At TSL 5, DOE believes that the ability for manufacturers to differentiate products by 

means other than efficacy by the year 2012 is limited. Currently, only the most efficient 

lamps available meet this efficacy level. This ability could improve in later years as other 

features and higher efficacy products are introduced. However, given the discounting of 

future cash flows, the effect of this gradual improvement will be small. For this reason, 

DOE believes that the INPV results would be greater than the midpoint of the range of 

impacts. At TSL 4, manufacturers maintain some ability to create tiers of efficacy, which 

will mitigate some of the effects of commoditization of premium GSFL. However, DOE 

disagrees with the statement that the impacts on manufacturers are likely to be significantly 

overstated. DOE believes the revisions to the Four-Tier markup scenario have addressed the 

Advocates’ concerns regarding an unrealistic change in profitability in the standards cases. 

The CA Stakeholders commented that DOE should conduct its own research and/or 

seek alternate sources of information to calculate the manufacturer margins and conversion 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
204

costs for T12 and T8 lamps. The CA Stakeholders argued that because manufacturer 

margins and conversion costs are two of the most significant GRIM inputs, to preserve the 

transparency of its analysis, DOE should not rely primarily on confidential data provided by 

one set of stakeholders (CA Stakeholders, No. 63 at p. 14). 

In response, DOE understands the need for transparent and accurate data on which to 

base its analysis. Profit margin data at the product-line level are possibly the most sensitive 

data for any company, and therefore, are not readily available to the public. DOE attempts to 

validate any sensitive data provided by manufacturers, including information about profit 

margins, by first requesting any documentary evidence. DOE also compares the data 

submittals for each manufacturer for consistency. To the extent possible DOE has developed 

and will continue to develop its own estimates of key parameters for the MIA, such as 

manufacturing costs and pricing, by researching published sources, contacting tooling 

suppliers, and retaining the services of industry consultants. To maintain confidentiality and 

transparency at the same time, DOE makes its estimates of manufacturer margins and 

conversion costs available for public comment in an industry-aggregated form. This process 

allows DOE to further refine its assumptions and estimates based on the responses provided 

by interested parties. 

 The CA Stakeholders commented that the MIA’s assumptions should not be revised 

to consider the current economic recession. The CA Stakeholders argued that such revisions 

would not add any practical value, given that it is impossible to accurately predict the 

direction of short-term economic cycles. (CA Stakeholders, No. 63 at p. 8) 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
205

 As previously stated, for today’s final rule, DOE has updated the GSFL and IRL 

GRIMs with revised NIA shipments and scenarios and used the updated product price 

determination inputs. DOE also revised the conversion costs using the appropriate PPI. 

These changes are typical revisions for energy conservation rulemakings and are not 

specifically attributable to current economic conditions. DOE agrees with CA Stakeholders 

and has not made revisions to the MIA specifically in response to the current near-term 

economic downturn. For additional information on the updates to the NIA and product 

price determination, see section V.D of today’s notice, respectively. For further explanation 

of inputs and updates to the GSFL and IRL GRIMs, see chapter 13 of the TSD. 

 The CA Stakeholders commented that the effective date of today’s final rule for 

GSFL and IRL energy conservation standards has a significant impact on the reported 

INPVs, and that any prorogation of the effective date would help mitigate impacts on the 

industry due to energy conservation standards. The CA Stakeholders recommended that 

DOE should establish an effective date for GSFL for their proposed Tier 1 standards (TSL4) 

in 2012 and for Tier 2 (TSL5) in 2016. (CA Stakeholders, No. 63 at p. 2, 14) Similarly, 

ACEEE argued that a phase-in standard would allow additional lead time for manufacturers 

and capture maximum energy savings. However, ACEEE requested expedited phase-in 

dates for GSFL standards at Tier 1 (July 2012) and Tier 2 (July 2015) (ACEEE, No. 76 at p. 

2). ACEEE presented the alternative of a later effective date for choosing TSL 5 for all 

covered GSFL (2013 or 2014), because it provides manufacturers additional time to spread 

conversion cost, thereby minimizing the impacts on INPV (ACEEE, No. 76 at pp. 2-3). 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
206

Similar to ACEEE’s alternative effective date, OSI requested a one-year extension of the 

effective date for IRL products only. OSI commented that the extension would allow 

sufficient time to replace its capital base for covered IRL and allow for manufacturing of the 

higher-efficacy products to stabilize (OSI, No. 84 at p. 1). 

 DOE agrees that the effective date of energy conservation standards (i.e., compliance 

date) has a significant impact on INPV. In the GRIM cashflow analyses, the conversion 

costs are implemented in the years between the announcement of the final rule and the 

effective date of the standards. By delaying the effective date and the required capital and 

product conversion costs, it would in theory be possible to reduce the negative impacts on 

INPV calculated for the proposed standards case, due to discounting the negative cash flows 

for conversion costs in later years. However, for the reasons discussed in section VI.I, for 

today’s final rule, DOE is not using a tiered approach to set energy conservation standards. 

Similarly, for the reasons discussed in section VI.I, DOE is not considering a later effective 

date for either the GSFL or the IRL energy conservation standard. The implications of a 

later effective date on the GSFL and IRL INPV are not being considered. 

 

 For a detailed discussion of the MIA, see chapter 13 of the TSD accompanying this 

notice. 

G. Employment Impact Analysis

 DOE considers employment impacts in the domestic economy as one factor in 

setting energy conservation standards. Employment impacts include direct and indirect 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
207

impacts. Direct employment impacts are changes in the number of employees for 

manufacturers of the appliance products that are subject to standards, their suppliers, and 

related service firms. The MIA addresses these impacts. Indirect employment impacts from 

standards consist of the net jobs created or eliminated in the national economy, other than in 

the manufacturing sector being regulated, due to: (1) reduced spending by end users on 

energy; (2) reduced spending on new energy supply by the utility industry; (3) increased 

consumer spending on the purchase of new products; and (4) the effects of those three 

factors throughout the economy. DOE expects the net monetary savings from standards to 

be redirected to other forms of economic activity. DOE also expects these shifts in spending 

and economic activity to affect the demand for labor in the short term. 

 In developing the April 2009 NOPR and today’s final rule, DOE estimated indirect 

national employment impacts using an input/output model of the U.S. economy called 

Impact of Sector Energy Technologies (ImSET44). ImSET is a spreadsheet model of the U.S. 

economy that focuses on 188 sectors most relevant to industrial, commercial, and residential 

building energy use. ImSET is a special-purpose version of the “U.S. Benchmark National 

Input-Output” (I-O) model designed to estimate the national employment and income 

effects of energy-saving technologies. The ImSET software includes a computer-based I-O 

model with structural coefficients to characterize economic flows among the 188 sectors. 

ImSET’s national economic I-O structure is based on a 1997 U.S. benchmark table, 

 

44 Roop, J. M., M. J. Scott, and R. W. Schultz, ImSET: Impact of Sector Energy Technologies (PNNL–15273 

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory) (2005). Available at 

www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-15273.pdf. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
208

especially aggregated to those sectors. For further details, see chapter 15 of the TSD 

accompanying this notice. 

 As described in section V.G, DOE uses ImSet to consider indirect employment 

impacts when evaluating alternative standard levels. Direct employment impacts on the 

manufacturers that produce IRL and GSFL are analyzed in the manufacturer impact 

analysis, as discussed in section V.F. 

H. Utility Impact Analysis

 The utility impact analysis determines the changes to energy supply and demand 

(and forecasted power generation capacity) that result from the end-use energy savings due 

to new or amended energy conservation standards. DOE used a version of EIA’s National 

Energy Modeling System (NEMS) for this utility impact analysis. NEMS, which is available 

in the public domain, is a large, multisectoral, partial-equilibrium model of the U.S. energy 

sector. EIA uses NEMS to produce its AEO, a widely-recognized baseline energy forecast 

for the United States. The version of NEMS used for appliance standards analysis is called 

NEMS-BT45 and is primarily based on the April Update of the AEO 200946 with minor 

 

45 EIA approves the use of the name NEMS to describe only an official AEO version of the model without any 

modification to code or data. Because the present analysis entails some minor code modifications and runs the 

model under various policy scenarios that deviate from AEO assumptions, the name NEMS-BT refers to the 

model as used here. (“BT” stands for DOE’s Building Technologies Program.) For more information on 

NEMS, refer to “The National Energy Modeling System: An Overview,” DOE/EIA–0581 (98) (Feb. 1998). 

Available at http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ftproot/forecasting/058198.pdf. 46 An Updated Annual Energy Outlook 2009 Reference Case Reflecting Provisions of the American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act and Recent Changes in the Economic Outlook, April 2009. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
209

modifications. The analysis output includes a forecast of the total electricity generation 

capacity at each TSL. 

 DOE obtained the energy savings inputs associated with electricity consumption 

savings from the NIA. These inputs reflect the effects on electricity of efficiency 

improvements due to the deployment of GSFL and IRL that would meet the energy 

conservation standards set forth in this rulemaking. Chapter 14 of the TSD accompanying 

this notice presents details on the utility impact analysis. 

 DOE received comments to the ANOPR requesting that DOE report gas and 

electricity price impacts, and the economic benefits of reduced need for new electric power 

plants and infrastructure. The expectation is that lower electricity demand will lead to lower 

prices for both electricity and natural gas that would benefit consumers. 

 DOE considered reporting gas and electricity price impacts but found that the 

uncertainty of price projections, together with the fairly small impact of the standards 

relative to total electricity demand, makes these price changes highly uncertain. As a result, 

DOE believes that they should not be weighed heavily in the decision concerning the 

standard level. Given the current complexity of utility regulation in the United States (with 

significant variances among States), it does not seem appropriate to attempt to measure 

impacts on infrastructure costs and prices where there is likely to be significant overlap. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
210

I. Environmental Assessment

 Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 

et seq.) 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)2)(B)(i)(VI), DOE prepared an environmental assessment (EA) of 

the potential impacts of the proposed standards it considered for today’s final rule which it 

has included as chapter 16 of the TSD for the final rule. DOE found the environmental 

effects associated with the standards for GSFL and IRL to be insignificant. Therefore, DOE 

is issuing a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), pursuant to NEPA, the regulations 

of the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and DOE’s regulations 

for compliance with NEPA (10 CFR part 1021). The FONSI is available in the docket for 

this rulemaking. 

 In the EA, DOE estimated the reduction in total emissions of CO2 and NOx using the 

NEMS-BT computer model. DOE also calculated a range of estimates for reduction in 

mercury (Hg) emissions using power sector emission rates. The EA does not include the 

estimated reduction in power sector impacts of sulfur dioxide (SO2), because DOE has 

determined that any such reduction resulting from an energy conservation standard would 

not affect the overall level of SO2 emissions in the United States due to the presence of 

national caps on SO2 emissions. These topics are addressed further below; see chapter 16 of 

the TSD for additional detail. 

 EEI commented that DOE should consider the environmental impacts of the 

production processes especially if higher efficiency standards would result in more 

manufacturing overseas. (EEI, No. 45 at p. 4) As discussed in the manufacturer impact 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
211

analysis (see section V.F), DOE does not expect a migration of production of IRL overseas 

as a result of this rule. In addition, as the migration of GSFL production overseas is highly 

speculative, DOE does not feel it appropriate to incorporate the environmental impacts of 

production processes if moved overseas. 

 EarthJustice stated that DOE must calculate the amount of reductions in emissions of 

particulate matter (PM) that will result from standards for GSFLs and IRLs (and monetize 

the value). EarthJustice stated that even if DOE believes that the impacts on secondary PM 

emissions were physically impossible to estimate due to their complexity, it would not 

justify DOE ignoring the impact of standards on primary emissions of PM from power 

plants. (EarthJustice, No. 60 at pg 8) PM emissions reductions are much more difficult to 

estimate than other emissions due to the wide range of power plant controls and individual 

plant operations that impact PM emissions. DOE is not currently able to run a model that 

can make these estimates reliably at the national level. 

 NEMS-BT is run similarly to the AEO2009 NEMS, except that lighting energy use 

is reduced by the amount of energy saved (by fuel type) due to the trial standard levels. The 

inputs of national energy savings come from the NIA analysis. For the EA, the output is the 

forecasted physical emissions. The net benefit of a standard is the difference between 

emissions estimated by NEMS-BT and the Updated AEO2009 Reference Case. The NEMSBT tracks CO2 emissions using a detailed module that provides results with broad coverage 

of all sectors and inclusion of interactive effects. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
212

 The Clean Air Act sets an emissions cap on SO2 for all affected Electric Generating 

Units. The attainment of the emissions cap is flexible among generators and is enforced 

through the use of emissions allowances and tradable permits. In other words, with or 

without a standard, total cumulative SO2 emissions will always be at or near the ceiling, and 

there may be some timing differences among yearly forecasts. Thus, it is unlikely that there 

will be reduced overall SO2 emissions from standards as long as the emissions ceilings are 

enforced. Although there may be no actual reduction in SO2 emissions, there still may be an 

economic benefit from reduced demand for SO2 emission allowances. Electricity savings 

decrease the generation of SO2 emissions from power production, which can lessen the need 

to purchase SO2 emissions allowance credits, and thereby decrease the costs of complying 

with regulatory caps on emissions. 

 NOX emissions from 28 eastern States and the District of Columbia (D.C.) are 

limited under the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), published in the Federal Register on 

May 12, 2005.47 Although CAIR has been remanded to EPA by the D.C. Circuit, it will 

remain in effect until it is replaced by a rule consistent with the Court’s July 11, 2008 

opinion in North Carolina v. EPA.

48 Because all States covered by CAIR opted to reduce 

NOX emissions through participation in cap-and-trade programs for electric generating units, 

emissions from these sources are capped across the CAIR region. 

 For the 28 eastern States and D.C. where CAIR is in effect, no NOX emissions 

 

47 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005). 

48 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008); see also North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
213

reductions will occur due to the permanent cap. Under caps, physical emissions reductions 

in those States would not result from the energy conservation standards under consideration 

by DOE, but standards might have produced an environmentally-related economic impact in 

the form of lower prices for emissions allowance credits, if they were large enough. 

However, DOE determined that in the present case, such standards would not produce an 

environmentally-related economic impact in the form of lower prices for emissions 

allowance credits, because the estimated reduction in NOX emissions or the corresponding 

allowance credits in States covered by the CAIR cap would be too small to affect allowance 

prices for NOX under the CAIR. In contrast, new or amended energy conservation standards 

would reduce NOX emissions in those 22 States that are not affected by CAIR. As a result, 

the NEMS-BT does forecast emissions reductions from the proposed amended standards 

considered in today’s final rule. 

 In the April 2009 NOPR, however, DOE provided a different estimate of NOX

reductions, because DOE assumed that the CAIR had been vacated. 74 FR 16920, 17009-

14 (April 13, 2009). This is because the CAIR rule was vacated by the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) in its July 11, 2008 decision in 

North Carolina v. Environmental Protection Agency.

49 Although the D.C. Circuit, in a 

December 23, 2008 opinion,50 decided to allow the CAIR rule to remain in effect until it is 

replaced by a rule consistent with the Court’s earlier opinion, DOE retained its analysis of 

NOX emissions reductions based on an assumption that the CAIR rule was not in effect, 

 

49 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 

50 See 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
214

because: (1) the NOPR was so advanced at the time that the December 23, 2008 opinion 

was issued that revisiting the analysis would have caused undue delay; and (2) neither the 

July 11, 2008, nor the December 23, 2008 decisions of the D.C. Circuit changed the 

standard-setting proposals offered in the NOPR. 

 Thus, for the April 2009 NOPR, DOE established a range of NOX reductions based on 

low and high emissions rates (in metric kilotons of NOX emitted per terawatt-hour (TWh) 

of electricity generated) derived from the AEO2008. DOE anticipated that, in the absence 

of the CAIR’s trading program, the new or amended energy conservation standards would 

reduce NOX emissions nationwide, not just in 22 States. 

 Similar to SO2 and NOx, future emissions of Hg would have been subject to 

emissions caps under the Clean Air Mercury Rule51 (CAMR), which would have 

permanently capped emissions of mercury for new and existing coal-fired plants in all States 

by 2010, but the CAMR was vacated by the D.C. Circuit in its decision in New Jersey v. 

Environmental Protection Agency52 prior to publication of the April 2009 NOPR. However, 

the NEMS-BT model DOE initially used to estimate the changes in emissions for the 

proposed rule assumed that Hg emissions would be subject to CAMR emission caps. 

 After CAMR was vacated, DOE was unable to use the NEMS-BT model to estimate 

any changes in the quantity of mercury emissions (anywhere in the country) that would 

 

51 70 FR 28606 (May 18, 2005). 

52 517 F 3d 574 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
215

result from standard levels it considered for the proposed rule. Instead, DOE used an Hg 

emissions rate (in metric tons of Hg per energy produced) based on the AEO2008 for the 

April 2009 NOPR. Because virtually all mercury emitted from electricity generation is from 

coal-fired power plants, DOE based the emissions rate on the metric tons of mercury 

emitted per TWh of coal-generated electricity. To estimate the reduction in mercury 

emissions, DOE multiplied the emissions rate by the reduction in coal-generated electricity 

associated with the standards considered. Because the CAMR remains vacated, DOE 

continued to use the approach it used for the April 2009 NOPR to estimate the Hg emission 

reductions due to standards for today’s final rule. 

 EEI commented that, “if the standard leads to more use of compact fluorescent 

technology as replacements for incandescent reflector lamps, there will be an increase in 

mercury use and disposal issues compared to the baseline technologies.” (EEI, No. 45 at p. 

4). DOE estimates that any increase in use of CFLs, as compared to having no new or 

amended GSFL and IRL standards, would be minimal and any related mercury releases 

would be environmentally insignificant and speculative, particularly since only a fraction of 

CFLs are improperly disposed of and only a small fraction of the mercury in those CFLs 

leach into the environment. 

 EarthJustice and NRDC argue that DOE should incorporate the value of CO2

emissions reductions into the LCC and NPV analyses because the value of CO2 emissions 

reductions affects the economic justification of standards, DOE must incorporate these 

effects into the LCC and NPV analyses. (Earthjustice, No. 60, at pgs 7-8 and (NRDC and 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
216

Earthjustice, Issue Paper, No. 82 at p. 1)) New York, et al also recommended that DOE 

prioritize energy savings and reduced CO2 emissions and allocate at least as much weight to the 

monetary value of reduced carbon emissions as it does to other monetary impacts. (NY et al, No. 

88 at p. 1)53 On the other hand, NEMA expressed support of the approach used by DOE in the 

NOPR to reflect a range for monetized values and report environmental benefits separately from 

the net benefits of energy savings. (NEMA, No. 81 at p. 21)

DOE notes that neither EPCA nor NEPA requires that the economic value of 

emissions reduction be incorporated in the LCC or NPV analysis of energy savings. DOE 

has chosen to report these benefits separately from the net benefits of energy savings. A 

summary of the monetary results is shown in section VII.C.6 of this notice. DOE considered 

both values when weighing the benefits and burdens of standards. 

J. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other Emissions Impacts

 

 DOE also calculated the possible monetary benefit of CO2, NOx, and Hg reductions. 

Cumulative monetary benefits were determined using discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. 

DOE monetized reductions in CO2 emissions due to the standards in this final rule based on 

a range of monetary values drawn from studies that attempt to estimate the present value of 

the marginal economic benefits (based on the avoided marginal social costs of carbon)

likely to result from reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The marginal social cost of carbon 

is an estimate of the monetary value to society of the environmental damages of CO2

 

53 A joint comment by the States of New York, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, 

New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Vermont, and Washington. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
217

emissions. 

 Several parties provided comments regarding the economic valuation of CO2 for the 

April 2009 NOPR. NRDC commented that New England now has a CO2 trading price that 

could be used by DOE (NRDC, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. 311-312) NRDC 

and Earthjustice argue that DOE should incorporate an assumption of a mandatory cap on 

CO2 emissions or at the very least revise the range of CO2 valuation. (NRDC and 

Earthjustice, Issue Paper, No. 82, p. 1-14) NY et al also criticized the range of CO2 values 

used in the NOPR and recommended the use of a long-run marginal abatement cost of CO2 

for monetizing CO2 emission reductions, rather than the damage costs given the highly 

uncertain nature of the latter (NY et al, No. 88, p. 9-10). As discussed in section VII.C.6, 

DOE has updated the approach described in the April 2009 NOPR (74 FR 16920, 17009 

(Apr. 13, 2009)) for its monetization of environmental emissions reductions for today’s rule. 

 Although this rulemaking does not affect SO2 emissions or NOx emissions in the 28 

eastern States and D.C. where CAIR is in effect, there are markets for SO2 and NOx

emissions allowances. The market clearing price of SO2 and NOx emissions allowances is 

roughly the marginal cost of meeting the regulatory cap, not the marginal value of the cap 

itself. Further, because national SO2 and NOx emissions are regulated by a cap-and-trade 

system, the cost of meeting these caps is included in the price of energy. Thus, the value of 

energy savings already includes the value of SO2 and NOx control for those consumers 

experiencing energy savings. The economic cost savings associated with SO2 and NOx

emissions caps is approximately equal to the change in the price of traded allowances 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
218

resulting from energy savings multiplied by the number of allowances that would be issued 

each year. That calculation is uncertain because the energy savings from new or amended 

standards for IRL and GSFL would be so small relative to the entire electricity generation 

market that the resulting emissions savings would have almost no impact on price formation 

in the allowances market. These savings would most likely be outweighed by uncertainties 

in the marginal costs of compliance with SO2 and NOx emissions caps. 

 EEI commented that the cost of remediating emissions such as CO2, NOx, SO2, and 

mercury were already included in electricity rates paid by consumers and therefore emission 

reductions should not be “monetized” because it would lead to double counting. (EEI, No. 

78 at p. 4-5). As described above, DOE has only monetized the value of emissions not 

covered by existing caps, such as NOx in regions not covered by CAIR. The monetization 

of these emissions is based on estimates of their damage costs (i.e., health effects) that are 

not included in economic prices. 

 EEI also commented that DOE should consider the most recent trends in electricity 

generation, including reductions in emissions, the rise of renewable portfolio standards, and 

the possibility of an upcoming CO2 cap-and-trade program which would reduce the amount 

of CO2 produced per kWh generated. (EEI, No. 45 at p. 5) Earthjustice stated that Federal 

caps will likely be in place by the time new standards become effective, so DOE should 

increase its electricity prices to reflect the cost of complying with emission caps. 

Earthjustice also noted that there are regional cap-and-trade programs in effect in the 

Northeast (Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI))) and the West (Western Climate 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
219

Initiative (WCI)) that will affect the price of electricity but are not reflected in the AEO

energy price forecasts. (Earthjustice, No. 60 at p. 6-7) NY et al also recommended 

including some level of CO2 pricing in its modeling. (NY et al, No. 88, at p. 25) 

 In response, DOE incorporated current trends in its analysis, but expressly did not 

include possible future legislation in this rulemaking. The current NEMS-BT model used in 

projecting the environmental impacts includes the CAIR rule, as described above, which is 

projected to reduce SO2 and NOx emissions. NEMS-BT also takes into account the current 

set of State level renewable portfolio standards, the effect of the RGGI, and utility investor 

reactions to the possibility of future CO2 cap and trade programs, all of which impact 

electricity prices and reduce the projected carbon intensity of generation.54 

VI. Discussion of Other Key Issues and Comments 

A. Sign Industry Impacts

 The CA Stakeholders supported the adoption of TSL3 for the 8-foot SP Slimline and 

8-foot RDC HO product classes partially due to concern for the outdoor sign industry. 

Based on communication with the Director of Technical & Regulatory Affairs for the 

International Sign Association, the CA Stakeholders believed that the outdoor sign industry 

would experience significant negative impacts if covered 8-foot T12 lamps were eliminated 

by DOE proposing TSL4. (CA Stakeholders, No. 63 at p. 10) However, DOE does not 

believe that such an impact exists. The definition of “general service fluorescent lamp” 

 

54 For more information, see the Update to the AEO2009 and the AEO2009 Assumptions documentation [add 

proper cites] 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
220

exempts any fluorescent lamp designed and marketed for cold temperature applications. 10 

CFR 430.2. Because outdoor signs typically require lamps and ballasts designed for cold 

temperature operation, they should be minimally impacted by an energy conservation 

standard. If owners of outdoor signs are in fact using covered 8-foot T12 lamps, they have 

the option to replace those lamps with either a covered 8-foot T8 lamp or an exempted 8-

foot T12 lamp designed for use in cold temperature applications. Thus, the outdoor sign 

industry will not be negatively impacted by DOE adopting TSL 4. 

B. Max-Tech IRL

 As required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1) and described in the April 2009 NOPR, DOE 

identified the efficacy levels that would achieve the maximum improvements in energy 

efficiency that are technologically feasible (max-tech levels) for GSFL and IRL. 74 FR 

16920, 16933-35 (April 13, 2009). For IRL, DOE tentatively determined that the maximum 

technologically feasible efficacy level would incorporate the highest-efficiency 

technologically feasible reflector, halogen infrared coating, and filament design. Id. 

Combining all three of these high-efficiency technologies simultaneously results in the 

maximum technologically feasible level. However, because the only technology pathway to 

this level is dependent a proprietary technology, DOE did not consider this level further in 

its analyses. In the April 2009 NOPR, DOE analyzed TSL5, which is the most efficient IRL 

commercially-available IRL and employs a silver reflector, an improved (but not mostefficient) IR coating, and a filament design that results in a lifetime of 4,200 hours. 

Although this commercially-available lamp uses the patented silver technology, DOE 

believes that there are alternate pathways to achieve this level. A combination of 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
221

redesigning the filament to achieve higher temperature operation (and thus reducing lifetime 

to 3,000 hours), employing other non-proprietary high-efficiency reflectors, and applying a 

higher-efficiency IR coating has the potential to result in an IRL that meets an equivalent 

efficacy level (for more information regarding these technologies, see chapter 3 of the TSD). 

Therefore, in the April 2009 NOPR, DOE concluded that TSL5 is the maximum 

technologically feasible level for IRL that is not dependent on the use of a proprietary 

technology. Id.

1. Treatment of Proprietary Technologies 

 Several stakeholders commented that DOE did not analyze the max-tech level for IRL 

as required by EPCA because IRL can achieve efficacies even higher than TSL5. (ASAP, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. 96; ADLT, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at 

p. 113; Earthjustice, No. 60 at pp. 2-3; CA Stakeholders, No. 63 at p. 14; ACEEE, No. 76 at 

p. 5; NRDC, No. 82 at p. 2) Commenters disagreed with DOE’s conclusion that it could not 

establish a TSL that required the use of a proprietary technology. (Earthjustice, No. 60 at pp. 

3-4; CA Stakeholders, No. 63 at p. 14; ACEEE, No. 76 at p. 5) These stakeholders claimed 

that DOE must either analyze the economic impacts of the true max-tech level, which would 

incorporate the proprietary technology, or show that standards based on the proprietary 

silverized reflector are not technologically feasible. (Earthjustice, No. 60 at p. 4; CA 

Stakeholders, No. 63 at pp. 14-15) 

 DOE agrees with the stakeholders that max-tech level for IRL is different than TSL5. 

While TSL5 is the highest efficiency level on which DOE performed the full range of 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
222

economic analyses (including LCC, national impacts, and manufacturer impacts), DOE 

maintains that it did in fact consider and analyze the max-tech level consistent with EPCA. 

According to EPCA, DOE is required to establish energy conservation standards that “shall 

be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency . . . which the 

Secretary determines is technologically feasible and economically justified.” (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(A)) To determine economic justification, DOE considers (among other factors) 

“the economic impact of the standard on the manufacturers” and “the impact of any 

lessening of competition . . . that is likely to result from the imposition of a standard.” (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I) and (V)) 

 The observation that DOE did not label the max tech level as TSL6 does not mean that 

DOE did not consider this efficiency level. As noted in the April 2009 NOPR and further 

explained below, DOE rejected this level because it required the use of a proprietary 

technology. However, DOE is not broadly screening out proprietary technologies or 

otherwise eliminating them from its analysis. In contrast to the present case, most patents 

do not convey market power to their owners because close substitutes for these inventions 

exist. Licensors will pay no more for these technologies than the cost advantage they 

provide over the next best alternative pathway to compliance with the efficiency standard. 

Ultimately the availability of cost-effective alternate technology pathways is what limits the 

ability of the owner of a proprietary technology to extract high fees for its use. 

 However, it is DOE’s opinion that a standard level which can only be met with a 

single proprietary technology which comes without assurances of open and free technology 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
223

access should be rejected because it carries great risk of resulting in an anti-competitive 

market, a principle consistently applied in past DOE rulemakings. In such a situation, the 

standards-setting process itself would convey great market power because there would be no 

alternative means to satisfy the standard. DOE believes that this is sufficient cause to 

conclude that the max-tech level in question is not economically justified. Having made this 

determination, there was no need or benefit to performing additional analyses relevant to the 

other statutory criteria. In fact, in Natural Resources Defense Council v. Herrington, the 

D.C. Circuit recognized that a complete analysis of all factors in not always required: “ If no 

standard could have been based on prototypes without requiring manufacturers to 

accomplish the impossible, we agree that DOE could reasonably deem all such standards 

economically unjustified without trudging through the remaining statutory factors.” 768 

F.2d 1355, 1396-97 (D.C. Cir. 1985). 

 At the NOPR public meeting, ASAP suggested that DOE should consider crosslicensing as a vehicle for manufacturers to access proprietary technologies if such 

technologies might comprise the only pathway to compliance with a certain standard level. 

(ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. 97) While DOE acknowledges that 

manufacturers of proprietary technologies can create cross-licensing agreements with other 

organizations, DOE continues to reject the notion that a standard requiring a specific 

proprietary technology can be established under the EPCA criteria, for several reasons. 

First, the availability and the price of the proprietary technology could change after the 

efficiency standards are established, if the patent owner attempts to extract the value added 

by the standard-setting process in royalty fees for the technology required to meet the maxEE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
224

tech level. Second, DOE believes that the terms of cross-licensing agreements are generally 

not made public, so it is difficult to assess historical trends as to the impact of such 

agreements on the market. Thus, DOE cannot assess the cost implications of current or 

future cross-licensing agreements made in the industry; by extension, DOE cannot assess 

the manufacturer, consumer, or nationwide impact of a standard that requires the usage of a 

proprietary technology. 

 In consideration of all of these factors, DOE maintains that it considers a standard 

level which can be met by only one proprietary design to be economically unjustified. 

Thus, DOE has rejected the max-tech level for IRL, and conducted the full range of 

economic analyses on what it believes to be the next highest efficiency level (not dependent 

on a proprietary design), TSL5. 

2. Other Technologies 

 In response to the April 2009 NOPR, DOE received a number of comments suggesting 

that even without the use of a proprietary technology, several existing technologies could be 

utilized to produce IRL with efficacies that meet or exceed TSL5. (ADLT, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 38.4 at pp. 107-110, 113; CA Stakeholders, No. 63 at pp. 16-17; ADLT, No. 

72 at p. 2; ACEEE, No. 76 at p. 5; NRDC, No. 82 at p. 4) Manufacturers also commented 

on the burdens and barriers associated with implementing some of these technologies. 

Comments received regarding alternate technologies that could be used to meet or exceed 

TSL5 are summarized below. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
225

a. High-Efficiency IR Coatings 

 DOE analyzed advanced IR coatings in the April 2009 NOPR as a possible technology 

pathway to achieving TSL5 without the use of the proprietary silverized reflector. 74 FR 

16920, 16944-45 (April 13, 2009). As part of its analysis (documented in the Appendix 5D 

of the TSD), DOE obtained several halogen burners on which advanced IR coatings were 

deposited. 55 Using a combination of testing and engineering calculations, DOE determined 

the maximum lamp efficacy that could result from implementing an advanced IR coating 

and non-proprietary aluminum reflector, while maintaining a lamp lifetime similar to the 

baseline lamp lifetime. 

 In response to the April 2009 NOPR, several stakeholders noted that DOE’s maximum 

lamp efficacy as presented in Appendix 5D of the TSD, far exceeds that of TSL5 and, thus, 

should have been considered as a higher TSL6. (PG&E, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

38.4 at p. 99; CA Stakeholders, No. 63 at p. 15) The CA Stakeholders further agreed with 

DOE’s statement in appendix 5D that advanced IR coatings are not a developmental 

product. (CA Stakeholders, No. 63 at p. 17) ADLT confirmed that the uncoated burner 

tested by DOE for appendix 5D has been used in products for several years in the United 

States and that the coating applied to this burner has been in production in Europe on 12V 

burners for several years. (ADLT, No. 72 at p. 3) 

 

55 Halogen infrared (HIR) lamps that are commercially available today typically use infrared (IR) coatings 

with alternating layers of two materials (i.e., SiO2 and a second material of either Ta2O5 or Nb2O5) and have 

layer counts ranging from 45 to 75. In contrast, the most-efficient HIR lamps have a coating made of three 

materials: SiO2, Ta2O5, and TiO2, the latter in the high - index rutile phase. This three-material coating, 

described as a HybridTM by Advanced Lighting Technologies, Inc. (hereafter referred to as “advanced IR 

coating”), has an effective IR reflectance significantly higher than that of the two-material coatings used in the 

commercially-available examples, thereby resulting in enhanced lumen-per-watt (lm/W) values. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
226

 In contrast, NEMA commented that because DOE’s lamp efficacies calculated in 

Appendix 5D are based on prototype burners, and not on product that is currently in 

production, these values overestimate the final performance that would be achieved after 

making all design and process tradeoffs necessary to implement a complete high-speed, 

high-volume assembly process. (NEMA, No. 81 at pp. 28-29) In addition, both Philips and 

ADLT agreed that there is a difference between the efficacy that can be attained in a 

laboratory production process and that which can be attained in an industrial environment. 

ADLT acknowledged that this difference is more pronounced when employing higherefficiency IR coatings. (Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. 111; ADLT, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at pp. 112-113) 

 While DOE considers advanced IR coatings to be a valid design option for increasing 

IRL efficacy and has not screened it out of the analysis, DOE also recognizes that it lacks 

the data to accurately estimate the performance of lamps utilizing this design option when 

manufactured at the production volumes needed to service the IRL market. Although all 

individual components of the prototype have been produced in high volume for separate 

products, that alone does not prove that a lamp with that combination of parts would have 

the same efficacy when manufactured on a large scale. In addition, as the analysis 

performed in appendix 5D of the TSD was based on an IR coating deposited in a laboratory 

environment, it is reasonable to assume that the efficacy of similar burners when 

manufactured in an industrial environment will be lower. While DOE recognizes that 

advanced IR coatings will likely produce higher-efficacy IRL, because DOE does not have 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
227

adequate data to accurately estimate this efficacy, DOE is no longer considering the tested 

burners in establishing the max-tech level or alternate technology pathways to achieving 

other TSLs. 

b. Silverized Reflectors 

 Commenters stated that in addition to the patent for GE’s silverized reflector, two 

other patents exist for manufacturing coatings of reflective silver. Another company 

possesses a provisional patent for a silverized lamp reflector (“Reflector A”), a technology 

(currently in development) that has been demonstrated in prototypes that have tested 

performances at least equal to that of the patented technology. A third entity has a patent for 

a “durable silver reflective coating” (“Reflector B”) that could be used for lamp 

applications. (CA Stakeholders, No. 63 at p. 19-20; ADLT, No. 72 at p. 2) 

 While recognizing the promise of these reflective silver technologies, DOE notes that 

significant uncertainty remains as to the successful implementation of both of these designs 

in commercial products at the scale needed to service the IRL market. In addition, DOE has 

no data on the performance of Reflector A. Although stakeholder have provided tested 

efficacies of lamps utilizing Reflector B, similar to the discussion regarding advance IR 

coatings, DOE is unable accurately estimate the performance of these lamps when produced 

at high volumes in industrial environments. For this reason, although DOE considers 

silverized reflectors as an IRL design option, DOE has concluded that it cannot base its 

establishing of max-tech or adoption of any other TSL on the potential performance of these 

reflectors. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
228

c. Integrally-Ballasted Low-Voltage IRL 

In the April 2009 NOPR, DOE screened out integrally-ballasted low-voltage IRL as 

a technology option, because it was unaware of any IRL with integrated transformers that 

stepped down voltage from 120V line voltage. 74 FR 16920, 16940 (April 13, 2009). 

Therefore, DOE could not conclusively determine if this technology option was 

technologically feasible. (See the Chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD). To demonstrate 

technological feasibility, the California Stakeholders contracted a consulting company to 

combine existing lamp components to make several prototypes of 120V IRL utilizing lowvoltage capsules. The tested efficacies of these prototype indicated that low-voltage 

capsules could be used as a technology pathway to meeting TSL4 and TSL5. (California 

Stakeholders, No. 63 at pp. 20-21) Regarding the technological feasibility of low-voltage 

IRL, Philips commented that higher mains voltages found in Europe (such as 220V and 

240V) allow greater improvements in efficiency to be obtained by IRL with integrated 

transformers, but such improvements could not be obtained as easily in the U.S., where a 

mains voltage of 120V is used. (Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at pp. 318-

319) 

In response, because the California Stakeholders have demonstrated that an 

integrally-ballasted low-voltage IRL operating on 120V mains is technologically feasible, 

DOE is no longer screening out this technology option in its screening analysis. However, 

because one of the tested prototypes (in particular, the only one claimed to meet TSL5) 

combined the low-voltage capsule with a developmental silverized reflector (see section 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
229

V.B.5.d), DOE believes that there is significant uncertainty regarding the actual efficacies 

when such a product is manufactured on large scales. In addition, as stakeholders did not 

provide the lifetime of their tested prototypes, DOE cannot confirm that the resulting 

efficacies represent products with lifetimes similar to the baseline lamps DOE analyzed. 

Therefore, although DOE recognizes the potential of integrally-ballasted low-voltage IRL to 

reach high efficacies, due to the lack of definitive data DOE cannot base the establishing of 

max tech or the adoption of any other TSL on the test data provided. 

3. Lamp Lifetime 

Because lamp lifetime affects lamp efficacy, certain commenters suggested that the 

max-tech level should reflect a typical baseline lamp with a lifetime of between 1,000 and 

2,000 hours. (CA Stakeholders, No. 63 at p. 15) ADLT acknowledged that a relationship 

exists between lamp lumens and lifetime in which, all other things remaining equal, one 

cannot be changed without affecting the other. ADLT suggested that DOE should analyze 

lamps with lifetimes between 2,000 and 3,000 hours, which represents lifetimes commonly 

found in the commercial and residential markets. (ADLT, No. 72 at p. 3) 

DOE agrees that the max-tech level should be based on a lamp with a lifetime 

typical to the baseline lamp, and it conducted its rulemaking analyses accordingly. As 

discussed in Chapter 5 of the TSD and consistent with ADLR’s recommendation, DOE 

believes typical lifetimes of IRL regulated by this rulemaking are currently 2,500 to 3,000 

hours. As discussed in section I.A.2, DOE has already considered that the maximum 

technologically feasible level would incorporate the highest-efficiency filament design, and 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
230

such a filament would increase operating temperature (and efficacy) to a point that would 

result in a lifetime equivalent to the baseline lamp lifetime. However, because this level 

requires the use of the proprietary silverized reflector, DOE rejected this level as not 

economically-justified. 

In addition, DOE has reevaluated whether TSL5 represents the maximum 

technologically feasible level not dependent on a single proprietary technology. In the April 

2009 NOPR, DOE based TSL5 on a commercially-available IRL which employs a 

proprietary silver reflector, an improved (but not most-efficient) IR coating, and a filament 

design that results in a lifetime of 4,200 hours. However, DOE also stated that it believed 

that other technology pathways (not dependent on the proprietary technology) may exist. 

This belief was largely based on advanced IR coated capsules DOE tested (as documented 

in Appendix 5D). However, as discussed in section VI.B.2.a, DOE does not have the 

required certainty regarding these tested efficacies, and, therefore, is not considering them in 

establishing standard levels for this final rule. To verify that an alternate technology 

pathway exists to achieving TSL5, DOE evaluated commercially-available lamps at TSL4 

(that generally have lifetimes of 4,000 hours) and modeled their efficacies at a reduced lifetime similar to the baseline (2,500 hours). Using the 9th edition of the IESNA Lighting 

Handbook and by developing a relationship between lifetime, lumens, and wattage, DOE 

determined that a reduced lifetime TSL4 lamp (not using the proprietary silver reflector) 

would in fact just meet the efficacy requirements of TSL5. Therefore, DOE believes that 

TSL5 represents the maximum technologically feasible level not dependent on a single 

proprietary technology, taking into account all lifetime considerations. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
231

C. IRL Lifetime

1. Baseline Lifetime Scenario 

As discussed earlier, DOE’s NOPR analyses were primarily based on commerciallyavailable lamps, modeling 4,000-hour-lifetime and 4,200-hour-lifetime lamps at TSL4 and 

TSL5. DOE received a number of comments on the anticipated availability of IRL of 

various lifetimes under amended standards. Specifically, NEMA stated that it is possible to 

achieve higher efficacy levels (e.g., TSL4 and TSL5), but that only shorter-lifetime lamps 

are likely to be offered at those levels. NEMA also argued that PAR halogen lamps must 

have lifetimes of at least 2,000 hours (and more typically 3,000 hours) in order to be 

economically viable to consumers. (NEMA, No. 81 at pp. 5, 31) In addition, ADLT 

commented that the market determines the appropriate combination of efficacy and lifetime, 

it predicted that, in the future, higher-efficacy lamps would have shorter lifetimes than those 

proposed by DOE at TSL4 and TSL5 in the April 2009 NOPR. (ADLT, No. 72 at p. 3-4) 

The CA Stakeholders also disagreed with DOE’s selection of longer-lifetime lamps at TSL4 

and TSL5. They stated that on a technology basis, lamp lifetime does not necessarily 

increase with the use of improved halogen technology. The CA Stakeholders believed that 

because manufacturers will be able to produce lamps with different combinations of lamp 

life and efficacy at TSL4 and TSL5, DOE’s shipment analysis should not assume any 

change in average lamp life at those levels. (CA Stakeholders, No. 63 at p. 28) 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
232

Although DOE acknowledges that there is a technology trade-off between IRL 

lifetime and efficacy, based on the current stock of commercially-available product, DOE 

has concluded that lamp lifetimes of 4,000 hours and 4,200 hours are technologically 

feasible at TSL4 and TSL5, respectively. However, DOE also recognizes that given the 

issues regarding proprietary technologies, some manufacturers may choose to meet these 

higher efficacy levels by reducing lifetime to 2,500 hours and 3,000 hours. In addition, 

DOE also agrees with the CA Stakeholders, that beyond issues regarding proprietary 

technologies, given their ability to provide similar offerings of lamp lifetime, manufacturers 

will likely choose to offer lamps at lifetime similar to the baseline lamps (2,500 to 3,000 

hours). Finally, DOE agrees with stakeholders that such an assumption will likely change 

the impacts of amended standards on consumers and manufacturers from those presented in 

the April 2009 NOPR. 

For this reason, DOE developed a Baseline Lifetime scenario (in which it analyzed 

LCC savings, NPV, and manufacturer impacts) to investigate the effects of shorter lamp 

lifetime at TSL4 and TSL5. DOE determined it was not necessary to apply this scenario to 

TSL1 through TSL3, because at those levels, DOE already analyzes lamps with lifetimes 

similar to those of the baseline lamp lifetimes. However, for this scenario at TSL4, for each 

of the three baseline lumen packages, DOE analyzed an additional IRL with a lifetime 

equivalent to the baseline lamp’s lifetime (2500 hours for the 90W lumen package, 2500 

hours for the 75W lumen package, 3000 hours for the 50W lumen package). The efficacy 

and wattages of the additional IRL were the same as those analyzed at TSL4 in the April 

2009 NOPR. In addition, as DOE had no indication that a less-costly technology could be 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
233

utilized to meet TSL4 at these lower lifetimes, DOE modeled that the price of these 

additional lamps would be the same as the long-lifetime TSL4 lamps. 

For the Baseline Lifetime scenario at TSL5, as discussed in section VI.B.3, DOE’s 

calculations indicate that the operating temperature of the 4,000 hour TSL4 lamp could be 

increased so as to result in a 2,500 hour lifetime lamp with an efficacy that would just meet 

TSL5. Therefore, at TSL5, DOE models three additional lamps (one for each baseline 

lumen package) which have lifetimes of 2,500 hours, the same prices of the TSL4 lamps 

(since these lamps would use the same technologies), and the same wattages and efficacies 

of the previously analyzed TSL5 lamps. The results of this Baseline Lifetime scenario are 

presented with the Commercial Product Lifetime scenario in sections VII.B, VII.C.1, 

VII.C.2 and VII.C.3. 

2. Minimum Lamp Lifetime Requirement 

Some stakeholders expressed concern regarding the possibility of extremely low 

lifetime lamps entering the market if DOE were to adopt TSL4 or TSL5. As mentioned 

above, NEMA stated that a PAR halogen lamp must have a lifetime of at least 2,000 hours, 

and more typically 3,000 hours, to be economically viable. (NEMA, No. 81 at p. 31) 

NEMA stated that shorter-lifetime lamps are unacceptable for long-life applications and 

negatively impacted the environment, because more lamps must be manufactured, 

transported, and disposed of. (NEMA, No. 81 at pp. 5, 31) Thus, NEMA commented that 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
234

DOE should have considered a minimum lamp life when setting efficacy standards. 

(NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at pp. 104, 111-112) Edison Electric Institute 

recommended that DOE should consider setting a minimum lifetime standard for IRL, as 

was done for CFL via the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005). (EEI, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. 117) 

 While DOE acknowledges that EPACT 2005 set a minimum lifetime standard for 

CFL based on the August 9, 2001 version of the Energy Star Program Requirements for 

Compact Fluorescent Lamps (42 U.S.C. 6295(bb)), DOE does not have the authority to set 

minimum lifetime standards for incandescent reflector lamps, because lamps lifetime is not 

an energy efficiency metric. Under 42 U.S.C. 6291(6), “energy conservation standard” is 

defined as: (1) a performance standard which prescribes a minimum level of energy 

efficiency or a maximum quantity of energy use; or (2) a design requirement (only for 

specifically enumerated products, which do not include incandescent reflector lamps). 

Because a standard for lamp lifetime would not fall under the definition of “energy 

conservation standard” as defined by 42 U.S.C. 6291(6), DOE cannot adopt a minimum 

lifetime requirement for IRL in this final rule. 

3. 6,000-Hour-Lifetime Lamps 

In response to these comments, DOE notes that it selected IRL designs for its 

Commercial Product Lifetime scenario that would preserve the lifetime of the baseline IRL 

analyzed in this rulemaking, even though DOE understands that manufacturers can increase 

IRL efficacy by reducing IRL lifetime. 73 FR 13620, 13650 (March 13, 2008). DOE notes 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
235

that improved HIR lamps, as well as lamps introduced to meet TSL5 in the April 2009 

NOPR have lifetimes greater than 4,000 hours, demonstrating that longer-life lamps can 

meet higher standard levels. DOE also believes that the life-cycle cost analysis results 

presented in this rulemaking accurately indicate the economic benefits to consumers, as the 

life-cycle cost analysis inherently considers lamp lifetime as well as the time value of 

money. Furthermore, in the April 2009 NOPR, DOE expressed its belief that lamp lifetime 

is an economic issue rather than a utility issue because lifetime does not change the light 

output of the lamp. 74 FR 16920, 16939 (April 13, 2009). Nevertheless, DOE analyzed 

whether long-life lamps would be available at higher TSLs. At TSL5, DOE has determined 

that manufacturers can provide lamps with a lifetime of at least 4,200 hours, but is unable to 

confirm that they could offer lamps with a lifetime of 6,000 hours. However, at TSL4, DOE 

believes that manufacturers can achieve lifetimes of 6,000 hours by decreasing the efficacy 

of a lamp compliant with TSL5. Thus, 6,000-hour-lifetime lamps would not be eliminated 

at this standard level. 

In summary, DOE understands that lifetime and IRL efficacy are related, but 

believes that the selection of an IRL lifetime by a lamp designer does not automatically 

determine the efficacy of the lamp. There are a variety of methods that lamp designers can 

utilize to meet DOE’s standard levels, and these methods are analyzed in this rulemaking. 

DOE considers how lamp lifetime affects consumers in its LCC analysis. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
236

D. Impact on Competition

1. Manufacturers 

DOE received several comments related to the impact of IRL standards on industry 

competition. Philips believed that because most technologies employed to manufacture 

advanced IR coatings were proprietary, the adoption of IRL standards that required such a 

technology would adversely affect competition among lamp manufacturers. (Philips, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at pp. 111-112) 

 ADLT disagreed that advanced IR coatings required proprietary technology. (ADLT, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. 112) The CA Stakeholders also disagreed and 

instead supported DOE’s assertion in appendix 5D that advanced IR coatings were not a 

developmental product, and were presently not patented and were available to all lamp 

manufacturers. (CA Stakeholders, No. 63 at p. 17) ADLT confirmed that the uncoated 

burner tested by DOE for appendix 5D has been in production for several years in the 

United States. Furthermore, the coating applied to this burner has been in production in 

Europe on 12V burners for several years. (ADLT, No. 72 at p. 3) 

The California Stakeholders asserted that adoption of a high standard level for IRL 

would not cause a significant lessening of competition. They commented that because 

manufacturers invest in new technologies at different times in competition with rivals, 

manufacturers currently offer products of different efficacies. The California Stakeholders 

added further that manufacturers have already invested significant capital to develop 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
237

efficient burners and reflectors, which is reflected by the fact that they offer products 

currently meeting TSL 4 and TSL 5. (California Stakeholders, No. 63 at pp. 24-25) 

In response, DOE does not believe that the adoption of a high standard level will 

adversely affect competition between lamp manufacturers. Consumers purchase lamps for a 

variety of utility features (size, color, dimming capability, directional light, lifetime, etc.) 

other than efficacy. Because consumer choice among these many features will remain 

unrestricted by this final rule, manufacturers have many grounds on which to compete. 

Furthermore, continued innovation in incandescent technology—driven, in part, by the 

desire to maintain a schedule of margins based on efficiency (as opposed to simply the 

utility features noted above)—is likely to maintain or even promote competition. DOE also 

acknowledges the proprietary silverized reflector technology at issue. As discussed in 

section VI.A, DOE believes there are alternative technologies to meeting higher efficacy 

levels and therefore believes that this final rule does not provide for any technological 

advantage that doesn’t already exist in the marketplace. A more detailed discussion of the 

impact of the adopted IRL standard on industry competition is contained in section VII.C.5. 

DOE also received comment regarding the impact of the effective date for IRL 

standards on industry competition. To DOE’s knowledge, two of the three major 

manufacturers of IRL currently sell a full product line (across common wattages) that meet 

TSL4. However, it is DOE’s understanding that OSI employs a technology platform that, 

due to the positioning of the filament in the HIR capsule, is inherently less efficient. 

Therefore, it is likely that in order to meet TSL4, OSI would have to make considerably 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
238

higher investments than the other manufacturers, placing it at a competitive disadvantage. 

OSI commented that they required one additional year to obtain the requisite approval, 

design, build, and install equipment, and stabilize high volume production if DOE were to 

adopt TSL4. (OSI, No. 84 at p. 1) 

While DOE recognizes the challenges inherent in gaining access to technology and 

building capacity needed to begin production, as detailed in section VI.I of this notice DOE 

does not have the statutory authority to extend the implementation period. OSI did not 

provide the detailed information which DOE would need to appreciate why what is 

achievable in 4 years cannot be accomplished in the 3 years lead time specified by EPCA. 

For example DOE believes that proprietary technologies are not required to meet TSL 4 and 

that suppliers could provide HIR capsules if these could not be manufactured in-house. 

Furthermore it is unclear how it might be possible to stabilize high volume production 

without producing high volumes of lamps. For this reason DOE believes that a 3 year lead 

time will be sufficient to ensure that the IRL market is supplied. 

2. Suppliers 

DOE also received several comments related to the potential impact of the adopted 

IRL standard on the competition between technology suppliers. The Applied Coatings 

Group (ACG) expressed concern regarding the adoption of an IRL standard that could only 

be met using an advanced IR coating manufactured by ADLT (this coating is described in 

appendix 5D of the TSD). ACG believed that such an action may create a monopoly for 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
239

DSI, a subsidiary of ADLT, which would be detrimental for the lighting industry and 

consumers. (ACG, No. 52 at p. 2) 

Conversely, the CA Stakeholders believed that there is already competition to 

manufacture advanced coatings for lamps. They provided a list of companies that had either 

already invested in the technology or were considering such an investment. (CA 

Stakeholders, No. 63 at p. 18) DSI, a US company which is owned by ADLT, applies 

coatings using a sputtering process in a vacuum chamber. Auer Lighting, a German 

company also owned by ADLT, manufactures a similar coating of comparable efficiency 

and price using plasma impulse chemical vapor deposition (PICVD). Furthermore, a patent 

is pending on a third process to apply an IR coating to improve lamp efficacy (CA 

Stakeholders, No. 63 at pp. 17-18) The CA Stakeholders believe that the IRL standards 

adopted by this rulemaking and the GSIL standards imposed by EISA 2007 will only 

increase the level of competition in the advanced coatings industry. (CA Stakeholders, No. 

63 at pp. 18-19) 

DOE agrees with the CA Stakeholders that the adopted standard for IRL will not 

create a monopoly for DSI because sufficient competition exists in the advanced coatings 

industry. As discussed above, other companies are currently investing in advanced IR 

coating technology or are considering such an investment prior to DOE adopting revised 

IRL standards in this final rule. Furthermore, technology pathways exist other than 

advanced IR coatings that can meet or exceed the highest efficacy level. Thus, it is 

extremely unlikely for one company to become a monopoly as a result of DOE’s adopted 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
240

standards because there is more than one technology pathway to meet the most efficient 

level. For these reasons, DOE believes that the IRL standards adopted in today’s final rule 

will not adversely impact competition among technology suppliers. 

E. Xenon

In response to the March 2008 ANOPR, DOE received comments regarding the 

price and availability of xenon. Manufacturers believed that because of xenon’s high price 

and limited supply, it should not be considered for use as a higher efficiency inert fill gas. 

(NEMA, No. 21 at p. 9) Although price is not considered in the screening analysis, DOE 

did conduct an in-depth market assessment of the supply of xenon, and the potential impact 

of xenon supply limitations on IRL standard levels. DOE determined that although xenon is 

a rare gas, its supply is sufficiently large to incorporate into all IRL and that the xenon 

supply would not affect IRL product availability (see appendix 3B of the TSD for more 

details). As such, in the April 2009 NOPR, DOE believed that the use of xenon as a higher 

efficiency inert fill gas satisfied the screening criteria and considered it as a design option 

when developing efficacy levels. 

 The CA Stakeholders agreed with DOE’s analysis and conclusions in appendix 3B 

of the TSD that xenon is not likely to impact manufacturers’ ability to produce IRL at higher 

standard levels. (CA Stakeholders, No. 63 at p. 22) NEMA agreed with DOE’s observations 

regarding the fluctuating demand for xenon and its price being affected by demand in other 

industries. However, NEMA reiterated that DOE must consider the increased cost of xenon 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
241

in its LCC analysis because NEMA estimates these costs to be substantial ($0.50 to $0.75 

per lamp). (NEMA, No. 81 at p. 20) 

In response, DOE did consider the impact of the price of xenon on LCC savings in 

the April 2009 NOPR and has updated its analysis with NEMA’s inputs. DOE performed 

an analysis, described in appendix 3B, in which it calculated how much the price of xenon 

would have to increase before LCC savings became negative. DOE concluded that, in 

general, the price of xenon could approximately triple before it significantly negatively 

impacted LCC savings. However, DOE notes that when examining LCC savings for lamps 

modeled in the Baseline Lifetime scenario (see section VI.C.1), the economic benefits of 

moving to higher efficacy lamps is much reduced. Therefore, increases in the price of 

xenon could in fact turn LCC savings to LCC increases for some consumers. DOE also 

maintains its conclusion that the availability of xenon will not be impacted by this final rule 

because historical evidence shows that supply slowly increases until it meets demand. For 

more details, see appendix 3B of the TSD. 

F. IRL Hot Shock

In interviews, manufacturers of IRL expressed concern that halogen and HIR IRL 

are susceptible to a premature failure mode known as “hot shock” when installed in 

energized sockets, which could reduce LCC savings for consumers. The hot shock 

condition occurs when the lamp filament contacts another part of itself due to vibration or 

torque, causing an electrical short within the lamp. In written comments, both NEMA and 

GE expressed that hot shock is a significant concern for efficacious IRL, especially in the 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
242

residential sector, where IRL in recessed ceiling cans of multi-floor houses may experience 

hot shock due to vibrations caused by the movement of people on the upper floors shared by 

the ceilings where IRL are installed. (NEMA, No. 81 at p. 6, p. 10, pp. 27-28; GE, No. 80 at 

p. 7-8) In contrast, the California Stakeholders provided three reasons why they believed 

that the hot shock failure mode is not prevalent enough to prevent DOE from selecting a 

standard level that may require higher efficiency technologies. (California Stakeholders, No. 

63 at pp. 21-22) Firstly, the California Stakeholders stated that in product documentation, 

manufacturers describe simple ways to avoid hot shock, primarily by avoiding installing or 

directing lamps while circuits are on. Secondly, the California Stakeholders stated that a 

patented technology (specifically a voltage reduction circuit) exists that claims to eliminate 

the risk of hot shock. Lastly, the California Stakeholders argued that as manufacturers have 

been selling halogen and HIR lamps for many years, if hot shock was a significant concern, 

there would be a noticeable adverse market response and mentioning of consumer 

dissatisfaction (of which their research found neither). 

DOE acknowledges that halogen and HIR IRL are susceptible to hot shock during 

installation in energized sockets or due to vibration that occurs during operation. DOE 

cannot set standards that necessitate the usage of a proprietary technology due to the adverse 

impacts on manufacturers and industry competition that may result. Thus, DOE is not 

considering the patent described by the California Stakeholders as a feasible way of 

preserving LCC savings. See section VI.B.1for further details. DOE does agree, however, 

that halogen and HIR products are readily available on the market despite the risk of hot 

shock. DOE was unable to determine the prevalence of hot shock in the commercial or 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
243

residential sectors due to a lack of available data, so DOE determined at what lifetime a 

standards-compliant lamp purchased by a commercial or residential consumer would 

experience negative LCC savings. The results are shown in Table VI.1 for commercial 

consumers and Table VI.2 for residential consumers. Entries of “N/A” represent lamps that 

already give negative LCC savings to consumers. DOE also notes, as discussed in the April 

2008, during interviews manufacturers stated hot shock could decrease lifetime by 25 to 30 

percent. 

Table VI.1: IRL Lifetime for Negative LCC Savings in the Commercial Sector 

 IRL Lifetime (hours) 

Efficacy Level 90W Baseline 75W Baseline 50W Baseline 

EL1 N/A N/A N/A 

EL2 - 6,000 hr 2587 2587 3277 

EL2 - 3,000 hr 2242 2242 N/A 

EL3 1897 1897 2932 

EL4 1897 2242 3277 

EL5 1897 1897 3277 

Table VI.2: IRL Lifetime for Negative LCC Savings in the Residential Sector 

 IRL Lifetime (hours) 

Efficacy Level 90W Baseline 75W Baseline 50W Baseline 

EL1 2443 N/A N/A 

EL2 - 6,000 hr 2355 2532 3233 

EL2 - 3,000 hr 1999 2177 2977 

EL3 1644 1821 2621 

EL4 1733 1910 2977 

EL5 1644 1910 3243 

G. Rare Earth Phosphors 

During manufacturer interviews, manufacturers asserted that higher TSLs for GSFL 

would require substantially larger amounts of triphosphor to attain those efficiency levels. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
244

As compared to halophosphor, triphosphor is composed of more expensive rare earth 

elements that increase many performance features of GSFL, including efficacy, lumen 

maintenance, and color rendition. Manufacturers commented that a standards-induced 

increase in triphosphor demand would drive up prices for the rare earth elements used to 

make triphosphor, and might potentially exceed what the market could supply. In response, 

for the April 2009 NOPR, DOE conducted a market assessment of the rare earth phosphor 

industry (see April 2009 NOPR TSD Appendix 3C). DOE focused on the key rare earth 

elements used in high-efficacy GSFL—yttrium, terbium, and europium—because they are 

major cost drivers of triphosphor and were the subject of manufacturer concerns over 

availability. After completing the assessment, DOE did not believe it had sufficient 

information to project phosphor prices by modeling future supply and demand curves. 

Instead, DOE compared the LCC savings of consumers purchasing high-efficacy lamps to 

potential increases in the incremental first cost of rare-earth-based 800-series lamps that 

would result from higher rare earth phosphor prices. In general, DOE found that in most 

commercial and residential purchase events, consumer LCC savings was sufficiently high to 

remain positive even in the face of potentially dramatic increases in phosphors prices. DOE 

also stated that higher prices were likely to attract mining firms into the market and make 

less-concentrated rare earth deposits economically viable. 74 FR 16920, 16974 (April 13, 

2009) 

NEMA disagreed with DOE’s analysis in the April 2009 NOPR and conclusion on 

four major points: First, DOE underestimated the increase in standards-induced triphosphor 

demand; second, DOE did not appropriately consider the problems with supply in the 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
245

industry; third, higher efficacy levels will have a negative environmental impact due to the 

required increase in mining operations; fourth, the cumulative effect of the above factors 

would lead to dramatic increases in costs to manufactures and consumers. 

Specifically, on the magnitude of standards-induced triphosphor demand, NEMA 

argued that TSL 1 or TSL 2 would prohibit halophosphor lamps, which would double 

manufacturer triphosphor demand. NEMA commented that shifting all lamps to TSL 4 or 

TSL 5 would increase the industry’s triphosphor needs by an additional factor of three. In 

sum, NEMA estimated TSL 1, TSL 2, TSL 3, TSL 4, and TSL 5 would require 175 percent, 

200 percent, 230 percent, 250 percent, and 350 percent of current triphosphor usage, 

respectively. (Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No 38.4 at pp. 247-248, 251-252; NEMA, 

No. 81 at pp. 3, 18-19) Conversely, NRDC argued that the conversion of T12 lamps to T8 

and T5 lamps would mitigate the increase in phosphor demand. (NRDC, No. 82 at p. 3) 

In response to all comments, DOE conducted additional research on the rare earth 

industry, including several interviews with agents along the triphosphor value chain and 

other industry experts. Based on these interviews, manufacturer comments, further research 

and analysis of additional data obtained, DOE reevaluated its rare earth phosphor market 

analysis and assumptions. 

To determine how much trisphosphor demand would increase at each TSL, DOE 

determined the amount of triphosphor required in each lamp type at each TSL, using 

assumptions from manufacturer interviews and industry interviews. For example, DOE 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
246

used Philips’ estimate that high performance 800-series lamps require three to four times as 

much triphosphor as standard 700-series lamps to establish the difference in triphosphor 

weight between the two phosphor series. DOE then multiplied these amounts by its 

shipments projections (see section V.D.2) for each phosphor series. (See TSD appendix 3C 

for a more detailed discussion of DOE’s methodology.) 

Based on this analysis, DOE agrees with the industry commenters that amended 

standards will lead to significant increases in manufacturers’ need for triphosphor, and by 

extension, europium (Eu), terbium (Tb), and yttrium (Y). DOE estimates that at TSL 3, 

TSL 4, and TSL 5, manufacturer demand for triphosphor in covered products in 2012 would 

be 171 percent, 183 percent, and approximately 230 percent of base-case usage, 

respectively. These ranges reflect DOE’s upper-bound and lower-bound energy savings 

scenarios, which DOE used to capture the effect of consumers selecting different phosphor 

series lamps in response to standards. In the lower-bound scenario, triphosphor usage 

actually declines from TSL3 to TSL 4, as the increase in triphosphor usage due to higherefficacy lamps is offset by the decline in usage from the elimination of high-efficacy T12 

lamps. At TSL 5, there is a large incremental jump in usage under any scenario. 

DOE believes its own estimate of the standards-induced triphosphor demand differs 

from NEMA’s estimate for several reasons. First, DOE’s estimate is relative to the 2012 

market as opposed to current usage. DOE’s analysis attempts to isolate the impact on 

triphosphor usage from the energy conservation standards under consideration in this 

rulemaking, net of the expected increase between now and the effective date. As such, DOE 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
247

accounts for a currently-ongoing trend toward triphosphor lamps in the base case due to the 

increased penetration of triphosphor T8 lamps relative to halophosphor T12 lamps. 

Supporting this base-case increase in triphosphor usage, one industry supplier told DOE it 

expected triphosphor demand for linear GSFL to double in five to six years in the base case. 

Another said it expects continued double-digit growth in terbium demand. Second, DOE’s 

estimate does not assume that all T8 lamps are 700-series in the 2012 base case. For 

example, 22 percent of 4-foot medium bipin lamps T8 are 800-series or high-performance 

800-series lamps. 

 

 Regarding NEMA’s second point regarding the total available supply of rare earth 

phosphors, Philips commented that Rhodia, a major phosphor supplier, told them in 2006 

that there was only a 14-year terbium supply left in the ground, meaning that if demand 

doubled due to standards, the lamp industry would struggle to obtain sufficient amounts of 

terbium in six to seven years. NEMA commented that Rhodia predicted that even without 

changes to DOE’s energy conservation standards, terbium, and europium would be in short 

supply within five years. (Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No 38.4 at pp. 254-255, 258-

259, 263) 

NEMA also highlighted China’s monopolistic position in the rare earth market as a 

threat to supply. NEMA stated that China, in an attempt to move manufacturing of products 

such as GSFL to their country, is setting production caps, reducing export quotas and 

licenses, and placing taxes on exports of rare earth commodities. According to NEMA, 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
248

Chinese mine operators will not flood the market with the more abundant elements because 

that would depress their value. (NEMA, No. 81 at pp. 16-18) 

NEMA also rejected the notion that mines outside China, induced by higher 

phosphor prices, could augment supply by the amount China is restricting it. NEMA 

asserted that DOE should focus not on rare earths in general but rather those that are 

important to GSFL, particularly terbium and europium, because they represent only a tiny 

fraction of the rare earth mined. NEMA stated that DOE’s list of potential mines in the 

April 2009 NOPR TSD (appendix 3b) does not indicate the presence of significant phosphor 

elements needed for GSFL manufacturing. For example, one mine DOE had listed as a 

potential source is in Mountain Pass, California. However, NEMA stated that its ore 

contained only 0.2 percent europium and no measure of terbium, according to the U.S. 

Geological Survey. (NEMA, No. 81 at p. 16-19) Even if other mines eventually go into 

production, Philips argued, they will not come online quickly enough to meet standardsinduced demand. (Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No 38.4 at pp. 253, 259) NEMA 

commented that DOE’s conclusion that higher rare earth prices will attract additional 

mining operations is not supported by the record or anyone with knowledge of the subject. 

(NEMA, No. 81 at p. 19) 

 

 As it relates to the physical availability of Y, Tb, and Eu, DOE reevaluated its 

analysis on the supply and demand of the key rare earths to the lighting industry given 

manufacturer comments. DOE agrees that the availability of rare earth phosphors 

(particularly with regard to terbium and europium) is a serious issue. As stated above, DOE 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
249

agrees that manufacturers will most likely require large increases in rare earth phosphors to 

meet the standard established by this final rule. DOE interviewed industry experts and 

suppliers along the triphosphor value chain about the quantity of the key elements likely to 

be available over the near, intermediate, and long term. DOE received conflicting reports 

from those within the field regarding future supplies of these key materials. Many factors 

obscure the amount of recoverable rare earth that will available to manufacturers, including 

future Chinese policy and strategic priorities, policies of countries outside China, demand 

from other applications, reclamation efforts, and lack of transparency in the industry. 

Industry experts have suggested there are sufficient amounts available to meet expected 

demand for anywhere from 15 years to indefinitely. That is not to say that a supply shortage 

of these key elements and other rare earths is unlikely. Indeed, many of those experts that 

DOE interviewed expect shortages of most rare earths—not because of this rulemaking, but 

because of Chinese policy. Based on its interviews and research, DOE has concluded that 

the pivotal issue governing the risk to the physical availability of rare earths is Chinese 

policy. China currently supplies some 95 percent of the rare earth market and has taken 

steps to restrict the exportation of rare earths resources. Many in the field, as noted by 

manufacturers, consider this to be more a reflection of China’s strategic decision to compel 

rare earth-dependent industries (which tend to be burgeoning high-technology fields) to host 

operations in China,56 rather than an indication of limitation in terms of the physical 

availability of the resource.57 DOE does not dispute such a strategy could restrict rare earth 

 

56 Latimer, Cole; Kim, Jieun, Kim; Tahara-Stubbs, Mia; Wang, Yumin, “China’s Rare Earth Monopoly 

Threatens Global Suppliers, Rival Producers Claim,” Financial Times (May 29, 2009). 

57 Richardson, Ed, Thomas & Skinner, “High Performance Magnets,” Strategic Minerals Conference (April 

2009). 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
250

phosphor supplies. However, DOE again notes this is substantially not a function of this 

final rule, but of external factors that may or may not affect industry in the base case as well 

as the standards case. 

In terms of other mining operations outside China, DOE found differing opinions on 

whether such operations have the potential to appreciably increase the supply of the key rare 

earths. DOE understands the key difference between those elements critical to the lighting 

industry and rare earths in general (discussed below) and agrees with NEMA that simply 

increasing production of rare earths is not sufficient to meet the specific needs of lamp 

manufacturers. While DOE also agrees that new projects outside of China could take years 

to come online, industry experts related that part of the reason for this is the threat of China 

increasing supply, thereby reducing prices, just as other facilities embark on the large capital 

costs required to develop mines. While this does imply a limited role for non-Chinese 

suppliers, it necessarily also implies an increase in rare earth phosphor supply. 

 DOE continues to believe that any sharp increase in demand over the long term will 

send strong price signals to rare earth suppliers and potential suppliers around the globe, 

thereby increasing investment in the exploration and recovery of rare earths, as discussed in 

appendix 3B of the TSD. Another view common to the industry is that nations outside 

China will be forced to view rare earths as a strategic resource and take steps to secure 

access. The United States Geological Survey estimates that 58 percent of rare earth reserves 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
251

base are in China,58 meaning there could be other sources of rare earths, although reserves of 

those specific rare earth elements key to lighting use may be more highly concentrated in 

China than all rare earths. (Please see appendix 3C of the TSD for a list of potential rare 

earth development projects.) Two potential domestic rare earth sources are the Mountain 

Pass, California site and the Pea Ridge iron ore mine in Missouri. NEMA and Philips noted 

that while 20,000 tons of rare earths could potentially be mined at Mountain Pass, only 0.2% 

was europium. Regardless of the likelihood of the mine in Mountain Pass reopening, DOE 

notes that that amount equates to 40 tons of europium annually, a figured DOE confirmed 

by interviews with the mine’s operators. Production could in fact be higher, and such an 

amount is not insignificant amount given that estimated total worldwide demand for 

europium was 300 tons in 2007 and was projected to be 420 tons in 2012.59 While estimates 

vary, a Rhodia presentation estimates terbium demand to be 420 tons in 2012, not the 600 

tons NEMA noted. The company also told DOE that it expects supply and demand to be in 

balance in the near term for terbium and europium. Reports of the Pea Ridge resource 

indicate it is relatively rich in the rare earths key to the lighting industry, including 

terbium.60 Molycorp, the company that owns the Mountain Pass site, also told DOE that it is 

currently exploring four other sites outside China that have significant concentrations of the 

heavy rare earths (the group to which the critical rare earths such as terbium belong). 

 

58 Hedrick, James B., Mineral Commodity Summaries, United States Geological Survey (Jan. 2009). 59Cuif. Jean-Pierre, Rhodia Silcea - Electronics BU, "Is there enough rare earth for the "green switch" and flat 

Tvs?", Phosphor Global Summit 2008 (March 2008). 

60 Available at: http://www.wingsironore.com/data/wings_enterprises_reo_quick_summary.pdf.. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
252

NEMA also commented on phosphor reclamation as another source of rare earth 

supply. Philips stated that Rhodia has said there physically will not be enough phosphor 

beyond 2015 without reclamation. NEMA argued that while reclamation could augment 

supply, it would require significant infrastructure investment and still bring issues such as 

mercury contamination into play with regard to international transport (as many phosphor 

manufacturers are overseas). Such infrastructure and systems of collection and handling 

currently do not exist. Therefore, NEMA argued, while it expects recycling to emerge in 

response to the impending shortage, it is “entirely speculative” to assume reclamation can 

impact the rare earth phosphor shortage in this decade. Philips stated that only one of the 

two types of the green phosphor can currently be recycled; the type commonly used in CFLs 

cannot. In addition, GE stated that at TSL 4 and TSL 5, reclamation will not enlarge supply 

because reclaimed phosphor does not perform well enough to meet those levels. (Philips, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No 38.4 at pp. 261, 262; NEMA, No. 81 at p. 18) 

Based on interviews, DOE believes that reclamation efforts can play a significant 

role in augmenting supply, but only in the longer term. Rhodia estimates that by 2015 there 

will be more than 250 tons of rare earth oxide in recycled lamps.61 Rhodia already has 

reclamation ability and is ramping up its capacity, but technical and economic challenges of 

commercial-scale operations remain. First, the infrastructure to collect recycled GSFL 

must be in place. With this infrastructure, a commercial-scale, technically-viable process 

for distilling the rare earths from the other lamp materials—glass, alumina, halophosphate, 

 

61 Rhodia, "Phosphor Recycling: Dream or New Source of Rare Earths?” Presentation at Phosphor Global 

Summit 2009 (March 2009). 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
253

etc.—must be established. This will have to include chemical treatments, mercury removal, 

and waste disposal. 

While DOE agrees that reclaimed phosphor is too degraded to be used at TSL 4 or 

TSL 5, DOE notes that Rhodia stated that it can still meet the needs of high-performance 

lamps because the company refines the triphosphor back down into its original elements 

(e.g., terbium, europium) and then remanufactures the triphosphor. Because this process 

clearly adds cost to the reclaimed triphosphor; it is likely only higher price points will 

trigger additional supply via reclamation. 

The attractiveness of reclamation will depend not only on the cost of the process 

versus the price of normal rare earth acquisition, but also the amount of rare earth available 

for recovery in the retiring lamp stock. Currently, the universe of retiring lamps was 

installed several years ago; they are mostly halophosphor lamps. Therefore, the yield of rare 

earth oxides from recycling these lamps would be unlikely to make commercial-scale 

reclamation economically attractive in the very near future. As such, in light of the other 

details, DOE agrees that large-scale reclamation is unlikely to occur before 2015. 

However, in several years, Rhodia expects the amount of recoverable useful rare earth to 

grow significantly as high-performance GSFL become commonplace.62 Just as energy 

conservation standards will increase the demand for rare earth phosphor in 2012, they will 

 

62 Rhodia, "Phosphor Recycling: Dream or New Source of Rare Earths?”, Presentation at Phosphor Global 

Summit 2009 (March 2009). 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
254

provide larger volumes available for reclamation when they retire. At such time, it is 

entirely possible that reclamation eventually could augment supply. 

 

On its third point regarding the impact of rare earth mining, NEMA argued that 

those who think TSL 5 is environmentally sound are not considering the environmental 

impact that will arise from such an increase in demand. Philips argued that the goal of the 

U.S. should not be to quadruple strip mining operations around the world. According to 

Philips, TSL 5 would increase mining by 300 percent relative to TSL 3, depleting natural 

resources more rapidly and increasing the cost to the consumer. (Philips, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No 38.4 at pp. 253, 259; NEMA, No. 81 at p. 19) 

 DOE agrees with NEMA and Philips that increased demand could require 

additional mining operations. However, mining for rare earths reflects a small portion of all 

global mining operations. DOE does not believe that the increase in global demand 

resulting from this final rule will come close to requiring the mining increase suggested by 

Philips as industry experts also noted that rare earths in many instances could be mined as 

byproducts and, therefore, not create the same footprint as an entirely new project. 

On its fourth point, NEMA and Philips argued that a massive price spike in rare 

earth phosphors will occur in 2012 when manufacturers supplying the U.S. market have to 

double their requirements as China continues to reduce quotas. GE commented that this 

would lead to very expensive lamps for consumers. (GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No 

38.4 at pp. 256; Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No 38.4 at pp. 248-249; NEMA, No. 81 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
255

at p. 18) Conversely, the California Stakeholders commented that they agreed with DOE’s 

April 2009 NOPR analysis related to rare earth phosphors, stating that rare earth phosphor 

prices and availability would not affect product availability or consumers’ life cycle cost 

savings. (California Stakeholders, No. 63 at p. 11) ACEEE commented that it does not 

expect the availability of rare earth phosphors to result in excessive price volatility. 

(ACEEE, No. 76 at p. 2) 

In response, as discussed in the April 2009 NOPR, DOE believes that the standards 

case, all other things being equal, will result in higher prices for yttrium, europium, and 

terbium. (74 FR 16920, 16974 (April 13, 2009) As in the April 2009 NOPR, DOE does not 

believe is it possible to generate reasonable price forecasts, particularly given the historical 

volatility in rare earth prices, trade restrictions, trade policies, lack of publically-available 

data from China, and potential supply sources coming online. As an example of the price 

volatility, terbium prices on May 20, 2009 were roughly half what they averaged in 2008,63 

this after increasing dramatically in previous years. 

However, given that DOE believes standards-induced demand increase has the 

potential to affect the worldwide demand of europium, terbium, and yttrium, DOE has 

concluded that it is possible prices will rise for these elements, all other things being equal. 

To broadly gauge the potential impact of standards on prices, DOE assessed the standardsinduced increase of their demand in the context of the international market for these 

 

63 See http://lynascorp.com/page.asp?category_id=1&page_id=25. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
256

materials, as these key rare earths have many applications and are transacted in a global 

market. DOE estimates that this final rule will increase worldwide demand for terbium and 

europium relative to the 2012 base case by roughly 10 percent. DOE used Rhodia estimates 

for the 2012 base case.64 

DOE’s interviews and research showed that there are many value-added processes in 

the supply chain of triphosphor. Some of the cost attendant to these processes is not directly 

driven by the demand (and scarcity) of these rare earth elements themselves, but by the 

mining, chemical processing and concentrating, and blending costs that are inherent to 

triphosphor production. According to interview participants, these processes are highly 

driven by energy costs, which will be mostly equivalent in the base case and standards 

cases. This is supported by the fact that despite the prospect of increasing demand, the 

prices of the key rare earths declined significantly from summer 2008 to spring 2009, more 

in line with oil and other commodity prices. Other important cost drivers to manufacturers 

include a 25-percent tariff on the export of key rare earths from China, which will also be 

the same in the base case and standards cases. 

As it did in the April 2009 NOPR, DOE conducted a sensitivity analysis for this final 

rule to address the potential increases in end-user lamp prices attributable to higher rare 

earth input costs. And despite the fact that price increases in the key rare earth elements are 

unlikely to be equal to triphosphor costs (because of the many other cost inputs), to be 

 

64 Cuif. Jean-Pierre, Rhodia Silcea - Electronics BU, "Is there enough rare earth for the "green switch" and flat 

Tvs?", Phosphor Global Summit 2008 (March 2008). 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
257

conservative, DOE assumed that such a relationship existed. That is, if Eu, Y, and Tb 

prices—weighted for their proportional use in triphosphor—doubled, DOE assumed the 

price of triphosphor also doubled. DOE used the analysis to determine how robust 

consumer LCC savings are at TSL 3, TSL 4, and TSL 5. DOE compares the LCC savings 

due to purchasing higher-efficacy GSFL (as calculated in chapter 8) to LCC savings under 

scenario with higher phosphor prices. As discussed in appendix 3C of the TSD, DOE 

determined the quantity of each rare earth phosphor required to manufacture each phosphor 

series of GSFL. DOE then estimated how a range of prices for the key rare earth phosphors 

would affect manufacturing lamp costs. Next, by applying manufacturer and retail markups, 

DOE analyzed how increases in rare earth phosphor prices may affect LCC savings for a 

consumer of each lamp type. 

DOE found that for most commercial and residential purchase events, consumer 

LCC savings were sufficiently high to remain positive even if there were dramatic increases 

in triphosphor prices and manufacturers were forced to pass those cost increases on to the 

consumer with current markup levels. In fact, all events that yield positive LCC savings at 

TSL 4 at current triphosphor prices would maintain positive LCC savings despite dramatic 

increases in trisphosphor prices (as a result of rare earth price increases). By the same 

token, DOE calculated that the dramatic decline in rare earths prices since the summer of 

2008 likely did not significantly affect consumer LCC savings. 

In conclusion, regardless of the differences between DOE and NEMA’s phosphor 

usage estimates, it is worth noting that moving from TSL 3 to TSL 4 results in a much 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
258

smaller increase in triphosphor usage than any other incremental step up in efficacy levels, 

according to each estimate. As noted above, NEMA estimates a relatively small increase in 

usage at TSL 4 relative to TSL 3 (250 percent vs. 230 percent) and both show a much large 

increase in moving to TSL 5. (350 percent) Given that NEMA commented that TSL 3 could 

be implemented in terms of triphosphor, despite more than doubling domestic usage, DOE 

believes the relatively small incremental demand increase of moving to TSL 4 works to 

justify the latter, higher efficacy level. (NEMA, No. 81 at p. 2; GE, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No 38.4 at pp. 254-255) Similarly, while it is impossible to guarantee the 

amount of recoverable rare earth in the ground, or predict the supply impacts of Chinese 

policy, DOE does not believe the slight incremental impact of TSL 4 relative to TSL 3 

significantly exacerbates these concerns. However, given the large increases in rare earth 

phosphor required at TSL 5 relative to TSL 4, DOE is concerned about the impact of TSL 5 

on product availability as well as the potential environmental impact of producing the 

necessary rare earth resources. 

For all of these reasons—a relative small increase in triphosphor needs at TSL4 

relative to TSL 3, which industry acknowledged was acceptable; continued LCC savings for 

the consumer even with higher triphosphor prices and tariffs; greater potential for additional 

supply resources and reclamation with higher rare earth prices; and, significantly, the fact 

that the major factors in rare earth availability and prices are largely independent of this 

rulemaking—DOE concludes that TSL 1 through TSL 4 are appropriate with respect to rare 

earth phosphor availability, prices, and environmental impact. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
259

H. Product and Performance Feature Availability

1. Dimming Functionality 

 NEMA expressed concern about the loss of dimming capability as IRL consumers 

migrate to other technologies. NEMA acknowledged that although no data exists to 

characterize the dimming market, industry believes there is “considerable overlap” between 

dimmer and IRL installations. Thus, for both the commercial and residential sector, NEMA 

believes that a significant number of installed halogen lamps are used in combination with 

dimmers. NEMA commented that at TSL4 and TSL5 specifically, the high price of covered 

IRL will likely force consumers to buy lower cost, but non-dimmable technologies. NEMA 

argued this would disappoint end-users, especially those in the residential sector, as they are 

more likely to purchase a lamp based on its first cost. Furthermore, NEMA argued that 

because a significant percentage of installed halogen lamps are used in dimming 

applications (and therefore consume less energy when dimmed), the energy saving benefit 

of an alternative non-dimmable replacement is reduced. (NEMA, No. 81 at p. 29-30) 

Lutron also urged DOE to account for this functional loss in its analysis (Lutron, No. 38.4 at 

p. 316) Similarly, IALD commented that IRL provide utility, such as high CRI and 

dimming capability, that is unlikely to be met with emerging technologies and used in 

special applications, such as auditorium and art gallery lighting. (IALD, No. 71 at p. 2) 

 In response, DOE believes that it has already accounted for dimming functionality in 

its analysis. First, DOE’s efficacy levels do not eliminate any dimming capability from the 

market. Thus, DOE is not assuming this functionality must be met with emerging 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
260

technologies. Covered IRL are available at every TSL for use in dimming applications. 

Second, DOE’s emerging and existing scenarios already incorporate the effect of consumers 

who make purchasing decisions based only on a lamp’s first cost. Third, DOE disagrees 

that the percentage of covered lamps used in dimming applications would affect DOE’s 

projected energy savings. While DOE agrees with NEMA that when lamps are dimmed 

they consume less energy, DOE expects the usage of dimmers to remain the same in both 

the base and standards case. It is unlikely that a consumer would dim a lamp more or less 

only because he/she is using a standards-compliant lamp. Lastly, DOE believes consumers 

who would be “greatly disappointed” without dimming functionality would not be deterred 

from an incrementally higher first cost associated with retaining that functionality. For 

these reasons, DOE has already accounted for dimming functionality in its analysis. 

2. GSFL Product Availability 

NEMA wrote that TSL4 and TSL5 cannot be economically justified, partly because these 

efficacy levels would preserve T8 lamps that are mostly incompatible with today’s installed 

base of T8 ballasts; NEMA also stated that higher standards for U-shaped lamps would 

negatively impact competition and eliminate energy-efficient U-shaped lamps with 6-inch 

spacing. (NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at pp. 24, 38, NEMA, No. 81 at pp. 

2-3) 

DOE disagrees with NEMA that TSL 3 would remove nearly all T12 lamps from the 

market by the effective date. Certain T12 lamps still meet TSL 3, as presented in NOPR, a 

point that NEMA does not dispute. Moreover, given the magnitude of the current T12 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
261

shipments, particularly in the residential sector, where, as NEMA as noted, the most 

common residential magnetic ballast is exempted, DOE believes that T12 lamps will remain 

on the market at TSL 3. 

Next, DOE has accounted for compatibility with existing ballasts, as well as the need for a 

new ballast purchases (when applicable), in all its analyses, as discussed in the April 2009 

NOPR. While DOE agrees TSL 4 or higher may eliminate T12 lamps from the market, as 

presented in DOE’s market share matrices, at least five T8 lamps meet TSL 4, and two 

providing residential consumers with product options. Therefore, DOE does not believe this 

final rule presents a possibility of product shortages. 

I. Alternative Standard Scenarios

In the April 2009 NOPR, DOE noted that although it was proposing TSL3, serious 

consideration would be given to a more stringent standard level for GSFL in the final rule. 

Accordingly, DOE requested comment on alternative scenarios for GSFL standards that 

could achieve greater energy savings than the proposed TSL3. In addition to consideration 

of a standard that would eliminate T12 lamps as presented in TSL4 and TSL5, DOE also 

provided two examples of alternative standard scenarios that may be considered: (1) a 

standard with a delayed implementation date (i.e., extended lead time); and (2) a standard 

with differentiated residential and commercial levels. 74 FR 16920, 17017, 17025 (April 

13, 2009). In response, DOE received several comments on these example scenarios. 

 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
262

1. Tiered Standard 

ACEEE, the California stakeholders, NEMA, and NEEP all recommended various 

forms of tiered standards. (ACEEE, No. 55 at pp. 1-3; NEEP, No. 61 at p. 4; NEMA, No. 

81 at p. 23,24; California Stakeholders, No. 2 at p. 2) ACEEE and the California 

Stakeholders also argued that DOE set a precedent for such a tiered, phased-in standard in 

2001 with residential clothes washers, when DOE issued a final rule making one efficiency 

level effective in 2004 and second level effective in 2007. (California Stakeholders, No. 61 

at p. 9; ACEEE, No. 55 at p. 2) 

DOE analyzed the impacts of a tiered, phased-in standard, as suggested by many 

stakeholders. Under such approach, DOE’s analysis showed a mitigation of manufacturer 

INPV, similar to a delayed effective date alternative scenario but to a lesser extent. Again, 

the lower capital costs (due to more time for the base-case migration away from T12s), time 

value of money effects, and longer retention of higher-margin sales, all mitigate the negative 

INPV impacts. DOE, however, again carefully reviewed the governing statute and has 

determined that it does not have the authority to implement tiered, phased-in standards 

under EPCA. 

DOE carefully evaluated the legality of tiered standards based on the language in 

EPCA. 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(3) requires amended standards for GSFL and IRL to apply to 

products manufactured “on or after” the 36-month period beginning on the date such final 

rule is published. DOE interprets this provision to mean that the standard will be in place 

for covered lamps that are manufactured precisely three years after publication of the final 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
263

rule and prospectively thereafter. DOE reasoned that it would be illogical to give separate 

meaning to the terms “on” and “after”, an interpretation that could conceivably allow for a 

second-tier standard effective at some point subsequent to the date 36 months after the 

publication date of the rule, because this interpretation would also allow for a rule that 

requires compliance with the established standards on only the exact date 36 months from 

the publication date. Therefore, DOE concluded that section 6295(i)(3) of EPCA does not 

allow tiered standards for the final GSFL and IRL rule. This is in contrast to EPCA’s 

general service lamps provisions at 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(iv), where Congress explicitly 

directed DOE to consider phased-in effective dates. DOE notes that 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(5), 

relating to “additional” GSFL lamps, contains a different formulation providing that the 

standards shall apply to products manufactured “after” a date that is 36 months after the date 

the rule is published. However, it is DOE’s understanding that the “additional” GSFL 

covered by subsection (i)(5) are not those products which significantly alter INPV or 

consumer LCC savings in this rulemaking. In light of the above, DOE chose not to adopt 

tiered standards for these lamps. 

2. Delayed Effective Date 

ACEEE and the California Stakeholders, as well as NEMA and Osram Sylvania, 

stated that DOE should consider various delayed effective dates, although the California 

Stakeholders suggested that this should be a last resort. (California Stakeholders, No. 61 at 

p. 4; ACEEE, No. 55 at p. 2; NEMA, No. 81 at pp. 2, 24-26; Osram Sylvania, No. 84 at p. 

2) 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
264

DOE carefully evaluated the legality of delayed implementation dates based on the 

language in EPCA. DOE concluded that a delayed effective date which sets no standards 

for compliance on or about June 30, 2012, which is the anticipated date “on or after the 36-

month period beginning on the date such final rule is published,” would not be permissible 

under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(3)). As in the discussion above for tiered standards, DOE 

interprets the language of 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(3) to mean that a standard will be in place for 

covered lamps that are manufactured precisely three years after publication of the final rule 

and prospectively thereafter. This is again in contrast to EPCA’s general service lamps 

provisions at 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(iv), where Congress explicitly directed DOE to 

consider phased-in effective dates. DOE also carefully considered 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(5), 

which provides that the final rule for “additional” GSFL shall apply to products 

“manufactured after a date which is 36 months after the date such rule is published” and 

could potentially support a later effective date for “additional” GSFL. However, it is DOE’s 

understanding that “additional” GSFL are not those products which significantly alter INPV 

or consumer LCC savings in this rulemaking. In light of the above, DOE chose not to use 

delayed effective dates for those lamps as recommended by commenters. 

3. Residential Exemption 

NEEP, GE and NEMA recommended various forms of residential exemptions and/or 

labeling for T12 lamps as alternate standard scenarios. (NEEP, No. 61 at p. 4; NEMA, No. 

81 at pp. 2, 24-26; (GE, No. 80 at pp. 1-3) ACEEE and the California Stakeholders opposed 

separate treatment for the residential sector through a bifurcated standard. (California 

Stakeholders, No. 61 at p. 9; ACEEE, No. 55 at p. 3; NEMA, No. 81 at pp. 2, 24-26) 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
265

DOE considered the option of having differentiated standards for residential 

consumers and commercial consumers. Absent a specific statutory directive (e.g., one 

conveying product labeling or packaging authority), it has long been DOE’s position that it 

regulates equipment, rather than product use. In general, DOE has sought to avoid 

interfering with manufacturing decisions related to product use, marketing, or packaging. 

This approach is also reflective of the inherent difficulties in enforcing product usage 

requirements and the potential loopholes that may be created. 

In the present case, DOE notes that in contrast to situations where it sets product 

classes whose efficiency-related differences (e.g., in terms of utility, capacity, type of 

energy use) warrant different standard levels, the lamps under consideration here have no 

significant technical differences as would support different standard levels. Given the 

identical nature of T12 lamps used in residential and commercial settings, it would be 

potentially easy for commercial customers to purchase and install T12 lamps marketed for 

residential use. DOE is concerned that this option could significantly undermine the energy 

savings potential to the Nation of the lamps standard. Therefore, DOE has decided not to 

consider such an approach further. 

4. Conclusions Regarding Alternative Standard Scenarios 

In considering whether to adopt a more stringent standard for GSFL than the 

proposed TSL3, DOE sought to explore various approaches (e.g., tiered standards, delayed 

effective dates) to mitigate the impacts on manufacturers and certain consumers. However, 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
266

after careful examination of the relevant provisions of EPCA, for the reasons explained 

above, DOE has determined that none of these options is available. Accordingly, the 

effective date of this final rule for all covered product classes will be three years from the 

date of publication. 

J. Benefits and Burdens

Since DOE opened the docket for this rulemaking, it has received more than 80 

written comments, with hundreds of signatories, from a diverse set of parties, including 

manufacturers and their representatives, state attorney generals, members of Congress, 

energy conservation advocates, consumer advocacy groups, private citizens, and electric and 

gas utilities. DOE also received more than 20,000 email form letter submissions 

recommending DOE strengthen the proposed energy conservation standards. All 

substantive comments on the analytic methodologies DOE used are discussed heretofore in 

sections of this final rule notice. DOE also received many comments related to the relative 

merits of various TSLs. Generally, these comments either stated a certain TSL was 

economic justified, technologically feasible, and maximized energy, or they argued how 

DOE should weight the various factors that go into making that determination. See section 

VII for a discussion of DOE’s analytic results and how it weighed those factors in 

establishing today’s final rule. 

PSI stated that DOE should adopt GSFL and IRL standards that align with or surpass 

the European Union’s “Eco-Design Standards for Energy-Using Product (EuP) Directive.” 

On the other hand, a private citizen wrote to DOE expressing that DOE’s proposed 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
267

standards for GSFL and IRL will not save significant energy, will negatively impact the 

work of lighting designers, and may have a negative impact on the quality of work and 

living spaces; the citizen expressed that conservation in other areas could yield greater 

reduction in energy usage. (Private Citizen, No. 48 at pp. 1-3) 

VII. Analytical Results and Conclusions 

 

A. Trial Standard Levels 

 DOE analyzed the costs and benefits of five TSLs each for the GSFL and IRL 

covered in today’s final rule. Table VII.1 and Table VII.2 present the TSLs and the 

corresponding product class efficacy requirements for GSFL and IRL. See the engineering 

analysis in section V.B.4 of this final rule for a more detailed discussion of the efficacy 

levels. In this trial standard levels section, DOE presents the analytical results for the TSLs 

of all product classes that DOE analyzed, including scaled product classes. See chapter 5 of 

the final rule TSD for further information on representative and scaled product class efficacy 

levels. 

1. General Service Fluorescent Lamps 

As discussed in section V.B.2, the following lamps with a CCT less than 4,500K 

compose the five representative GSFL product classes: (1) 4-foot medium bipin; (2) 8-foot 

single pin slimline; (3) 8-foot recessed double contact HO lamps; (4) 4-foot miniature bipin 

T5 SO; and (5) 4-foot miniature bipin T5 HO lamps. U-shaped lamps with a CCT less than 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
268

4,500K are a scaled product class. The six lamp types (including U-shaped lamps) with 

CCTs greater than or equal to 4500K compose six additional product classes, which are also 

scaled product classes. DOE developed TSLs that generally follow a trend of increasing 

efficacy by using higher-quality phosphors. The TSLs also represent a general move from 

higher-wattage technologies to lower-wattage, lower-diameter lamps with higher efficacies. 

Table VII.1 shows the TSLs for GSFL. DOE composed each TSL utilizing the same 

methodology employed in the April 2009 NOPR. TSL5 represents all maximum 

technologically feasible GSFL efficacy levels, as in the April 2009 NOPR. 74 FR 16920, 

16980 (April 13, 2009). 

For this final rule, DOE revised the efficacy levels for 4-foot T5 MiniBP standardoutput and high-output lamps to reflect testing at 25° C as well as manufacturing variability. 

The April 2009 NOPR EL1 requirements for T5 standard-output lamps have thus been 

revised from 103 lm/W to 86 lm/W, and the April 2009 NOPR EL2 requirements have been 

revised from 108 lm/W to 90 lm/W. The April 2009 NOPR EL1 requirements for T5 highoutput lamps have been revised from 89 lm/W to 76 lm/W. 74 FR 16920, 16980 (April 13, 

2009). The EPCA standard for GSFL in the representative product classes of this final rule 

are shown in Table I.3. Trial standard levels for all GSFL product classes in this final rule 

are shown in Table VII.1. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
269

Table VII.1 Trial Standard Levels for GSFL--Efficacy Levels for all GSFL Product 

Classes 

CCT Lamp Type 

Trial Standard Level 

1 2 3 4 5 

4-foot medium bipin 

(representative) 78 81 85 89 93 

 2-foot U-shaped 70 72 76 84 87 

8-foot single pin 

slimline 

(representative) 

86 92 95 97 98 

≤ 4,500K 

8-foot recessed double 

contact HO 

(representative) 

83 86 88 92 95 

4-foot T5 miniature 

bipin SO 

(representative) 

86 86 86 86 90 

4-foot T5 miniature 

bipin HO 

(representative) 

76 76 76 76 76 

 4-foot medium bipin 77 79 82 88 92 

 2-foot U-shaped 65 67 71 81 85 

8-foot single pin 

slimline 83 87 91 93 94 

> 4,500K and 

≤ 7,000K 

8-foot recessed double 

contact HO 80 83 84 88 91 

4-foot T5 miniature 

bipin SO 81 81 81 81 85 

4-foot T5 miniature 

bipin HO 72 72 72 72 72 

2. Incandescent Reflector Lamps 

As discussed in section V.B.4, DOE has established five efficacy levels based on an 

equation relating efficacy to lamp wattage. As also discussed in section V.B.2, DOE only 

directly analyzed the standard-spectrum IRL with a diameter greater than 2.5 inches and 

voltage less than 125 volts; DOE then scaled minimum efficacy requirements to other 

product classes. This is consistent with what DOE did for the April 2009 NOPR. 74 FR 

16920, 16981 (April 13, 2009). 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
270

The EPCA standard for IRL is shown in Table I.4. The efficacy levels for all IRL product 

classes are shown as coefficients for the efficacy level requirement equation A*P^0.27 in 

Table VII.2 for the TSLs to which they correspond, where A is the coefficient shown in the 

table for a specific product class and TSL, and P represents the rated wattage of the lamp. 

TSL5 represents the maximum technologically feasible level, as in the April 2009 NOPR. 

74 FR 16920, 16981-2 (April 13, 2009). For this final rule, DOE revised the April 2009 

NOPR efficacy levels for the representative IRL product class in order to account for IRL 

manufacturing variability, as described in chapter 5 of the TSD. 

Table VII.2 Trial Standard Levels for IRL—Coefficients of Efficacy Levels for all IRL 

Product Classes 

Lamp 

Wattage 

Lamp 

Type Diameter Voltage 

Trial Standard Level 

1 2 3 4 5 

Standardspectrum 

> 2.5 

inches 

≥ 125V 5.3 5.5 6.2 6.8 7.4 

40W205W 

< 125V 

(representative) 4.6 4.8 5.4 5.9 6.4 

≤ 2.5 

inches 

≥ 125V 4.7 4.9 5.5 5.7 6.2 

< 125V 4.0 4.2 4.8 5.0 5.4 

Modifiedspectrum 

> 2.5 

inches 

≥ 125V 4.5 4.7 5.3 5.8 6.3 

40W205W < 125V 3.9 4.1 4.6 5.0 5.4 

≤ 2.5 

inches 

≥ 125V 4.0 4.1 4.6 4.9 5.3 

< 125V 3.4 3.6 4.0 4.2 4.6 

At the public meeting, Energy Solutions suggested that DOE present efficacy levels 

for IRL in terms of lumen output rather than wattage because lumen output is a more 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
271

appropriate measure of the functional performance of a lamp. (Energy Solutions, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at pp. 94-95) DOE understands that the primary function of a 

lamp is to provide light for the consumers’ applications. Market research indicated that the 

most common IRL baselines on the market today provide three distinct levels of initial 

lumen output: 1,310 lumens from a 90W baseline, 1,050 lumens from a 75W baseline, and 

630 lumens from a 50W baseline, respectively. Based on this understanding, DOE utilized 

a “lumen package” perspective in the April 2009 NOPR to select and analyze moreefficacious replacements for these three IRL baselines such that their lumen output is no 

greater than 10% below the baseline lumen output. 74 FR 16920, 16944 (April 13, 2009). 

DOE believes that the usage of lumen classes allows DOE to take into account consumers’ 

interests in light output when developing efficacy levels based on IRL wattage. Thus, DOE 

has not changed its presentation of efficacy levels for the final rule. 

B. Significance of Energy Savings

 To estimate the energy savings through 2042 due to potential standards, DOE 

compared the energy consumption of GSFL and IRL under the base case (no standards) to 

energy consumption of these products under each standards case (each TSL that DOE has 

considered). Table VII.3 and Table VII.4 show the forecasted national energy savings 

(including rebound effect and HVAC interactions where applicable) in quads (quadrillion 

BTU) at each TSL for GSFL and IRL. As discussed in section V.D.1, DOE models two 

base-case shipment scenarios and several standards-case shipment scenarios. For each lamp 

type, these scenarios combined produce eight possible sets of NES results. The tables below 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
272

present the results of the two scenarios that represent the maximum and minimum energy 

savings resulting from all the scenarios analyzed. 

For GSFL, DOE presents “Existing Technologies, High Lighting Expertise, Shift” 

and “Emerging Technologies, Market Segment-Based Lighting Expertise, Roll-Up” in 

Table VII.3 as the scenarios that produce the maximum and minimum energy savings, 

respectively. Due to a larger reduction in the installed stock of lamps affected by standards, 

the Emerging Technologies base-case forecast results in lower energy savings than the 

Existing Technologies base-case forecast. In addition, because a portion of consumers 

purchasing non-energy-saving, higher-lumen-output systems in the Market Segment-Based 

Lighting Expertise scenario, it results in lower energy savings than the High Lighting 

Expertise scenario. Finally, because in the Shift scenario more consumers move to higherefficacy lamps than in the Roll-Up scenario, the Shift scenario results in higher energy 

savings than the Roll-Up scenario. 

Table VII.3 presents total national energy savings for each TSL (labeled as “Total” 

savings). The table also reports national energy savings due to individually regulating each 

type of GSFL (presented next to the lamp type names), assuming no amended standard on 

all other lamp types. However, it is important to note that individual lamp type energy 

savings (due to separate regulation) do not sum to equal total energy savings achieved at the 

trial standard levels due to standards-induced substitution effects between lamp types. 

Instead, these savings are provided merely to illustrate the approximate relative energy 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
273

savings of each lamp type under a TSL. Please see the NOPR for a discussion of the affect 

of various TSLs on NES. 74 FR 16920, 17005-06 (April 13, 2009). 

Table VII.3 Summary of Cumulative National Energy Savings for GSFL 

TSL/EL Lamp Type 

National Energy Savings 

(quad btu)

Existing 

Technologies, 

High Lighting 

Expertise, Shift 

Emerging 

Technologies, 

Market SegmentBased Lighting 

Expertise, RollUp 

1 

4-foot MBP 0.89 0.61 

8-foot SP Slimline 0.25 0.25 

8-foot RDC HO 0.17 0.02 

4-foot MiniBP SO 0.69 0.11 

4-foot MiniBP HO 0.96 0.53 

2-foot U-Shaped 0.04 0.03 

Total 3.01 1.54 

2 

4-foot MBP 0.99 0.75 

8-foot SP Slimline 0.28 0.27 

8-foot RDC HO 0.22 0.19 

4-foot MiniBP SO 0.69 0.11 

4-foot MiniBP HO 0.96 0.53 

2-foot U-Shaped 0.05 0.03 

Total 3.19 1.88 

3 

4-foot MBP 4.17 1.81 

8-foot SP Slimline 0.32 0.32 

8-foot RDC HO 0.23 0.19 

4-foot MiniBP SO 0.69 0.11 

4-foot MiniBP HO 0.96 0.53 

2-foot U-Shaped 0.19 0.08 

Total 6.59 3.06 

4 4-foot MBP 6.96 2.30 

8-foot SP Slimline 0.37 0.23 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
274

8-foot RDC HO 0.56 0.56 

4-foot MiniBP SO 0.69 0.11 

4-foot MiniBP HO 0.96 0.53 

2-foot U-Shaped 0.32 0.10 

Total 9.94 3.83 

5 

4-foot MBP 8.79 3.32 

8-foot SP Slimline 0.37 0.24 

8-foot RDC HO 0.62 0.57 

4-foot MiniBP SO 0.82 0.26 

4-foot MiniBP HO 0.96 0.53 

2-foot U-Shaped 0.40 0.15 

Total 12.00 5.08 

For IRL, DOE presents “Existing Technologies, R-CFL Production Substitution, 

Shift” and “Emerging Technologies, BR Product Substitution, Roll-Up” in Table VII.4 as 

the scenarios that produce the maximum and minimum energy savings, respectively. 

Similar to GSFL, the Existing Technologies base-case forecast results in higher energy 

savings than the Emerging Technologies base-case forecast due to the greater installed stock 

of IRL affected by standards. The BR Product Substitution scenario, which includes 

migration to exempted BR lamps but not to R-CFL, results in lower energy savings than the 

R-CFL Product Substitution scenario, which accounts for the reverse effect. In addition, 

while the effect is greater for GSFL than for IRL, the Shift scenario (only affecting 

commercial consumers because DOE assumes residential consumers always purchase the 

lowest first-cost lamp) also represents higher energy savings than the Roll-Up scenario for 

IRL. As seen in the table below, TSL 5 achieves maximum energy savings for both 

scenarios. As discussed in section VI.C.1, DOE also analyzed a “Baseline Lifetime 

Scenario.” Although this scenario considers shortened lifetimes as TSL 4 and TSL 5, 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
275

national energy savings do not change because shipments remain the same as the normal 

lifetime scenario. 

Table VII.4 Summary of Cumulative National Energy Savings for Incandescent 

Reflector Lamps 

TSL 

National Energy Savings (quads) 

Existing Technologies, RCFL Product 

Substitution, Shift 

Emerging 

Technologies, BR 

Product Substitution, 

Roll-Up 

1 0.45 0.16 

2 1.09 0.40 

3 1.91 0.81 

4 2.39 0.94 

5 2.72 1.12 

C. Economic Justification

1. Economic Impact on Consumers 

a. Life-Cycle Costs and Payback Period 

Consumers affected by new or amended standards usually experience higher 

purchase prices and lower operating costs. Generally, these impacts are best captured by 

changes in life-cycle costs. DOE designed the LCC analysis around lamp purchasing events 

and calculated the LCC savings relative to the baseline for each lamp replacement event 

separately in each lamp product class, as done for the April 2009 NOPR. 74 FR 16920, 

16982 (April 13, 2009). The separate computation of the impacts on each event and each 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
276

product class allowed DOE to view the results of many subgroup populations in the LCC 

analyses. The following discussion presents salient results from the LCC analysis. When a 

standard results in “positive LCC savings,” the life cycle cost of the standards-compliant 

lamp or lamp-and-ballast system is less than the life cycle cost of the baseline lamp or lampand-ballast system, and the consumer benefits economically. When a standard results in 

“negative LCC savings,” the life cycle cost of the standards-compliant lamp or lamp-andballast system is higher than the life cycle cost of the baseline lamp or lamp-and-ballast 

system, and the consumer is adversely affected economically. The results at some efficacy 

levels are presented as ranges, which reflect the results of multiple systems (i.e., multiple 

lamp-ballast pairings) that consumers could purchase to meet those specific efficacy levels. 

The LCC results shown in this notice reflect a subset of all of the lamp purchasing 

events analyzed by DOE, although they represent the most prevalent purchasing events. As 

done in the April 2009 NOPR, DOE is also presenting the installed prices of the lamp-andballast systems in order to allow comparisons of the up-front costs that consumers must bear 

when purchasing baseline or standards-case systems. 74 FR 16920, 16982 (April 13, 2009). 

All of the LCC results shown in this notice were generated using the April 2009 AEO2009

reference case electricity price trend (which includes the impact of ARRA) as well as 

medium-range lamp and ballast prices. In many cases, DOE omitted Events IB (Lamp 

Failure: Lamp & Ballast Replacement) and IV (Ballast Retrofit) in this notice, because DOE 

believes these lamp purchase events to be relatively less frequent. In addition, DOE has 

chosen not to present detailed PBP results by efficacy level in this final rule notice because 

DOE believes that LCC results are a better measure of cost-effectiveness. However, a full 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
277

set of both LCC and PBP results for the systems DOE analyzed is available in chapter 8 and 

appendix 8B of the TSD. Chapter 8 presents LCC results for all lamp purchasing events 

analyzed by DOE. Furthermore, chapter 8 includes the LCC results presented in this notice 

along with additional presented details, such as system design option details, start-year 

operating cost savings, and payback periods. Appendix 8B presents Monte Carlo simulation 

results performed by DOE as part of the LCC analysis and also presents sensitivity results, 

such as LCC savings under the AEO2009 high-economic-growth and low-economic-growth 

cases. 

i. General Service Fluorescent Lamps 

Table VII.5 through Table VII.12 present the results for the baseline lamps in each 

of the five GSFL product classes DOE analyzed (i.e., 4-foot medium bipin, 4-foot miniature 

bipin SO, 4-foot miniature bipin HO, 8-foot single pin slimline, and 8-foot recessed double 

contact HO). Not all baselines have suitable replacement options for every lamp purchasing 

event at every efficacy level. For instance, because DOE assumed that consumers wish to 

purchase systems or lamp replacements with a lumen output within 10 percent of their 

baseline system output, in some cases, the only available replacement options produce less 

light than this. Thus, the replacement options are considered unsuitable substitutions. These 

cases are marked with “LL” (less light) in the LCC results tables below. In some cases, 

when consumers who currently own a T12 system need to replace their lamps, no T12 

energy saving lamp replacements are available. In these cases, in order to save energy, the 

consumers must switch to other options, such as a T8 lamp and appropriate ballast. These 

cases are marked with “NER” (no energy-saving replacement) in tables. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
278

Because some baseline lamps already meet higher efficacy levels (e.g., the baseline 

32W 4-foot T8 MBP lamp achieves EL2), LCC savings at the levels below the baseline are 

zero. In these cases, “BAE” (baseline above efficacy level) is listed in the tables to indicate 

that the consumer makes the same purchase decision in the standards-case as they do in the 

base-case. Also, not all lamp purchase events apply for all baseline lamps or efficacy levels. 

For example, DOE assumed that the standards-induced retrofit event does not apply to the 

32W T8 system, because it is already the most efficacious 4-foot medium bipin GSFL 

system. For these events, an “EN/A” (event not applicable) exists in the table. Finally, 

because LCC savings are not relevant when no energy conservation standard is established, 

“N/A” (not applicable) exists in the LCC savings column for the baseline system. 

Overall, based on the NIA model, DOE estimates that at TSL4 and TSL5 in 2012, 

approximately 2 percent of 4-foot MBP shipments result in negative LCC savings, and 9 

percent of shipments are associated with the high installed price increases due to forced 

retrofits. At TSL5, all 4-ft T5 miniature bipin standard output shipments result in positive 

LCC savings; For 8-foot SP slimline at TSL4 and TSL5, approximately 24 percent of 2012 

shipments would result in negative LCC savings, and 65 percent of shipments would be 

associated with the high installed price increases due to forced retrofits. DOE estimates that 

at TSL5 in 2012, approximately 33 percent of 8-foot RDC HO shipments would result in 

negative LCC savings, and 86 percent of shipments would be associated with the high 

installed price increases due to forced retrofits. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
279

For 4-foot MiniBP T5 standard-output lamps, TSL4 would require these lamps to 

meet EL1, resulting in positive LCC savings of $1.10 for lamp replacement and $43.30 for 

new construction or renovation (seen in Table VII.9). At TSL5 (EL2 for standard output T5 

lamps), all consumers have available lamp designs which result in positive LCC savings of 

$1.10 (for lamp replacement) and $45.67 to $47.49 (for new construction or renovation). 

For 4-foot MiniBP T5 high-output lamps, TSL4 and TSL5 have identical life-cycle 

cost impacts: Consumers of high-output lamps who need only a lamp replacement would 

experience negative LCC savings of -$3.03 (approximately 44 percent of shipments, 

according the NIA model). However, purchasing a T5 high-output system for new 

construction or renovation would result in positive LCC savings of $65.69 to $67.06. 

Table VII.5 presents the findings of an LCC analysis on various 3-lamp 4-foot 

medium bipin GSFL systems operating in the commercial sector. The analysis period 

(based on the longest-lived baseline lamp’s lifetime) for this product class in the commercial 

sector is 5.5 years. As seen in the table, DOE analyzes three baseline lamps: (1) 40W T12; 

(2) 34W T12; and (3) 32W T8. For a complete discussion of the 4-foot MBP LCC results, 

see chapter 8 of the TSD and the April 2009 NOPR. 74 FR 16920, 16984 (April 13, 2009). 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
280

Table VII.5 LCC Results for a 3-Lamp Four-Foot Medium Bipin GSFL System 

Operating in the Commercial Sector Baseline Efficacy Level 

LCC Savings Installed Price 

2008$ 2008$ 

Event IA: 

Lamp 

Replacement* 

Event II: 

StandardsInduced 

Retrofit (Lamp 

and Ballast 

Replacement)* 

Event III: 

Ballast 

Failure*† 

Event IA: 

Lamp 

Replacement 

Event II: 

StandardsInduced 

Retrofit 

(Lamp and 

Ballast 

Replacement) 

Event III: 

Ballast 

Failure† 

40 Watt T12 

Baseline N/A N/A N/A 14.50 14.50 68.44 

EL1 LL EN/A -7.66 to 

-5.88 LL EN/A 75.31 to 80.14 

EL2 LL EN/A -7.94 LL EN/A 80.45 

EL3 22.09 EN/A 13.07 to 

14.79 26.10 EN/A 70.85 to 80.04 

EL4 NR 12.95 to 25.60 22.11 to 

34.76 NR 65.71 to 78.48 

63.31 to 

76.08 

EL5 NR 18.73 to 24.16 27.89 to 

33.32 NR 67.33 to 73.94 

64.93 to 

71.55 

34 Watt T12 

Baseline N/A N/A N/A 11.65 11.65 65.59 

EL1 NER -18.98 -1.85 15.49 71.82 69.42 

EL2 NER -24.30 to -4.84 -9.15 to 

10.30 

12.43 to 

22.79 

62.04 to 

79.12 

59.64 to 

76.72 

EL3 NER -24.58 to 4.85 -9.43 to 

20.00 

15.65 to 

26.10 

65.26 to 

82.44 

62.87 to 

80.04 

EL4 NR 10.20 to 21.14 25.35 to 

36.29 NR 65.71 to 70.50 

63.31 to 

68.10 

EL5 NR 13.93 to 16.20 29.08 to 

31.35 NR 65.96 to 67.33 

63.57 to 

64.93 

32 Watt T8 

Baseline N/A N/A N/A 12.43 12.43 59.64 

EL1 BAE EN/A BAE BAE EN/A BAE 

EL2 BAE EN/A BAE BAE EN/A BAE 

EL3 NER EN/A 9.69 NER EN/A 62.87 

EL4 4.76 to 25.98 EN/A 15.05 to 

25.98 

16.98 to 

20.89 EN/A 63.31 to 68.10 

EL5 9.70 EN/A 9.70 to 

13.60 16.35 EN/A 63.57 to 64.93 

†For 32 Watt T8 baseline, includes Event V (New Construction and Renovation). 

*Analysis period is 5.5 years. 

N/A: Not Applicable; NER: No Energy-Saving Replacement; LL: Available Options Produce Less Light; 

EN/A: Event Not Applicable; BAE: Baseline Above Efficacy Level; NR: No Replacement 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
281

Table VII.7 presents the LCC results for a 4-foot medium bipin system operating in 

the residential sector under average operating hours. Under average operating hours, only 

the ballast failure event (Event III) applies because the ballast and fixture reach the end of 

their 15 year life before the baseline lamp (which would otherwise have a lifetime of 19 

years when operated for 791 hours per year) fails. DOE uses a 15-year analysis period, 

based on the effective service life of the lamp (limited by the fixture or ballast life). 74 FR 

16920, 16985 (April 13, 2009). 

Table VII.6 LCC Results for a 2-Lamp Four-Foot Medium Bipin GSFL System 

Operating in the Residential Sector with Average Operating Hours 

Baseline Efficacy Level 

LCC Savings Installed Price 

2008$ 2008$ 

Event III: Ballast Failure* Event III: Ballast 

Failure 

40 Watt T12 

Baseline N/A 51.38 

EL1 7.03 to 10.25 49.04 to 56.19 

EL2 6.82 to 19.17 50.51 to 56.39 

EL3 1.06 to 18.86 52.66 to 60.19 

EL4 18.57 to 24.36 52.96 to 56.15 

EL5 20.21 to 22.32 53.13 to 54.04 

*Analysis period is 15.0 years. 

N/A: Not Applicable 

In addition to conducting the LCC analysis under average operating hours, DOE also 

computed residential LCC results under high operating hours (1,210 hours per year) in order 

to analyze the economic impacts of the lamp failure event (Event I). Table VII.7 presents 

these LCC and installed-price results for a 2-lamp four-foot medium bipin GSFL system 

under the lamp failure event and high operating hours. As seen in Table VII.7, DOE divides 

the residential GSFL lamp failure event into Events IA (Lamp Failure: Lamp Replacement) 

and IB (Lamp Failure: Lamp and Ballast Replacement). Event IA, presented also in the 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
282

commercial sector analysis, solely models a lamp purchase (in response to lamp failure) in 

both the base case and standards case. With high operating hours, DOE calculates that the 

baseline lamp initially purchased with a ballast fails after 12.4 years. Thus, a replacement 

lamp will operate for only 2.6 additional years before the fixture is removed. To compute 

the results shown in Table VII.7, DOE assumes that residential-sector GSFL consumers will 

discard their replacement lamp when the fixture is removed and therefore uses a 2.6 year 

analysis period. 

Table VII.7 LCC Results for a 2-Lamp Four-Foot Medium Bipin GSFL System 

Operating in the Residential Sector with High Operating Hours 

Baseline Efficacy Level 

LCC Savings Installed Price 

2008$ 2008$ 

Event IA: Lamp 

Replacement* 

Event IB: 

Lamp and 

Ballast 

Replacement* 

Event IA: Lamp 

Replacement 

Event IB: 

Lamp and 

Ballast 

Replacement 

40 Watt T12 

Baseline N/A N/A 4.13 4.13 

EL1 LL EN/A LL EN/A 

EL2 LL EN/A LL EN/A 

EL3 -5.53 EN/A 12.94 EN/A 

EL4 NR -4.13 to -2.04 NR 52.96 to 56.15 

EL5 NR -3.52 to -2.87 NR 53.13 to 54.04 

*Analysis period is 2.6 years. 

N/A: Not Applicable; LL: Available Options Produce Less Light; EN/A: Event Not Applicable; NR: No 

Replacement 

` As discussed in section V.C.8, DOE analyzed additional residential-sector GSFL 

lamp failure LCC scenarios for this final rule based on the understanding that some 

residential-sector GSFL consumers may preserve their lamps during fixture end-of-life and 

then install those lamps on a new fixture instead of discarding them. Consumers exhibiting 

this behavior can operate lamps for their full lifetimes and thus will eventually experience a 

lamp failure even when operating with average operating hours. When operated for average 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
283

operating hours, the baseline lamp has a lifetime of 19 years; therefore, DOE uses 19 years 

as the analysis period. This analysis shows that some residential consumers with T12 

systems do in fact obtain LCC savings when forced to retrofit their T12 ballast with a T8 

system at EL4 and EL5. However, DOE also notes that the results of this analysis are 

highly dependent on the remaining years of lifetime left on the T12 ballast when the lamp is 

replaced. Therefore, as seen in Table VII.8 DOE computes LCC savings for several 

scenarios of remaining ballast life at the time of lamp replacement. At EL3, under the 

scenario where consumers retain their lamp upon ballast replacement, consumers obtain 

LCC savings. At EL4, consumers can achieve positive LCC savings if their ballast have 

less than 8 years of life remaining at the point of lamp failure. In other words, consumers 

who would need to purchase a ballast within 8 years after replacing their lamp would benefit 

from a standard at EL4. At EL5, standards-case consumers can achieve positive LCC 

savings if their fixtures have less than 7 years of life remaining. 

Table VII.8 LCC Savings at Various Values of Remaining Fixture Life for 

Residential-Sector GSFL Consumers with Lamp Preservation, Average Operating 

Hours 

Event Efficacy 

Level 

LCC Savings (2008$) 

Remaining Ballast Life (years) 

1 3 6 9 12 15 

IA: Lamp Repl. 

EL 1 LL LL LL LL LL LL 

EL 2 LL LL LL LL LL LL 

EL 3 4.78 4.78 4.78 4.78 4.78 4.78 

IB: Lamp & 

Ballast Repl. 

EL 4 18.69 to 

27.06 

10.06 to 

18.43 

-0.14 to 

8.23 

-8.69 to -

0.33 

-16.62 to 

-8.26 

-24.02 to 

-15.65 

EL 5 20.98 to 

22.62 

12.35 to 

13.99 

2.15 to 

3.79 

-6.40 to -

4.77 

-14.33 to 

-12.70 

-21.72 to 

-20.09 

LL: Available Options Produce Less Light 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
284

Table VII.9 presents the results for an electronically-ballasted 4-foot T5 miniature 

bipin standard-output, baseline system operating in the commercial sector. Table VII.10 

presents the results for an electronically-ballasted 4-foot T5 miniature bipin high-output 

baseline system operating in the industrial sector. For further discussion on the 4-foot 

MiniBP LCC results see the April 2009 NOPR and Chapter 8 of the TSD. 74 FR 16920, 

16987 (April 13, 2009). 

Table VII.9 LCC Results for a 2-Lamp Four-Foot Miniature Bipin Standard Output 

GSFL System Operating in the Commercial Sector 

Baseline Efficacy 

Level 

LCC Savings Installed Price 

2008$ 2008$ 

Event IA: 

Lamp 

Replacement* 

Event V: New 

Construction/Renovation* 

Event IA: 

Lamp 

Replacement 

Event V: New 

Construction/Renovation 

28 Watt 

T5 

Baseline N/A N/A 9.75 71.87 

EL1 NER 43.30 13.66 75.78 

EL2 1.10 45.67 to 47.49 15.44 77.56 to 78.06 

*Analysis period is 5.5 years. 

N/A: Not Applicable; NER: No Energy-Saving Replacement 

Table VII.10 LCC Results for a 2-Lamp Four-Foot Miniature Bipin High Output 

GSFL System Operating in the Industrial Sector 

Baseline Efficacy 

Level 

LCC Savings Installed Price 

2008$ 2008$ 

Event IA: 

Lamp 

Replacement* 

Event V: New 

Construction/Renovation* 

Event IA: 

Lamp 

Replacement 

Event V: New 

Construction/Renovation 

54 Watt 

T5 

Baseline N/A N/A 10.84 74.09 

EL1 -3.03 65.69 to 67.06 20.61 79.31 to 83.87 

*Analysis period is 3.9 years. 

N/A: Not Applicable; NER: No Energy-Saving Replacement 

Table VII.11 presents the results for an 8-foot single-pin slimline GSFL system 

operating in the commercial sector. The analysis period is 4 years. For this product class, 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
285

DOE analyzes three baseline lamps: (1) 75W T12; (2) 60W T12; and (3) 59W T8. For 

further discussion on the 8-foot SP slimline LCC results, see the April 2009 NOPR and 

chapter 8 of the TSD. 74 FR 16920, 16988 (April 13, 2009). 

Table VII.11 LCC Results for a 2-Lamp Eight-Foot Single-Pin Slimline GSFL System 

Operating in the Commercial Sector Baseline Efficacy Level 

LCC Savings Installed Price 

2008$ 2008$ 

Event IA: 

Lamp 

Replacement* 

Event II: 

StandardsInduced 

Retrofit (Lamp 

and Ballast 

Replacement)* 

Event 

III: 

Ballast 

Failure*† 

Event IA: 

Lamp 

Replacement 

Event II: 

StandardsInduced 

Retrofit 

(Lamp and 

Ballast 

Replacement) 

Event 

III: 

Ballast 

Failure† 

75 Watt T12 

Baseline N/A N/A N/A 16.79 16.79 92.37 

EL1 LL EN/A -4.91 LL EN/A 98.99 

EL2 LL EN/A -0.78 LL EN/A 100.97 

EL3 36.57 EN/A LL 20.19 EN/A LL 

EL4 NR LL LL NR LL LL 

EL5 NR 9.68 28.43 NR 98.80 96.40 

60 Watt T12 

Baseline N/A N/A N/A 11.77 11.77 87.35 

EL1 BAE BAE BAE BAE BAE BAE 

EL2 NER -26.73 -2.73 16.63 94.61 92.22 

EL3 NER -25.89 to 

-25.83 -1.83 13.23 to 20.19 

92.46 to 

98.17 95.77 

EL4 NR -16.72 7.28 NR 97.01 94.62 

EL5 NR -15.81 to 

-13.89 

8.18 to 

10.11 NR 97.41 to 98.80 

95.02 to 

96.40 

59 Watt T8 

Baseline N/A EN/A N/A 13.23 EN/A 90.07 

EL1 BAE EN/A BAE BAE EN/A BAE 

EL2 BAE EN/A BAE BAE EN/A BAE 

EL3 BAE EN/A BAE BAE EN/A BAE 

EL4 NER EN/A -0.44 NER EN/A 94.62 

EL5 6.45 to 10.28 EN/A 8.12 to 

10.28 

17.33 to 

18.18 EN/A 94.17 to 96.40 

†For 59-Watt T8 baseline, includes Event V (New Construction and Renovation). 

*Analysis period is 4.0 years. 

N/A: Not Applicable; NER: No Energy-Saving Replacement; LL: Available Options Produce Less 

Light; EN/A: Event Not Applicable; BAE: Baseline Above Efficacy Level; NR: No Replacement 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
286

Table VII.12 shows LCC results for an 8-foot recessed double-contact GSFL system 

operating in the industrial sector. The analysis period for this product class is 2.3 years. 

DOE analyzes 110W T12 and 95W T12 baseline lamps on magnetic ballasts. For further 

discussion on the 8-foot RDC HO LCC results see the April 2009 NOPR and chapter 8 of 

the TSD. 74 FR 16920, 16990 (April 13, 2009). 

Table VII.12 LCC Results for a 2-Lamp Eight-Foot Recessed Double-Contact High 

Output GSFL System Operating in the Industrial Sector Baseline Efficacy Level 

LCC Savings Installed Price 

2008$ 2008$ 

Event I: 

Lamp 

Replacement* 

Event II: 

StandardsInduced 

Retrofit (Lamp 

and Ballast 

Replacement)* 

Event III: 

Ballast 

Failure* 

Event I: 

Lamp 

Replacement 

Event II: 

StandardsInduced 

Retrofit 

(Lamp and 

Ballast 

Replacement) 

Event 

III: 

Ballast 

Failure 

110 Watt T12 

Baseline N/A N/A N/A 20.51 20.51 101.36 

EL1 LL EN/A 9.43 LL EN/A 117.60 

EL2 LL EN/A LL LL EN/A LL 

EL3 10.75 to 

11.40 EN/A 10.75 to 21.86 

33.64 to 

34.29 EN/A 

114.49 

to 

119.40 

EL4 NR LL LL NR LL LL 

EL5 NR 13.07 51.60 NR 131.38 128.99 

95 Watt T12 

Baseline N/A N/A N/A 14.46 14.46 95.31 

EL1 BAE LL LL BAE LL LL 

EL2 NER -27.63 7.87 20.83 108.34 105.95 

EL3 NER -37.95 to 

-37.30 

-2.46 to 

-1.81 

33.64 to 

34.29 

121.15 to 

121.80 

118.75 

to 

119.40 

EL4 NR -12.35 to -9.07 23.14 to 

26.42 NR 128.03 to 128.38 

125.64 

to 

125.98 

EL5 NR -7.97 27.52 NR 131.38 128.99 

*Analysis period is 2.3 years. 

N/A: Not Applicable; NER: No Energy-Saving Replacement; LL: Available Options Produce Less Light; 

EN/A: Event Not Applicable; BAE: Baseline Above Efficacy Level; NR: No Replacement 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
287

ii. Incandescent Reflector Lamps 

Table VII.13 shows the commercial and residential sector LCC results for IRL. The 

results are based on the reference case April 2009 AEO2009 electricity price forecast (which 

includes the impact of the ARRA) and medium-range lamp prices. The analysis period is 

3.4 years for the residential sector and 0.9 years for the commercial sector. In general, the 

results of the LCC analysis are consistent with those presented in the April 2009 NOPR. 74 

FR 16920, 16991 (April 13, 2009). As discussed in section VI.C.1, DOE analyzed an 

additional scenario, called the Baseline Lifetime scenario, for the LCC analysis, NIA and 

MIA that modeled lamps at EL4 and EL5 with similar lifetimes to that of the baseline lamp 

lifetimes. The LCC results for both the Baseline Lifetime scenario and the Commercial 

Lifetime scenario (in which lamps at EL4 and EL5 have lifetimes of 4,000 hours and 4,200 

hours, respectively) are shown as ranges at EL4 and EL5. As seen in Table VII.13, the 

lower range of LCC savings, representing the Baseline Lifetime scenario lamps, are 

negative for the 50W baseline in both sectors at EL5 and only in the commercial sector at 

EL4. 

Table VII.13 LCC Results for Incandescent Reflector Lamps 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
288

Baseline Efficacy Level 

LCC Savings Installed Price 

2008$ 2008$ 

Event I: Lamp Replacement/ Event V: New Construction and 

Renovation 

Commercial* Residential** Commercial Residential 

90 Watt 

PAR38 

Baseline N/A N/A 6.43 5.33 

EL1 -0.12 0.14 7.41 6.31 

EL2 3.72 to 6.12 3.19 to 4.94 7.88 to 8.06 6.78 to 6.96 

EL3 6.01 5.81 8.06 6.96 

EL4 2.61 to 7.95 3.78 to 7.45 9.43 8.33 

EL5 4.26 to 9.14 5.65 to 9.10 9.43 to 10.02 8.33 to 8.92 

75 Watt 

PAR38 

Baseline N/A N/A 6.43 5.33 

EL1 -0.40 -0.17 7.41 6.31 

EL2 3.17 to 5.76 2.57 to 4.54 7.88 to 8.06 6.78 to 6.96 

EL3 4.64 4.25 8.06 6.96 

EL4 1.51 to 6.85 2.54 to 6.20 9.43 8.33 

EL5 2.42 to 7.30 3.56 to 7.01 9.43 to 10.02 8.33 to 8.92 

50 Watt 

PAR30 

Baseline N/A N/A 5.80 4.70 

EL1 -0.37 -0.29 6.78 5.68 

EL2 -0.07 to 2.74 0.11 to 2.36 7.25 to 7.43 6.15 to 6.33 

EL3 0.63 0.92 7.43 6.33 

EL4 -0.25 to 1.81 0.11 to 1.75 8.80 7.70 

EL5 -3.17 to 1.36 -1.64 to 1.51 8.80 to 9.39 7.70 to 8.29 

*Analysis period is 0.9 years. 

**Analysis period is 3.4 years. 

b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

 Certain consumer subgroups may be disproportionately affected by 

standards. As done for the April 2009 NOPR, DOE performed LCC subgroup analyses as 

part of its proposal for low-income consumers, institutions of religious worship, and 

institutions that serve low-income populations. 74 FR 16920, 16991 (April 13, 2009). See 

section V.C for a review of the inputs to the LCC analysis. DOE found the impacts on these 

consumer subgroups to be generally consistent with those presented in the April 2009 

NOPR with one exception: for institutions that serve low-income populations, with updates 

to electricity prices in this final rule, consumers who in the base case purchase a 75W T12 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
289

replacement lamp, no longer obtain LCC savings. 74 FR 16920, 16996 (April 13, 2009). 

For further detail on the consumer subgroup analysis, see chapter 12 of the TSD. 

2. Economic Impact on Manufacturers 

 DOE estimated the impact of amended energy conservation standards for covered 

products on the INPV of the industries that manufacture the products. The impact of 

amended standards on INPV consists of the difference between the INPV in the base case 

and the INPV in the standards case. INPV is the primary metric used in the MIA and 

represents one measure of the fair value of the GSFL and IRL industries in 2008$. For each 

industry affected by today’s rule, DOE calculated INPV by summing all of the net cash 

flows, discounted at the industry’s cost of capital or discount rate. 

 Table VII.14 through Table VII.17 show the changes in INPV that bound the range of 

impacts that DOE estimates would result from the TSLs considered for this final rule. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
290

Table VII.14 Manufacturer Impact Analysis for GSFL with the Flat Markup 

Scenario Under the Existing Technology Base Case – High Lighting Expertise – Shift 

in Efficiency Distributions 

 Units Base 

Case 

Trial Standard Level 

1 2 3 4 5 

INPV (2008$ 

millions) 639 697 695 721 635 671 

Change in INPV (2008$ 

millions) - 58 56 82 -4 33 

(%) - 9.11% 8.83% 12.82% -0.64% 5.09% 

Amended Energy 

Conservation 

Standards Product 

Conversion Costs 

(2008$ 

millions) - 3.3 8.8 8.8 11.6 29.6 

Amended Energy 

Conservation 

Standards Capital 

Conversion Costs 

(2008$ 

millions) - 38.5 60.5 104.5 181.5 181.5 

Total Investment 

Required (2008$ 

millions) - 41.8 69.3 113.3 193.1 211.1 

Table VII.15 Manufacturer Impact Analysis for GSFL with the Four-Tier Markup 

Scenario Under the Emerging Technology Base Case – Market Segment Lighting 

Expertise – Rollup in Efficiency Distributions 

 Units Base 

Case 

Trial Standard Level 

1 2 3 4 5 

INPV (2008$ 

millions) 527 662 629 432 365 316 

Change in INPV (2008$ 

millions) - 134 102 -95 -162 -211 

(%) - 25.47% 19.29% -18.08% -30.74% -40.04% 

Amended Energy 

Conservation 

Standards Product 

Conversion Costs 

(2008$ 

millions) - 3.3 8.8 8.8 11.6 29.6 

Amended Energy 

Conservation 

Standards Capital 

Conversion Costs 

(2008$ 

millions) - 38.5 60.5 104.5 181.5 181.5 

Total Investment 

Required (2008$ 

millions) - 41.8 69.3 113.3 193.1 211.1 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
291

Table VII.16 Manufacturer Impact Analysis for IRL Under the Existing Technologies 

Base Case - No Product Substitution Scenario - Shift in Efficiency Distribution 

 Units Base 

Case 

Trial Standard Level 

1 2 3 4 5 

INPV (2008$ 

millions) 301 293 233 221 199 190 

Change in INPV (2008$ 

millions) - (8) (68) (81) (102) (111) 

(%) - -2.80% -22.71% -26.78% -34.02% -36.90% 

Amended Energy 

Conservation 

Standards Product 

Conversion Costs 

(2008$ 

millions) - $3 $3 $2 $3 $7 

Amended Energy 

Conservation 

Standards Capital 

Conversion Costs 

(2008$ 

millions) - $32 $83 $134 $167 $185 

Total Investment 

Required (2008$ 

millions) - $35 $87 $137 $170 $192 

Table VII.17 Manufacturer Impact Analysis for IRL Under the Emerging Technology 

Base Case – Product Substitution – Roll-Up in Efficiency Distributions 

 Units Base 

Case 

Trial Standard Level 

1 2 3 4 5 

INPV (2008$ 

millions) 221 205 158 139 123 117 

Change in INPV (2008$ 

millions) - (15) (63) (81) (98) (104) 

(%) - -6.87% -28.58% -36.80% -44.36% -47.18% 

Amended Energy 

Conservation 

Standards Product 

Conversion Costs 

(2008$ 

millions) - $3 $3 $2 $3 $7 

Amended Energy 

Conservation 

Standards Capital 

Conversion Costs 

(2008$ 

millions) - $29 $77 $125 $155 $172 

Total Investment 

Required (2008$ 

millions) - $33 $81 $127 $158 $179 

 The April 2009 NOPR provides a detailed discussion of the estimated impact of 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
292

amended standards for GSFL and IRL on INPVs. 74 FR 16920, 16999-17003 (April 13, 

2009). This qualitative discussion on the estimated impacts of amended GSFL and IRL 

standards in INPVs for the final rule can be found in chapter 13 of the TSD. 

a. Industry Cash-Flow Analysis Results for the IRL Lifetime Sensitivity 

 For the final rule, DOE analyzed the effects of the Baseline Lifetime scenario as a 

sensitivity. The impacts of this scenario on INPV are presented below. For a full 

description of the scenario, see section VI.C.1 of today’s final rule. 

Table VII.18 Manufacturer Impact Analysis for IRL Under the Existing Technologies 

Base Case - BR Substitution Scenario – Roll-Up in Efficiency Distribution – Baseline 

Lifetime Scenario* 

 Units Base 

Case 

Trial Standard Level 

4 5 

INPV (2008$ 

millions) 

301 281 258 

Change in INPV 

(2008$ 

millions) 

- (21) (43) 

(%) 

- -6.81% -14.24% 

Amended Energy 

Conservation 

Standards Product 

Conversion Costs 

(2008$ 

millions) 

- $3 $7 

Amended Energy 

Conservation 

Standards Capital 

Conversion Costs 

(2008$ 

millions) 

- $167 $167 

Total Investment 

Required (2008$ 

millions) 

- $170 $174 

* The scenarios that bound the INPV results in the sensitivity scenario are different than the scenarios that 

bound the INPV results in the normal standards cases. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
293

Table VII.19 Manufacturer Impact Analysis for IRL Under the Emerging Technology 

Base Case – R-CFL Product Substitution – Shift in Efficiency Distributions – Baseline 

Lifetime Scenario* 

 Units Base 

Case 

Trial Standard Level 

4 5 

INPV (2008$ 

millions) 

221 160 171 

Change in INPV 

(2008$ 

millions) 

- (61) (49) 

(%) 

- -27.52% -22.35% 

Amended Energy 

Conservation 

Standards Product 

Conversion Costs 

(2008$ 

millions) 

- $3 $7 

Amended Energy 

Conservation 

Standards Capital 

Conversion Costs 

(2008$ 

millions) 

- $155 $155 

Total Investment 

Required (2008$ 

millions) 

- $158 $162 

* The scenarios that bound the INPV results in the sensitivity scenario are different than the scenarios that 

bound the INPV results in the normal standards cases.

 The sensitivity results show that decreasing the lifetime of the standards-compliant 

lamps at TSL 4 and TSL 5 lowers the estimated range of INPV impacts relative to the no 

sensitivity results. In the base case, the lamps that meet TSL 4 and TSL 5 are premium 

products with longer life than standard HIR lamps. If manufacturers decreased the lifetime 

of the lamps in response to the energy conservation standards, the industry revenues in the 

standards case are greater due to higher total shipments at TSL 4 and TSL 5. The higher 

revenues help to mitigate the impacts of the significant capital conversion costs required to 

comply with the energy conservation standards. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
294

b. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 

 The April 2009 NOPR notes that one aspect of DOE’s assessment of manufacturer 

burden is the cumulative impact of multiple regulatory actions that affect manufacturers. 74 

FR 16920, 17003 (April 13, 2009). In addition to DOE’s energy conservation regulations for 

GSFL and IRL, DOE identified other requirements that manufacturers face for these and 

other products and equipment they manufacture in the three years before and after the 

anticipated effective date of the amended DOE regulations. Id. DOE believes that the EISA 

2007 requirements for GSIL are significant and could have the greatest cumulative burden 

on manufacturers, but that they will not pose insurmountable challenges. Id. 

Chapter 13 of the TSD addresses in greater detail the issue of cumulative regulatory 

burden. 

c. Impacts on Employment 

 As discussed in the April 2009 NOPR, and for today’s final rule, DOE believes that 

amended energy conservation standards will not alter domestic employment levels of the 

GSFL industry. 74 FR 16920, 17003 (April 13, 2009). During interviews with 

manufacturers, DOE learned that GSFL are produced on high-speed, fully-automated lines. 

Production workers are not involved in the physical assembly of the final product (e.g., in 

inserting components, transferring partly assembled lamps, soldering lamp bases). The 

employment levels required for these tasks are a function of the total volume of the facility, 

not the labor content of the product mix produced by the plant. Since higher TSLs involve 

using more-efficient phosphors, employment will not be impacted because standards will 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
295

not change the overall scale of the facility. 

 As discussed in the April 2009 NOPR, and for today’s final rule, DOE believes that 

amended energy conservation standards will not significantly impact IRL direct 

employment. 74 FR 16920, 17004 (April 13, 2009). The impact that new standards will 

have on employment is far less significant than the potential impact from emerging 

technologies. Both scenarios show that the absolute magnitudes of employment impacts due 

to standards are small. Whether standards have a positive or negative impact on employment 

is largely determined by the extent to which consumers elect to substitute IRL with other 

lamp technologies (such as R–CFL or exempted IRL) in the standards case. 

 

 Further support for these conclusions is set forth in chapter 13 of the TSD. 

d. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity 

DOE stated its view in the April 2009 NOPR, 74 FR 16920, 17004 (April 13, 2009), 

that amended standards would not significantly affect GSFL production capacity. Over the 

long-term, any redesign of GSFL needed to meet standards would largely be a materials 

issue that would not affect manufacturing capacity. In the short term, although higher are 

expediting the shift from T12 shipments to T8 shipments and require shutting down and 

retooling production lines, manufacturers are able to temporarily ramp up production before 

shutdowns occur to maintain shipments during retooling. For today’s final rule, DOE 

maintains its belief that amended energy conservation standards for GSFL will not 

significantly impact manufacturing capacity. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
296

In the NOPR, DOE stated it did not believe there would be a capacity constraint at 

the proposed standard level. DOE stated that manufacturers could install additional coaters, 

purchase infrared burners from a supplier, and use existing excess capacity. These options 

would allow IRL manufacturers to maintain production capacity levels and continue to meet 

market demand. 74 FR 16920, 17004 (April 13, 2009). In response to the April 2009 

NOPR, manufacturers did raise concerns that the energy conservation standards in today’s 

final rule could result in a constrained market. However, none of the comments DOE 

received indicated that that the energy conservation standards would result in the 

unavailability of standards-compliant products. At worst, the energy conservation standards 

could result in a short-term disruption in which the one manufacturer that requested 

additional time in between the announcement and effective date does not supply covered 

IRL. DOE did not receive comment that would indicate the other manufacturers would not 

have the necessary volume of standards-compliant lamps by the effective date of the final 

rule. For today’s final rule, DOE maintains its belief that manufactures will be able to 

maintain production capacity of covered IRLs and will be able to meet market demand. 

e. Impacts on Manufacturers That Are Small Businesses 

 As discussed in the April 2009 NOPR, 74 FR 16920, 17004 (April 13, 2009), DOE 

identified no small manufacturers of IRL but did identify one small manufacturer that 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
297

produces covered GSFL and is unlikely to be significantly affected by today’s final rule.65 

In response to the April 2009 NOPR, one small business requested it be included in DOE’s 

small business manufacturer impact analysis. For today’s final rule, DOE re-analyzed its list 

of potential small business manufacturers, including those that submitted comments. DOE 

still has not identified any small manufacturer of covered IRL. However, DOE continues to 

identify the one small manufacturer that produces covered GSFL. For a discussion of the 

impacts on small business manufacturers, see chapter 13 of the TSD and section VIII.B of 

today’s notice. 

3. National Net Present Value and Net National Employment 

 The NPV analysis is a measure of the cumulative benefit or cost of standards to the 

Nation, discounted to $2008 dollars. In accordance with the OMB’s guidelines on 

regulatory analysis,66 DOE calculated NPV using both a 7-percent and a 3-percent real 

discount rate. The 7-percent rate is an estimate of the average before-tax rate of return to 

private capital in the U.S. economy, and reflects the returns to real estate and small business 

capital, as well as corporate capital. DOE used this discount rate to approximate the 

opportunity cost of capital in the private sector because recent OMB analysis has found the 

average rate of return to capital to be near this rate. DOE also used the 3-percent rate to 

capture the potential effects of standards on private consumption (e.g., through higher prices 

for equipment and the purchase of reduced amounts of energy). This rate represents the rate 

 

65 As discussed in the April 2009 NOPR, 74 FR 17004-05, DOE identified only manufacturer of covered 

GSFL or IRL that met the criteria to be classified as a small business. For further detail on DOE’s inquiry 

regarding small manufacturers, please see section VIII.B on the review under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 66 OMB Circular A-4, section E (Sept. 17, 2003). 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
298

at which society discounts future consumption flows to their present value. This rate can be 

approximated by the real rate of return on long-term government debt (i.e., yield on 

Treasury notes minus annual rate of change in the Consumer Price Index), which has 

averaged about 3 percent on a pre-tax basis for the last 30 years. 

The tables below show the forecasted net present value at each trial standard level 

for GSFL and IRL. As shown above for NES results, Table VII.20 presents the “Existing 

Technologies, High Lighting Expertise, Shift” scenario and the “Emerging Technologies, 

Market Segment-Based Lighting Expertise, Roll Up” scenario as the maximum and 

minimum NPVs for GSFL, respectively. In general, the NPV results at each trial standard 

level are a reflection of the life-cycle cost savings at the corresponding efficacy levels. As 

seen in section VII.C.1.a, for most lamp purchasing events and most baseline lamps, 

increasing efficacy levels generally result in increased LCC savings. See the April 2009 

NOPR and chapter 11 of the TSD for a description of the effect of various TSLs on NPV. 

74 FR 16920, 17006-07 (April 13, 2009) 

 

Table VII.20 Summary of Cumulative Net Present Value for GSFL 

TSL/EL Product Class 

NPV (billion 2008$) 

Existing Technologies, 

High Lighting Expertise, 

Shift 

Emerging 

Technologies, Market 

Segment-Based 

Lighting Expertise, 

Roll-Up 

7% 

Discount 

3% 

Discount 

7% 

Discount 

3% 

Discount 

1 4-foot MBP 3.30 6.86 1.11 2.88 

8-foot SP Slimline 0.55 1.40 0.51 1.34 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
299

8-foot RDC HO 0.54 0.88 -0.19 -0.24 

4-foot MiniBP SO 1.47 3.37 0.08 0.26 

4-foot MiniBP HO 2.22 4.81 1.19 2.63 

2-foot U-Shaped 0.15 0.31 0.05 0.13 

Total 8.24 17.63 2.75 7.00 

2 

4-foot MBP 2.63 5.99 0.75 2.60 

8-foot SP Slimline 0.60 1.53 0.58 1.50 

8-foot RDC HO 0.68 1.09 0.77 1.20 

4-foot MiniBP SO 1.47 3.37 0.08 0.26 

4-foot MiniBP HO 2.22 4.81 1.19 2.63 

2-foot U-Shaped 0.12 0.27 0.03 0.12 

Total 7.73 17.07 3.41 8.31 

3 

4-foot MBP 9.40 20.06 2.68 7.05 

8-foot SP Slimline 0.82 1.82 0.82 1.82 

8-foot RDC HO 0.32 0.59 0.22 0.39 

4-foot MiniBP SO 1.47 3.37 0.08 0.26 

4-foot MiniBP HO 2.22 4.81 1.19 2.63 

2-foot U-Shaped 0.43 0.91 0.12 0.32 

Total 14.81 31.80 5.18 12.60 

4 

4-foot MBP 18.66 37.88 6.34 14.22 

8-foot SP Slimline 0.84 1.97 0.24 0.91 

8-foot RDC HO 1.87 3.17 1.87 3.17 

4-foot MiniBP SO 1.47 3.37 0.08 0.26 

4-foot MiniBP HO 2.22 4.81 1.19 2.63 

2-foot U-Shaped 0.85 1.72 0.29 0.65 

Total 26.31 53.53 10.02 21.84 

5 

4-foot MBP 22.79 45.79 6.12 14.24 

8-foot SP Slimline 0.84 1.97 0.33 1.07 

8-foot RDC HO 1.98 3.36 1.81 3.10 

4-foot MiniBP SO 1.91 4.29 0.32 0.91 

4-foot MiniBP HO 2.22 4.81 1.19 2.63 

2-foot U-Shaped 1.04 2.08 0.28 0.65 

Total 30.93 62.55 10.05 22.57 

For IRL, DOE presents the “Existing Technologies, R-CFL Product Substitution, 

Shift” and “Emerging Technologies, BR Product Substitution, Roll-Up” scenarios as the 

maximum and minimum NPVs, respectively. As seen in Table VII.21, NPV increases with 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
300

TSL, consistent with LCC savings generally increasing with efficacy level. In particular, for 

the BR Product Substitution scenario, the negative NPV at TSL1 results because the lifecycle cost savings at EL1 (the associated EL) are primarily negative. However, as seen in 

the R-CFL Product Substitution scenario, TSL1 achieves positive NPV due to primarily the 

increased movement to highly cost-effective R-CFLs. For further discussion of the NPV 

results see the April 2009 NOPR and chapter 11 of the TSD. 74 FR 16920, 17006-07 (April 

13, 2009). 

Table VII.21 Summary of Cumulative Net Present Value for Incandescent Reflector 

Lamps 

TSL NPV (billion 2008$) 

Existing Technologies, 

R-CFL Product 

Substitution, Shift 

Emerging Technologies, 

BR Product 

Substitution, Roll-Up 

7% 

Discount 

Rate 

3% 

Discount 

Rate 

7% 

Discount 

Rate 

3% 

Discount 

Rate 

1 0.45 1.11 -0.09 -0.04 

2 4.59 8.94 2.08 3.93 

3 6.34 12.50 3.04 5.84 

4 9.06 17.81 4.20 8.02 

5 10.16 20.01 4.90 9.38 

 As discussed in section VI.C, DOE developed a Baseline Lifetime scenario (which it 

analyzed the LCC savings, NPV, and manufacturer impacts) to investigate the effects of 

shorter lamp lifetime at TSL4 and TSL5. DOE did not feel it necessary to apply this 

scenario to TSL1 through TSL3 because DOE already analyzes lamps with lifetimes similar 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
301

to that of the baseline lamp lifetimes. Relative to the normal lifetime scenario, NPV 

decreases due to the significant increase in incremental equipment costs, since more lamps 

need to be shipped as they have shorter lifetimes. 

Table VII.22 Summary of Cumulative Net Present Value for Incandescent Reflector 

Lamps—“Baseline Lifetime Scenario” 

TSL NPV (billion 2008$) 

Existing Technologies, 

RCFL Product 

Substitution, Shift 

Emerging Technologies, BR 

Product Substitution, Roll-Up 

7% 

Discount 

Rate 

3% Discount 

Rate 

7% Discount 

Rate 

3% Discount 

Rate 

4 5.22 10.81 1.83 3.78 

5 4.86 10.13 2.53 5.12 

 DOE also estimated the national employment impacts that would result from each 

TSL. In addition to considering the direct employment impacts for the manufacturers of 

products covered in this rulemaking (discussed above), DOE also developed estimates of the 

indirect employment impacts of energy conservation standards on the economy in general. 

As Table VII.23 and Table VII.24 show, DOE estimates that any net monetary savings from 

GSFL and IRL standards would be redirected to other forms of economic activity. DOE also 

expects these shifts in spending and economic activity would affect the demand for labor. 

DOE estimated that net indirect employment impacts from energy conservation standards 

for GSFL and IRL would be positive (see Tables below), but very small relative to total 

national employment. This increase would likely be sufficient to fully offset any adverse 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
302

impacts on employment that might occur in the lamp products industries. EarthJustice 

commented that the value of this additional employment should be monetized using a wage 

rate and included in the justification of the TSL selected. (EarthJustice, No. 60 at pg 6) 

However, this would double count the consumer savings that are the source of the job 

creation. DOE believes it more appropriate to consider job benefits separately from the 

direct benefits of energy savings similar to DOE’s approach for considering environmental 

emissions benefits. For details on the employment impact analysis methodology and results, 

see chapter 15 of the TSD accompanying this notice. 

Table VII.23 Net National Change in Indirect Employment for GSFL, Jobs in 2042 

Trial 

Standard 

Level 

Net National Change in Jobs (thousands) 

Existing Technologies, Shift, 

High Expertise

Emerging Technologies, Roll 

up, Market Segment Based 

Expertise

1 12.0 6.5 

2 12.2 5.5 

3 15.1 10.7 

4 18.4 13.3 

5 19.6 15.5 

Table VII.24 Net National Change in Indirect Employment for IRL, Jobs in 2042 

Trial 

Standard 

Level 

Net National Change in Jobs (thousands) 

Existing Technologies, Shift, 

R-CFL Substitution

Emerging Technologies, 

Rollup, BR lamp Substitution

1 1.7 0.7 

2 4.3 2.5 

3 6.9 4.8 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
303

4 9.5 6.0 

5 10.4 6.8 

****** 

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products 

 As indicated in sections IV.D.d and VI.B.4 of the April 2009 NOPR, DOE has 

concluded that TSLs it considered for GSFL and IRL would not lessen the utility or 

performance of any GSFL or IRL covered by this rulemaking. 74 FR 16920, 17009 (April 

13, 2009) 

5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 

 As discussed in the April 2009 NOPR, 74 FR 16920, 16936, 17009 (April 13, 2009), 

and in section IV.D.e of this preamble, DOE considers any lessening of competition likely 

to result from standards; the Attorney General determines the impact, if any, of any such 

lessening of competition. 

 The DOJ concluded that the GSFL standards contained in the proposed rule would not 

likely lead to a lessening of competition. DOJ has not determined the impact on competition 

of more stringent standards than those proposed in the April 2009 NOPR (DOJ, No. 77 at p. 

1). Although DOJ did not evaluate the impacts on competition of TSL 4 for GSFL, DOE 

believes that TSL 4 does not raise competitive issues. For all product classes analyzed DOE 

found that all manufacturers offered product at TSL 4. Further, the product modifications 

needed to reach TSL 4 involve the use of more efficient phosphor blends which do not entail 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
304

proprietary barriers. 

 

 For IRL, DOJ concluded that the proposed TSL 4 could adversely affect competition. 

IRL standards proposed in the April 2009 NOPR would increase the minimum efficiency 

levels to the second highest level under consideration in this rulemaking. DOJ commented 

that the IRL market is highly concentrated, with three domestic manufacturers. Based on its 

review, DOJ stated that it appears that only two of the large manufacturers identified may 

currently manufacture IRLs that would meet the new standard and that these firms produce 

only limited quantities of such products for high-end applications. The current producers 

may not have the capacity to meet demand. In addition, one of these manufacturers uses 

proprietary technology currently unavailable to other manufacturers. Given the capital 

investments new entrants or providers would be required to make, and the potential that 

manufacturers may have to obtain proprietary technology, there is a risk that one or more 

IRL manufacturers will not produce products that meet the proposed standard. Note also that 

the National Impact Analysis does not consider the possibility of lessened competition 

effects, and so, depending on their magnitude, such effects may negatively impact the Net 

Present Value of the standards. DOJ requested that DOE consider the possibility of new 

technology in this area as it settles on standards in this field. (DOJ, No. 77 at pp. 1-2) 

 DOE agrees with DOJ that the IRL market is highly concentrated, with three major 

manufacturers supplying the vast majority of the U.S. market. However, for the April 2009 

NOPR, DOE stated that all manufacturers produced at least one lamp that met TSL 4, even 

though one manufacturer did not produce a full line of product at this efficacy. 74 FR 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
305

16920, 17003 (April 13, 2009). 

 In the NOPR, DOE indicated that it believed manufacturers could maintain production 

capacity levels and continue to meet market demand at the proposed IRL standard (TSL 4). 

DOE noted that the current volume of these improved HIR lamps is many times lower than 

the volume of standard halogen lamps for all three major manufacturers. DOE used market 

research and analysis of HIR capsule production, and interviews with manufacturers of 

lamps and suppliers of HIR capsules and coating decks to analyze if manufacturers of IRL 

would be able to supply the market if lamp manufacturers outsourced all or part of their 

capsule production. In the NOPR, DOE stated it did not believe there would be a capacity 

constraint at the proposed standard level. DOE stated that manufacturers could install 

additional coaters, purchase infrared burners from a supplier, and use existing excess 

capacity. All these stated options would allow IRL manufacturers to maintain production 

capacity levels and continue to meet market demand for all IRL standard levels. 74 FR 

16920, 17004 (April 13, 2009). 

 For today’s final rule, DOE did not receive comments that indicated that the energy 

conservation standards would result in the unavailability of standards-compliant products 

DOE did receive comments about the potential for a short-term market disruption. One 

major manufacturer requested additional time in between the announcement and effective 

date to allow more time to stabilize improved HIR manufacturing before the regulation 

mandates the improved technology. (OSI, No. 84 at p. 1) Another major manufacturer 

responded to April 2009 NOPR by commenting that TSL 4 allows the continued 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
306

manufacture and sale of energy efficient products to the market and that these products have 

also been proven manufacturable by at least two major lighting companies. (Philips, No. 75 

at p. 1) In its individual comment, the third major manufacturer did not comment on its 

intention to make the required capital investments. DOE believes that this manufacturer 

will not have difficulty supplying at least part of the market at the proposed standards 

because this manufacturer currently has a full line of products at both TSL 4 and TSL 5. 

Although DOE received comments that there could be a constrained market, other 

comments suggest that this constraint will at worst be a short-term problem. However, since 

all three large manufacturers currently manufacture product at the efficacies required by 

today’s final rule, a short-term constraint would not be a competitive issue. 

 DOE does not believe manufacturers will have to obtain proprietary technology to 

meet the energy conservation standards set forth by today’s rule. As stated in section 

VI.B.2, all major manufacturers have access to alternative technology pathways to meet 

TSL 4 without the use of proprietary technology. In the April 2009 NOPR, DOE stated that 

all major manufacturers produce two or more lamps that exceed TSL 4, some of which are 

not dependent on proprietary technology. DOE listed alternative technologies to meet TSL 

4 including other non-patented types of improved reflectors and higher-efficiency IR 

coatings. 74 FR 16920, 16945 (April 13, 2009). DOE did not receive additional 

information or comments that would indicate that the identified alternative technologies 

necessary to meet energy conservation standards set forth by today’s final rule will lead to 

any lessening of competition. Section VI.B of today’s final rule further discusses alternative 

technology pathways and proprietary technology. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
307

 The Attorney General’s response is reprinted at the end of today’s rulemaking. 

6. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy 

 Improving the energy efficiency of GSFL and IRL, where economically justified, 

would likely improve the security of the Nation’s energy system by reducing overall 

demand for energy, thus reducing the Nation’s reliance on foreign sources of energy. 

Reduced demand might also improve the reliability of the electricity system, particularly 

during peak-load periods. As a measure of this reduced demand, DOE expects the energy 

savings from the adopted standards to eliminate the need for approximately 1.8 to 6.2 

gigawatts (GW) of generating capacity for GFSL and up to 200 to 1,100 megawatts (MW) 

for IRL by 2042. 

 Enhanced energy efficiency also produces environmental benefits in the form of 

reduced emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases associated with energy production. 

Table VII.25 and Table VII.26 provide DOE’s estimate of cumulative CO2, NOx, and Hg 

emissions reductions that would result from the TSLs considered in this rulemaking. The 

expected energy savings from these GSFL and IRL standards may also reduce the cost of 

maintaining nationwide emissions standards and constraints. In the environmental 

assessment (EA; chapter 16 of the TSD accompanying this notice), DOE reports estimated 

annual changes in CO2, NOx, and Hg emissions attributable to each TSL. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
308

Table VII.25 Summary of Emissions Reductions for GSFL (cumulative reductions for 

products sold from 2012 to 2042) 

 TSL1 TSL2 TSL3 TSL4 TSL5 

(i) Existing Technologies, Shift, High Lighting Expertise 

 

CO2 (MMT) 130.3 133.9 296.6 487.6 552.0 

NOx (kt) 11.7 10.0 17.0 36.8 58.1 

Hg (t) low 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Hg (t) high 2.0 2.4 4.8 7.3 8.8 

Emerging Technologies, Roll Up, Market Segment Based Lighting Expertise 

CO2 (MMT) 66.4 86.0 148.3 174.6 262.0 

NOx (kt) 1.9 5.1 7.3 11.0 12.9 

Hg (t) low 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Hg (t) high 1.2 1.4 2.3 2.8 4.0 

Table VII.26 Summary of Emissions Reductions for IRL (cumulative reductions for 

products sold from 2012 to 2042) 

 TSL1 TSL2 TSL3 TSL4 TSL5 

Existing Technologies, Shift, R-CFL Substitution 

CO2 (MMT) 19.8 48.9 85.1 105.7 118.1 

NOx (kt) 1.9 5.5 7.6 8.4 9.3 

Hg (t) low 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Hg (t) high 0.3 0.7 1.3 1.7 1.8 

Emerging Technologies, Roll Up, BR Lamp Substitution 

CO2 (MMT) 7.5 19.1 37.8 44.0 53.3 

NOx (kt) 1.3 3.2 5.4 6.4 8.1 

Hg (t) low 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Hg (t) high 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.7 0.8 

MMt = million metric tons. 

kt = thousand metric tons. 

t = metric tons. 

Note: The derivation for the emission ranges are described below. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
309

 As discussed in section IV.I of this final rule, DOE does not report SO2 emissions 

reductions from power plants because reductions from an energy conservation standard 

would not affect the overall level of SO2 emissions in the United States due to the emissions 

caps for SO2. 

 

 NOx emissions from 28 eastern States and the District of Columbia (D.C.) are 

limited under the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), published in the Federal Register on 

May 12, 2005.67 Although CAIR has been remanded to EPA by the D.C. Circuit, it will 

remain in effect until it is replaced by a rule consistent with the Court’s December 23, 2008, 

opinion in North Carolina v. EPA. 68 Because all States covered by CAIR opted to reduce 

NOx emissions through participation in cap-and-trade programs for electric generating 

units, emissions from these sources are capped across the CAIR region. 

 For the 28 eastern States and D.C. where CAIR is in effect, no NOx emissions 

reductions will occur due to the permanent cap. Under caps, physical emissions reductions 

in those States would not result from the energy conservation standards under consideration 

by DOE, but standards might have produced an environmentally related economic impact in 

the form of lower prices for emissions allowance credits, if they were large enough. 

However, DOE determined that in the present case, such standards would not produce an 

environmentally related economic impact in the form of lower prices for emissions 

 

67 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005). 

68North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
310

allowance credits, because the estimated reduction in NOx emissions or the corresponding 

allowance credits in States covered by the CAIR cap would be too small to affect allowance 

prices for NOx under the CAIR. In contrast, new or amended energy conservation standards 

would reduce NOx emissions in those 22 States that are not affected by CAIR. As a result, 

the NEMS-BT does forecast emission reductions from the proposed amended standards 

considered in today’s final rule. 

 In the April 2009 NOPR, however, DOE provided a different estimate of 

NOx reductions because DOE assumed that the CAIR rule had been vacated. This is 

because the CAIR rule was vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) in its July 11, 2008 decision in North Carolina v. 

Environmental Protection Agency.

69 Although the D.C. Circuit, in a December 23, 2008, 

opinion,70 decided to allow the CAIR rule to remain in effect until it is replaced by a rule 

consistent with the court's earlier opinion, DOE retained its analysis of NOx emissions 

reductions based on an assumption that the CAIR rule was not in effect because: (1) the 

NOPR rulemaking was sufficiently advanced at the time that the December 23, 2008, 

opinion was issued that revisiting the analysis would have caused undue delays; and (2) 

neither the July 11, 2008, nor the December 23, 2008, decisions of the D.C. Circuit changed 

the standard-setting proposals offered in the NOPR. 

 

 

69 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 

70 See North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
311

Thus, for the April 2009 NOPR, DOE established a range of NOx reductions based 

on low and high emission rates (in metric kilotons of NOx emitted per terawatt-hour (TWh) 

of electricity generated) derived from the AEO2008. DOE anticipated that, in the absence 

of the CAIR Rule’s trading program, the new or amended conservation standards would 

reduce NOx emissions nation-wide not just in 22 statues. 

 As noted in section IV.I, DOE was able to estimate the changes in Hg emissions 

associated with an energy conservation standard as follows. DOE notes that the NEMS-BT 

model used for the NOPR, used as an integral part of today’s rulemaking, does not estimate 

Hg emission reductions due to new energy conservation standards, as it assumed that Hg 

emissions would be subject to EPA’s CAMR.71 CAMR would have permanently capped 

emissions of mercury for new and existing coal-fired plants in all States by 2010. As with 

SO2 and NOx, DOE assumed that under such a system, energy conservation standards would 

have resulted in no physical effect on these emissions, but might have resulted in an 

environmentally related economic benefit in the form of a lower price for emissions 

allowance credits if those credits were large enough. DOE estimated that the change in the 

Hg emissions from energy conservation standards would not be large enough to influence 

allowance prices under CAMR. 

 On February 8, 2008, the D.C. Circuit issued its decision in New Jersey v. 

 

71 70 FR 28606 (May 18, 2005). 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
312

Environmental Protection Agency72 to vacate CAMR. In light of this development and 

because the NEMS-BT model could not be used to directly calculate Hg emission 

reductions, DOE used the Hg emission rates discussed below to calculate emissions 

reductions in the NOPR. This same methodology is used for the Final Rule as well due to 

the continued fluid environment “...with many States planning to enact new laws or make 

existing laws more stringent.”73 The NEMS-BT has only rough estimates of mercury 

emissions, and it was felt that the range of emissions used in the NOPR remain appropriate 

given these circumstances. 

 Therefore, rather than using the NEMS-BT model, DOE established a range of Hg 

rates to estimate the Hg emissions that could be reduced through standards. DOE’s low 

estimate assumed that future standards would displace electrical generation only from 

natural gas-fired power plants, thereby resulting in an effective emission rate of zero. (Under 

this scenario, coal-fired power plant generation would remain unaffected.) The low-end 

emission rate is zero because natural gas-fired power plants have virtually zero Hg 

emissions associated with their operation. EarthJustice stated that basing the low end of the 

range on the displacement of only gas-fired power plants was inconsistent with DOE’s 

utility impact analysis (EarthJustice, No. 60 at pg. 8-9). DOE believes that the estimate 

should provide the full range of possible outcomes and has selected the low and high values 

to bracket the uncertainties associated with estimating mercury emission reductions. 

 

72 517 F.3d 574 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 

73 Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2009 (March 2009), page 18. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
313

 DOE’s high estimate, which assumed that standards would displace only coal-fired 

power plants, was based on an estimate of the 2006 nationwide mercury emission rate from 

AEO2008. (Under this scenario, DOE assumed that gas-fired power plant generation would 

remain unaffected and that no future reductions in the rate of mercury emissions from such 

sources would occur.) Because power plant emission rates are a function of local regulation, 

scrubbers, and the mercury content of coal, it is extremely difficult to identify a precise 

high-end emission rate. Therefore, the most reasonable high estimate is based on the 

assumption that all displaced coal generation would have been emitting at the 2006 average 

emission rate for coal generation as specified by the April Update to AEO2009. This is 

viewed as a high estimate because it is likely that future emission controls will be installed 

at coal-fired power plants which will reduce their average emission rate. As noted 

previously, because virtually all mercury emitted from electricity generation is from coalfired power plants, DOE based the emission rate on the tons of mercury emitted per TWh of 

coal-generated electricity. Based on the emission rate for 2006, DOE derived a high-end 

emission rate of 0.0255 tons per TWh. To estimate the reduction in mercury emissions, 

DOE multiplied the emission rate by the reduction in coal-generated electricity due to the 

standards considered in the utility impact analysis. These changes in Hg emissions are 

small, ranging from 0.2 to 1.0 percent of the national base-case emissions forecast by 

NEMS-BT for GFSL, depending on the TSL and scenario, and less than 0.2 percent for all 

IRL levels. 

 In the April 2009 NOPR, DOE considered accounting for a monetary benefit of CO2

emission reductions associated with standards. To put the potential monetary benefits from 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
314

reduced CO2 emissions into a form that would likely be most useful to decision makers and 

interested parties, DOE used the same methods it used to calculate the net present value of 

consumer cost savings. DOE converted the estimated yearly reductions in CO2 emissions 

into monetary values that represented the present value, in that year, of future benefits 

resulting from that reduction in emissions, which were then discounted from that year to the 

present using both 3-percent and 7-percent discount rates. 

 

 In the April 2009 NOPR, DOE proposed to use the range $0 to $20 per ton for the 

year 2007 in 2007$. 74 FR 16920, 17012 (April 13, 2009). These estimates were originally 

derived to represent the lower and upper bounds of the costs and benefits likely to be 

experienced in the United States. The lower bound was based on an assumption of no 

benefit and the upper bound was based on an estimate of the mean value of worldwide 

impacts due to climate change that was reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (IPCC).74 DOE expected that such domestic values would be 10% or less of 

comparable global values; however, there were no consensus estimates for the U.S. benefits 

likely to result from CO2 emission reductions. Because U.S.-specific estimates were 

unavailable, DOE used the global mean value as an upper bound U.S. value. 

 

74 During the preparation of its review of the state of climate science, the IPCC identified various estimates of 

the present value of reducing CO2 emissions by 1 ton over the life that these emissions would remain in the 

atmosphere. The estimates reviewed by the IPCC spanned a range of values. Absent a consensus on any single 

estimate of the monetary value of CO2 emissions, DOE used the estimates identified by the study cited in 

“Summary for Policymakers,” prepared by Working Group II of the IPCC’s “Fourth Assessment Report,” to 

estimate the potential monetary value of CO2 reductions likely to result from standards considered in this 

rulemaking. According to IPCC, the mean social cost of carbon (SCC) reported in studies published in peerreviewed journals was $43 per ton of carbon. This translates into about $12 per ton of CO2. The literature 

review (Tol 2005) from which this mean was derived did not report the year in which these dollars were 

denominated. However, DOE understands this estimate was for the year 1995 denominated in 1995$. Updating 

that estimate to 2007$ yields a SCC for the year 1995 of $15 per ton of CO2. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
315

 Given the uncertainty surrounding estimates of the social cost of carbon, DOE 

previously concluded that relying on any single estimate may be inadvisable because that 

estimate will depend on many assumptions. Working Group II’s contribution to the “Fourth 

Assessment Report” of the IPCC notes the following: 

The large ranges of SCC are due in the large part to differences in assumptions 

regarding climate sensitivity, response lags, the treatment of risk and equity, 

economic and non-economic impacts, the inclusion of potentially catastrophic 

losses, and discount rates.75

Because of this uncertainty, DOE used the SCC value from Tol (2005), which was 

presented in the IPCC’s “Fourth Assessment Report” and provided a comprehensive metaanalysis of estimates for the value of SCC. 74 FR 16920, 17012 (April 13, 2009). 

 NRDC and Earthjustice and NY et al. commented that DOE should use global, 

rather than U.S. based estimates for CO2 values (NRDC, Issue Paper, No. 82 at p.13 and NY 

et al, Attachment, No. 88 at p. 3). NY et al. recommended DOE use $80 per short ton CO2

($88 metric) in 2009$ based on recent meta-analysis of GHG abatement cost analyses 

published by international agencies and multinational consultancies. NY et al also criticized 

 

75 “Climate Change 2007—Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.” Contribution of Working Group II to the 

“Fourth Assessment Report” of the IPCC, 17. Available at www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg2.htm (last 

accessed Aug. 7, 2008). 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
316

the range of CO2 values used in the NOPR and recommended the use of a long-run marginal 

abatement cost of CO2 for monetizing CO2 emission reductions, rather than the damage 

costs given the highly uncertain nature of the latter (NY et al., No. 88, p. 9-10). 

DOE continues to use SCC values in today’s final rule. DOE has not adopted using 

an abatement cost because the actual costs of reducing CO2 emissions are highly variable. 

They range from negative costs, such as energy efficiency improvement measures that 

produce net economic benefits, to hundreds of dollars per ton of CO2, such as emission 

reductions that might require the early abandonment of large capital investments in power 

plants, industrial facilities or buildings. In order to identify a specific marginal cost per ton 

of CO2 reduced usually requires the establishment of key parameters, such as the scope of 

the emissions covered, the quantity of emission reductions to be achieved and the timeframe 

for the achievement of these reductions. These parameters must be determined through 

legislative or regulatory processes. Moreover, the use of SCC is consistent with the IPCC 

Fourth Assessment Report. However, if a nationwide regulatory mandate is established to 

limit or reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, the marginal costs of reducing emissions that 

are imposed by such a mandate might be the basis for valuing such emission reductions in 

the future. 

 

For today’s final rule, DOE is relying on an updated range of values consistent with 

that presented in the Model Year 2011 fuel economy standard final rule issued by the 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA): $2, $33 and $80 per ton. In the 

MY 2011 fuel economy standard final rule, NHTSA relied on a range of estimates 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
317

representing the uncertainty surrounding global values of the SCC, while also 

encompassing, at the low end, possible domestic values. These three values encompass 

much of the variability in the estimates of the global value of the SCC. The lower end of 

this range, $2, also approximates possible mean value for domestic benefits. The middle of 

the range, $33, is equal to the mean value in Tol (2008) and the high end of the range, $80, 

represents one standard deviation above the mean global value. 74 FR 14196, 14346 

(March 30, 2009). 

The global value of $33 is based on Tol's (2008) expanded and updated survey of 

211 estimates of the global SCC.76 Tol's 2008 survey encompasses a larger number of 

estimates for the global value of reducing carbon emissions than its previously-published 

counterpart, Tol (2005), and continues to represent the only recent, publicly-available 

compendium of peer-reviewed estimates of the SCC that has itself been peer-reviewed and 

published. 

The domestic value ($2) was developed by NHTSA by using the mean estimate of 

the global value of reduced economic damages from climate change resulting from reducing 

CO2 emissions as a starting point; estimating the fraction of the reduction in global damages 

that is likely to be experienced within the U.S.; and applying this fraction to the mean 

estimate of global benefits from reducing emissions to obtain an estimate of the U.S. 

domestic benefits from lower GHG emissions. NHTSA constructed the estimate of the U.S. 

 

76 Richard S.J. Tol (2008), The social cost of carbon: Trends, outliers, and catastrophes, Economics--the OpenAccess, Open-Assessment E-Journal, 2 (25), 1-24. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
318

domestic benefits from reducing CO2 emissions using estimates of U.S. domestic and global 

benefits from reducing greenhouse gas emissions developed by EPA and reported in EPA’s 

Technical Support Document accompanying its advance notice of proposed rulemaking on 

motor vehicle CO2 emissions.77 

A complete discussion of NHTSA’s analysis is available in Chapter VIII of the Final 

Regulatory Analysis of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy for MY 2011 Passenger Cars 

and Light Trucks (NHTSA, March 2009). 

After considering comments and the currently available information and analysis, 

which was reflected in the approach employed by NHTSA, DOE concluded that it was 

appropriate to consider the global benefits of reducing CO2 emissions, as well as the 

domestic benefits. Consequently, DOE considered in its decision-process for this final rule 

the potential benefits resulting from reduced CO2 emissions valued at $2, $33 and $80. The 

resulting range is based on current peer-reviewed estimates of the value of SCC and, DOE 

believes, fairly represents the uncertainty surrounding the global benefits resulting from 

reduced CO2 emissions and, at the $2 level, also encompasses the likely domestic benefits, 

DOE also concluded, based on the most recent Tol analysis, that it was appropriate to 

escalate these values at 3%78 per year to represent the expected increases, over time, of the 

benefits associated with reducing CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions. 

 

77 U.S. EPA, Technical Support Document on Benefits of Reducing GHG Emissions, June 12, 2008. 

78 Estimates of SCC are assumed to increase over time since future emissions are expected to produce larger 

incremental damages as physical and economic systems become more stressed as the magnitude of climate 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
319

 The tables below present the resulting estimates of the potential range of net present 

value benefits associated with reducing CO2 emissions. 

Table VII.27 Estimates of Value of CO2 Emissions Reductions For GSFL Under Trial 

Standard Levels at Seven-Percent and Three-Percent Discount Rates 

 

 

Value of Estimated CO2 Emission 

Reductions (Billion 2008$) at 7% 

Discount Rate 

Value of Estimated CO2 Emission 

Reductions (Billion 2008$) at 3% 

Discount Rate 

GSFL 

TSL 

Estimated 

Cumulative 

CO2 (MMt) 

Emission 

Reductions 

CO2 Value 

of $2/ton 

CO2

CO2 Value 

of $33/ton 

CO2

CO2 Value 

of $80/ton 

CO2

CO2 Value 

of $2/ton 

CO2

CO2 Value 

of $33/ton 

CO2

CO2 Value 

of $80/ton 

CO2

1 66 to 130 0.1 to 0.1 1.1 to 2.1 2.6 to 5.1 0.1 to 0.3 2.3 to 4.5 5.6 to 10.9 

2 86 to 134 0.1 to 0.1 1.5 to 2.2 3.6 to 5.3 0.2 to 0.3 3.0 to 4.6 7.2 to 11.2 

3 148 to 297 0.2 to 0.3 2.5 to 4.9 6.1 to 11.9 0.3 to 0.6 5.1 to 10.3 12.5 to 24.9 

4 175 to 488 0.2 to 0.5 3.1 to 8.4 7.5 to 20.4 0.4 to 1.0 6.0 to 16.9 14.7 to 40.9 

5 262 to 552 0.3 to 0.6 4.6 to 9.6 11.1 to 23.4 0.6 to 1.2 9.1 to 19.1 22.0 to 46.4 

Table VII.28 Estimates of Value of CO2 Emissions Reductions For IRL Under Trial 

Standard Levels at Seven-Percent and Three-Percent Discount Rates 

 

 Value of Estimated CO2 Emission 

Reductions (Billion 2008$) at 7% 

Value of Estimated CO2 Emission 

Reductions (Billion 2008$) at 3% 

 

change increases. Although most studies that estimate economic damages caused by increased GHG 

emissions in future years produce an implied growth rate in the SCC, neither the rate itself nor the information 

necessary to derive its implied value is commonly reported. Given the limited amount of debate thus far about 

the appropriate growth rate of the SCC, applying a rate of 3%/yr seems appropriate at this stage. This value is 

consistent with the range recommended by IPCC (2007). 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
320

Discount Rate Discount Rate 

IRL 

TSL 

Estimated 

Cumulative 

CO2 (MMt) 

Emission 

Reductions 

CO2 Value 

of $2/ton 

CO2

CO2 Value 

of $33/ton 

CO2

CO2 Value 

of $80/ton 

CO2

CO2 Value 

of $2/ton 

CO2

CO2 Value 

of $33/ton 

CO2

CO2 Value 

of $80/ton 

CO2

1 7 to 20 0.0 to 0.0 0.1 to 0.3 0.3 to 0.8 0.0 to 0.0 0.3 to 0.7 0.6 to 1.7 

2 19 to 49 0.0 to 0.1 0.4 to 0.8 0.8 to 2.1 0.0 to 0.1 0.7 to 1.7 1.6 to 4.1 

3 38 to 85 0.0 to 0.1 0.7 to 1.5 1.7 to 3.6 0.1 to 0.2 1.3 to 2.9 3.2 to 7.1 

4 44 to 106 0.0 to 0.1 0.8 to 1.8 1.9 to 4.4 0.1 to 0.2 1.5 to 3.7 3.7 to 8.9 

5 53 to 118 0.1 to 0.1 1.0 to 2.0 2.3 to 4.9 0.1 to 0.2 1.8 to 4.1 4.5 to 9.9 

 DOE is well aware that scientific and economic knowledge about the 

contribution of CO2 and other green house gas emissions (GHG) to changes in the future 

global climate and the potential resulting damages to the world economy continues to 

evolve rapidly. Thus, any value placed in this rulemaking on reducing CO2 emissions is 

subject to likely change. 

 The Department of Energy, together with other Federal agencies, is reviewing 

various methodologies for estimating the monetary value of reductions in CO2 and other 

greenhouse gas emissions. This review will consider the comments on this subject that are 

part of the public record for this and other rulemakings, as well as other methodological 

assumptions and issues, such as whether the appropriate values should represent domestic 

U.S. benefits, as well as global benefits (and costs). Given the complexity of the many 

issues involved, this review is ongoing. However, consistent with DOE’s legal obligations, 

and taking into account the uncertainty involved with this particular issue, DOE has 

included in this final rule the most recent values and analyses employed in a rulemaking by 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
321

another Federal agency. 

 DOE also investigated the potential monetary benefit of reduced SO2, NOx, and Hg 

emissions from the TSLs it considered. As previously stated, DOE’s initial analysis assumed 

the presence of nationwide emission caps on SO2 and Hg, and caps on NOx emissions in the 

28 States covered by CAIR. In the presence of these caps, DOE concluded that no physical 

reductions in power sector emissions would occur, but that the standards could put 

downward pressure on the prices of emissions allowances in cap-and-trade markets. 

Estimating this effect is very difficult because of factors such as credit banking, which can 

change the trajectory of prices. DOE has concluded that the effect from energy conservation 

standards on SO2 allowance prices is likely to be negligible based on runs of the NEMS-BT 

model. See chapter 16 of the TSD accompanying this notice for further details. 

 Because the courts have decided to allow the CAIR rule to remain in effect, 

projected annual NOx allowances from NEMS-BT are relevant79. As noted above, standards 

would not produce an economic impact in the form of lower prices for emissions allowance 

credits in the 28 eastern States and D.C. covered by the CAIR cap. New or amended energy 

conservation standards would reduce NOx emissions in those 22 States that are not affected 

by CAIR. For the area of the United States not covered by CAIR, DOE estimated the 

monetized value of NOx emissions reductions resulting from each of the TSLs considered 

for today’s final rule based on environmental damage estimates from the literature. 

 

79 The Update to the AEO2009 based version of NEMS-BT includes the representation of CAIR. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
322

Available estimates suggest a very wide range of monetary values for NOx emissions, 

ranging from $370 per ton to $3,800 per ton of NOx from stationary sources, measured in 

2001$ (equivalent to a range of $432 per ton to $4,441 per ton in 2007$).80

 For Hg emissions reductions, DOE estimated the national monetized values resulting 

from the TSLs considered for today’s rule based on environmental damage estimates from 

the literature. DOE conducted research for today’s final rule and determined that the impact 

of mercury emissions from power plants on humans is considered highly uncertain. 

However, DOE identified two estimates of the environmental damage of mercury based on 

two estimates of the adverse impact of childhood exposure to methyl mercury on IQ for 

American children, and subsequent loss of lifetime economic productivity resulting from 

these IQ losses. The high-end estimate is based on an estimate of the current aggregate cost 

of the loss of IQ in American children that results from exposure to mercury of U.S. power 

plant origin ($1.3 billion per year in year 2000$), which works out to $32.6 million per ton 

emitted per year (2007$).81 The low-end estimate is $0.66 million per ton emitted (in 2004$) 

or $0.729 million per ton (in 2007)$. DOE derived this estimate from a published evaluation 

of mercury control using different methods and assumptions from the first study, but also 

based on the present value of the lifetime earnings of children exposed.82 Table VI.28 and 

 

80 Office of Management and Budget Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, “2006 Report to Congress 

on the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations and Unfunded Mandates on State, Local, and Tribal 

Entities,” Washington, DC (2006). 

81 Trasande, L., et al., “Applying Cost Analyses to Drive Policy that Protects Children,” 1076 Ann. N.Y. Acad. 

Sci. 911 (2006). 

82 Ted Gayer and Robert Hahn, “Designing Environmental Policy: Lessons from the Regulation of Mercury 

Emissions,” Regulatory Analysis 05–01, AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, Washington, DC 

(2004). A version of this paper was published in the Journal of Regulatory Economics in 2006. The estimate 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
323

Table VI.29 present the resulting estimates of the potential range of present value benefits 

associated with reduced national NOx and Hg emissions from the TSLs DOE considered. 

 Table VII.29 Estimates of Savings from NOX Emissions Reductions for GSFL 

TSL Estimated Cumulative NOX

(kt) Emission Reductions 

Value of Estimated NOX

Emission Reductions 

(Million 2008$) at 7% 

Discount Rate 

Value of Estimated NOX

Emission Reductions 

(Million 2008$) at 3% 

Discount Rate 

1 1.9 to 11.7 $0.7 to $23.8 $0.8 to $34.5 

2 5.1 to 10.0 $1.5 to $21.9 $1.9 to $30.4 

3 7.3 to 17.0 $2.2 to $41.1 $2.7 to $54.7 

4 11.0 to 36.8 $4.2 to $107.2 $4.6 to $132.4 

5 12.9 to 58.1 $5.0 to $125.6 $5.5 to $173.9 

Table VII.30 Estimates of Savings from NOX Emissions Reductions for IRL 

TSL Estimated Cumulative NOX

(kt) Emission Reductions 

Value of Estimated NOX

Emission Reductions 

(Million 2007$) at 7% 

Discount Rate 

Value of Estimated NOX

Emission Reductions 

(Million 2007$) at 3% 

Discount Rate 

1 1.3 to 1.9 $0.3 to $4.6 $0.4 to $6.0 

2 3.2 to 5.5 $0.8 to $13.8 $1.1 to $17.9 

3 5.4 to 7.6 $1.5 to $19.7 $1.9 to $25.2 

4 6.4 to 8.4 $1.8 to $24.4 $2.2 to $30.0 

5 8.1 to 9.3 $2.2 to $27.0 $2.7 to $33.1 

 

was derived by back-calculating the annual benefits per ton from the net present value of benefits reported in 

the study. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
324

Table C.31 Estimates of Savings from Hg Emissions Reductions for GSFL 

TSL Estimated Cumulative Hg 

(Tons) Emission 

Reductions 

Value of Estimated Hg 

Emission Reductions 

(Million 2007$) at 7% 

Discount Rate 

Value of Estimated Hg 

Emission Reductions 

(Million 2007$) at 3% 

Discount Rate 

1 0.0 to 2.0 $0 to $16.5 $0 to $32.7 

2 0.0 to 2.4 $0 to $20.3 $0 to $39.6 

3 0.0 to 4.8 $0 to $41.4 $0 to $80.2 

4 0.0 to 7.3 $0 to $67.7 $0 to $125.6 

5 0.0 to 8.8 $0 to $84.5 $0 to $154.4 

Table C.32 Estimates of Savings from Hg Emissions Reductions for IRL 

TSL Estimated Cumulative Hg 

(Tons) Emission 

Reductions 

Value of Estimated Hg 

Emission Reductions 

(Million 2007$) at 7% 

Discount Rate 

Value of Estimated Hg 

Emission Reductions 

(Million 2007$) at 3% 

Discount Rate 

1 0.0 to 0.3 $0 to $2.7 $0 to $5.2 

2 0.0 to 0.7 $0 to $6.7 $0 to $12.5 

3 0.0 to 1.3 $0 to $11.7 $0 to $22.1 

4 0.0 to 1.7 $0 to $15.0 $0 to $28.1 

5 0.0 to 1.8 $0 to $16.0 $0 to $30.2 

7. Other Factors 

 EPCA allows the Secretary of Energy, in determining whether a standard is 

economically justified, to consider any other factors that the Secretary deems to be relevant. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII) and 6316(e)(1)) In adopting today’s standards, the 

Secretary considered the potential for GSFL and IRL standards to adversely affect lowincome consumers, institutions of religious worship, historical facilities, institutions that 

serve low-income populations, and consumers of T12 electronic ballasts. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
325

 

D. Conclusion

EPCA contains criteria for prescribing new or amended energy conservation 

standards. It provides that any such standard for GSFL and IRL must be designed to 

achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary determines is 

technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) As stated 

above, in determining whether a standard is economically justified, the Secretary must 

determine whether the benefits of the standards exceed its burdens considering the seven 

factors discussed in section IV.D. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) A determination of whether 

a standard level is economically justified is not made based on any one of these factors in 

isolation. The Secretary must weigh each of these seven factors in total in determining 

whether a standard is economically justified. Further, the Secretary may not establish an 

amended standard if such standard would not result in “significant conservation of energy,” 

or “is not technologically feasible or economically justified.” (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) 

As discussed in section V.A.1, DOE established a separate set of TSLs for GSFL 

and for IRL. Therefore, DOE analyzed each lamp type (GSFL or IRL) separately when 

considering various TSLs and eventually proposing standards. The following discussion 

briefly explains the development of the TSLs, consideration of the TSLs (starting with the 

most stringent) under the statutory factors, and the conclusion as to the GSFL standards and 

IRL standards that most improve energy efficiency that DOE has determined would most 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
326

improve energy-efficiency and would be technologically feasible and economically 

justified. 

For GSFL, DOE considered five TSLs in the April 2009 NOPR, with TSL5 being 

the most stringent level for which DOE performed full analyses. 74 FR 16920, 16979-82 

(April 13, 2009). It is noted that DOE also considered the potential for a standard level 

beyond TSL5 that would require GSFL to use a higher-efficiency gas fill composition, 

which would have been the maximum technologically feasible level. Although moreefficient fill gases (often including higher molecular weight gases) are appropriate for and 

are currently used in some lamp applications, DOE is also aware employing this technology 

can cause lamp instability resulting in striations or flickering in some circumstances. DOE’s 

research indicated that a potential standard level that would require the use of higherefficiency fill gases would significantly reduce (or in some cases eliminate) the utility and 

performance of the covered GSFL. DOE concluded on this basis that a level with such an 

adverse impact on product utility would not be economically justified.83 (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV) and (3)(B)) Having made this determination, there was no need to 

perform additional analyses relevant to the other statutory criteria. (See section I.A.2 for 

additional detail.) Consequently, TSL5 represents the most-efficient level analyzed for 

GSFL. 

 

83 DOE notes that it did not eliminate higher-efficiency fill gases from further consideration as a technology 

under the screening analysis, because that technology may be appropriate for low-wattage lamp applications. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
327

For IRL, DOE’s engineering analysis considered the maximum technologically 

feasible level, which would require the use of a silver reflector. However, this level utilized 

a proprietary technology that represents a unique pathway to achieving that efficiency level. 

Accordingly, DOE determined that such level was likely to have significant anti-competitive 

effects on the markets for such lamps and ultimately concluded that it is not economically 

justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) Therefore, TSL5, which does not require installation 

of the proprietary silver reflector, represents the most efficient level analyzed for IRL. (See 

sections VI.B and VII.A.2 of this notice for more information on maximum technologically 

feasible levels and other efficacy levels DOE analyzed.) 

 

DOE then considered the impacts of standards at each trial standard level that was 

identified and analyzed, beginning with the most efficient level, to determine whether the 

given level was economically justified. DOE then considered less efficient levels until it 

reached the highest level that meets the key statutory criteria in terms of being 

technologically feasible, economically justified, and saving a significant amount of energy. 

 DOE discusses the benefits and/or burdens of each trial standard level in the 

following sections. DOE bases its discussion on quantitative analytical results for each trial 

standard level (presented in section VII) such as national energy savings, net present value 

(discounted at 7 percent and 3 percent), emissions reductions, industry net present value, 

life-cycle cost, and consumers installed price increases. In addition to providing a summary 

of results, DOE discusses below the life-cycle cost and consumer installed price increase 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
328

results for each product class and baseline, where appropriate. Beyond the quantitative 

results, DOE also considers other burdens and benefits that affect economic justification, 

including how the impacts of standards on competition, supply constraints, and lamp input 

prices may affect the economic benefits and burdens presented. 

1. General Service Fluorescent Lamps Conclusion 

In addition to the results presented above, DOE also calculates the annualized 

benefits and costs of each TSL. The table below presents these values for GSFL. 

Table VII.33 Annualized Benefits and Costs for GSFL 

TSL Category Unit Primary Estimate Low Estimate High Estimate 

7% 3% 7% 3% 7% 3% 

1 

Benefits 

Annualized Monetized 

($millions/year) 2008$ 650 741 445 504 855 978 

Annualized Quantified 

CO2 (Mt) 2.73 2.98 1.83 2.01 3.64 3.96 

NOx (kT) 0.37 0.28 0.17 0.10 0.57 0.46 

Hg (T) 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.06 

Costs

Annualized Monetized 

($millions/year) 2008$ 123 80 181 128 64 31 

Net Benefits/Costs

Annualized Monetized 

($millions/year) 2008$ 527 661 264 375 791 946 

2 

Benefits 

Annualized Monetized 

($millions/year) 2008$ 761 842 586 633 936 1051 

Annualized Quantified 

CO2 (Mt) 3.22 3.41 2.68 2.73 3.76 4.08 

NOx (kT) 0.45 0.33 0.38 0.25 0.52 0.40 

Hg (T) 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 

Costs

Annualized Monetized 

($millions/year) 2008$ 224 160 255 186 192 134 

Net Benefits/Costs

Annualized Monetized 

($millions/year) 2008$ 537 683 330 448 744 918 

3 

Benefits 

Annualized Monetized 

($millions/year) 2008$ 1528 1663 1017 1089 2038 2237 

Annualized Quantified 

CO2 (Mt) 6.50 6.89 4.51 4.67 8.49 9.11 

NOx (kT) 0.76 0.55 0.55 0.37 0.98 0.73 

Hg (T) 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.15 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
329

Costs

Annualized Monetized 

($millions/year) 2008$ 577 484 522 417 633 550 

Net Benefits/Costs

Annualized Monetized 

($millions/year) 2008$ 950 1179 495 671 1405 1688 

4 

Benefits 

Annualized Monetized 

($millions/year) 2008$ 2302 2420 1329 1387 3275 3452 

Annualized Quantified CO2 (Mt) 10.48 10.60 5.76 5.69 15.20 15.52 

 NOx (kT) 1.78 1.19 1.03 0.63 2.54 1.76 

 Hg (T) 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.23 

Costs 

Annualized Monetized 

($millions/year) 2008$ 582 425 378 230 786 621 

Net Benefits/Costs 

Annualized Monetized 

($millions/year) 2008$ 1720 1994 951 1158 2489 2831 

Incremental Net Benefits/Costs Relative to TSL3 

Annualized Monetized 

($millions/year) 2008$ 770 815 456 487 1084 1143 

5 

Benefits

Annualized Monetized 

($millions/year) 2008$ 2850 2988 1738 1811 3961 4165 

Annualized Quantified CO2 (Mt) 12.95 13.07 8.33 8.41 17.57 17.73 

 NOx (kT) 2.10 1.53 1.21 0.75 2.98 2.31 

 Hg (T) 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.28 

Costs

Annualized Monetized 

($millions/year) 2009$ 911 737 783 613 1039 861 

Net Benefits/Costs

Annualized Monetized 

($millions/year) 2009$ 1939 2251 955 1197 2922 3304 

Incremental Net Benefits/Costs Relative to TSL4

Annualized Monetized 

($millions/year) 2008$ 219 257 4 39 433 473 

Note: Annualized values are for the period from 2012 to 2042 

a. Trial Standard Level 5 

For GSFL, DOE first considered the most efficient level, TSL5, which would save 

an estimated total of 5.1 to 12.0 quads of energy through 2042—a significant amount of 

energy. For the Nation as a whole, TSL5 would have a net savings of $10.0 billion to $30.9 

billion at a 7-percent discount rate and $22.6 billion to $62.6 billion at a 3-percent discount 

rate. The emissions reductions at TSL5 are estimated at 262 to 552 MMt of CO2, 13 to 58 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
330

kt of NOX, up to 9 metric tons of Hg. Total generating capacity in 2042 is estimated to 

decrease compared to the reference case by 2.7 to 7.3 GW under TSL5. The monetized 

values of emissions reductions are estimated at $5.0 to $125.6 million for NOX and up to 

$84.5 million for Hg at a 7-percent discount rate and $5.5 to $173.9 million for NOX and up 

to $154.4 million for Hg at a 3-percent discount rate. The estimated benefits of reducing 

CO2 emissions using the mid-range of the CO2 value (using $33 per ton) is $4.6 to $9.6 

billion and $9.1 to $19.1 billion at 7-percent and 3-percent discount rates respectively. The 

full range of likely benefits of CO2 emission reductions is $0.3 billion to $23.4 billion at a 7-

percent discount rate and $0.6 billion to $46.4 billion at a 3-percent discount rate. 

The impacts on manufacturers at TSL5 result from the commoditization of highefficacy lamps and the need to convert all T12 lines to T8 lines, requiring a capital 

investment of $211 million. The projected change in industry value ranges from a decrease 

of $211 million to an increase of $33 million. The extent of the industry impacts is driven 

primarily by how successful manufacturers will be in maintaining their current gross 

margins at near their current levels as efficient products become commoditized. Currently, 

manufacturers obtain higher margins for more-efficient products; therefore, to avoid the 

higher end of the anticipated impacts, manufacturers are likely to have to find new ways to 

differentiate GSFL to maintain full product lines. At TSL5, DOE recognizes the risk of 

very large negative impacts if the high end of the range of impacts is reached, resulting in a 

net loss of 40 percent in INPV. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
331

At TSL5, DOE projects that most GSFL consumers would experience life-cycle cost 

savings. The following discussion summarizes the specific life-cycle cost impacts of TSL5 

on the separate product classes and baseline lamps. 

Table VII.5 presents the findings of an LCC analysis on various three-lamp, 4-foot 

medium bipin GSFL systems operating in the commercial sector. Regardless of the baseline 

lamp currently employed, consumers have lamp designs available which result in positive 

LCC savings at TSL5. At this standard level, users of 40W or 34W 4-foot MBP T12 

baseline lamps installed on a magnetic ballast who need to replace their lamp would incur 

the cost of a lamp and ballast replacement ($65.96 to $73.94) because no T12 lamp 

currently meets the efficacy requirements of TSL5. Comparing this cost of lamp-and-ballast 

replacements to the cost of only baseline lamp replacements ($11.65 to $14.50) results in 

installed price increases of $52.83 to $59.44. These ranges in prices depend on the specific 

baseline lamps previously owned by consumers and the specific combinations of lamps and 

ballasts they select in the standards case. However, over the life of the lamp, these 

consumers would save $13.93 to $24.16. 

Table VII.6 presents LCC results for a two-lamp 4-foot MBP system operating in 

the residential sector under average operating hours. The results are presented for a system 

operating 40W T12 lamps with a magnetic ballast, as this configuration is typical of the 

installed base of residential GSFL systems. As discussed in the NOPR, DOE believes that 

the vast majority of lamps sold in the residential market are sold with new ballasts or 

luminaires. 74 FR 16920, 16951 (April 13, 2009) At TSL5, residential consumers are 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
332

expected to purchase T8 lamps with electronic ballasts in lieu of the T12 lamps with 

magnetic ballasts that they would purchase absent standards. These consumers would see 

LCC savings of $20.21 to $22.32. DOE recognizes that not all residential GSFL lamps 

would be sold in conjunction with a new ballast or luminaire in the base case. In particular, 

consumers with higher operating hours or consumers who choose to not discard their lamps 

upon fixture or ballast replacement may need to replace their lamp on an existing system. 

However, at TSL5, there are no standards-compliant T12 replacement lamps available. As 

seen in Table VII.8, the consumer economics of retrofitting a T12 system with a T8 system 

for a residential 4-foot MBP system depend on the remaining life of the T12 ballast. For 

those consumers who replace a T12 system with less than 7 years of life remaining in 2012, 

the LCC savings are positive. Those consumers who have greater than 7 years of life 

remaining in their T12 systems in 2012 will experience negative LCC savings. Considering 

an average system life of 15 years, and estimating that 10 percent of T12 lamps sold to 

residential sector are replacement lamps, DOE calculates that fewer than 6 percent of 

current purchasers of T12 lamps in the residential sector will experience increases in LCC. 

The first-costs increase for residential consumers forced to retrofit to T8 systems would be 

$49.00 to $49.91 ($53.13 to $54.04 for an installed T8 system compared to $4.13 for two 

new T12 lamp). 

With regard to 4-foot MBP consumer subgroups, all consumer subgroups analyzed 

achieve similar LCC savings to the average consumer with the exception of commercial 

consumers who own 40W or 34W 4-foot MBP T12 lamps installed on electronic ballasts. 

These consumers, upon lamp failure, are forced to retrofit their existing ballasts, resulting in 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
333

negative LCC savings of -$12.43 to -$7.00. Overall, based on the NIA, DOE estimates that 

at TSL5 in 2012, less than 2 percent of 4-foot MBP shipments result in negative LCC 

savings, and 9 percent of shipments are associated with the high installed price increases 

due to forced retrofits. 

Table VII.11 presents the findings of an LCC analysis on various two-lamp, 8-foot 

SP slimline GSFL systems operating in the commercial sector. Except for consumers who 

purchase reduced-wattage 60W T12 lamps absent standards (and experience a lamp failure), 

all other consumers have available lamp designs that result in positive LCC savings at 

TSL5. At this standard level, users of 75W or 60W 8-foot SP slimline T12 baseline lamps 

installed on a magnetic ballast who need to replace their lamp would incur the cost of a 

lamp and ballast replacement ($97.41 to $98.80) because no T12 lamp currently meets the 

efficacy requirements of TSL5. Comparing the cost of a lamp-and-ballast replacement to 

the cost of only a baseline lamp replacement ($11.77 to $16.79) results in an installed price 

increase of $82.01 to $87.03. In addition, users of 60W T12 lamps who need to replace 

their lamp experience negative LCC savings of -$15.81 to -$13.89. On the other hand, over 

the life of the lamp, users of 75W T12 lamps who require a lamp replacement would save 

$9.68. 

With regard to 8-foot SP slimline consumer subgroups, all consumer subgroups 

analyzed achieve similar LCC savings to the average consumer with the exception of 

consumers of T12 lamps operating in religious institutions, consumers of T12 lamps 

operating in institutions that serve low-income populations, and users of T12 lamps installed 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
334

on electronic ballasts. These consumers, upon lamp failure, are forced to retrofit their 

existing ballasts, resulting in negative LCC savings. In particular, consumers in institutions 

of religious worship (which have low operating hours in comparison with the average 

commercial-sector consumer) and consumers in institutions serving low income populations 

(experience negative LCC savings of -$30.56 to -$0.44. Consumers with T12 lamps 

installed on electronic ballasts experience negative LCC savings of -$33.55 to -$15.82. 

Overall, based on the NIA model, DOE estimates that at TSL5 in 2012, approximately 24 

percent of 8-foot SP slimline shipments would result in negative LCC savings, and 65 

percent of shipments would be associated with the high installed price increases due to 

forced retrofits. 

Table VII.12 presents the findings of an LCC analysis on various two-lamp, 8-foot 

RDC HO GSFL systems operating in the industrial sector. With the exception of consumers 

who purchase reduced-wattage 95W T12 lamps absent standards (and purchase a lamp in 

response to a lamp failure), all other consumers have available lamp designs that result in 

positive LCC savings at TSL5. At this standard level, users of 110W or 95W 8-foot RDC 

HO T12 baseline lamps installed on a magnetic ballast who need to replace their lamp 

would incur the cost of a lamp and ballast replacement ($131.38) because no T12 lamp 

currently meets the efficacy requirements of TSL5. Comparing the cost of a lamp-andballast replacement to the cost of only a baseline lamp replacement ($14.46 to $20.51) 

results in an installed price increase of $110.87 to $116.92. Users of 95W T12 lamps who 

need to replace their lamp experience negative LCC savings of -$7.97. On the other hand, 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
335

over the life of the lamp, users of 110W T12 lamps who require a lamp replacement would 

save $13.07. 

With regard to 8-foot RDC HO consumer subgroups, all consumer subgroups 

analyzed achieve similar LCC savings to the average consumer except consumers who own 

T12 lamps installed on electronic ballasts. These consumers, upon lamp failure, are forced 

to retrofit their existing ballasts, resulting in negative LCC savings of -$20.50 to -$5.31. 

Overall, based on the NIA model, DOE estimates that at TSL5 in 2012, approximately 33 

percent of 8-foot RDC HO shipments would result in negative LCC savings, and 86 percent 

of shipments would be associated with the high installed price increases due to forced 

retrofits. 

Table VII.9 and Table VII.10 present the LCC analyses on two-lamp 4-foot MiniBP 

T5 standard-output and high-output systems, respectively. The standard-output system is 

modeled as operating in the commercial sector, and the high-output system is modeled as 

operating in the industrial sector. The baseline lamps for these systems are the model 28W 

and 54W halophosphor lamps, respectively, as discussed in section V.B.3. At TSL5 (EL2 

for standard output T5 lamps), all consumers of standard output lamps have available lamp 

designs which result in positive LCC savings of $1.10 (for lamp replacement) and $45.67 to 

$47.49 (for new construction or renovation). At TSL5 (EL1 for high output T5 lamps), 

consumers of high-output lamps who need only a lamp replacement would experience 

negative LCC savings of -$3.03. However, purchasing a T5 high-output system for new 

construction or renovation would result in positive LCC savings of $65.69 to $67.06. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
336

At TSL 5, the demand for rare-earth phosphors is significantly increased compared 

to current levels. DOE understands that it is difficult to predict the effects of new energy 

conservation standards on rare earth phosphor demand. However, DOE is sensitive to the 

trade vulnerability inherent in the concentrated geographical location of these resources and 

the possible incentives for manufacturers to relocate production (and associated 

employment) outside the U.S. It is particularly challenging to draw a line below which the 

risks are manageable and above which the risks become unacceptable. DOE notes that in its 

comments, NEMA views TSL 3 as a level that allows manufacturers to retain the flexibility 

needed to manage the impact of increased worldwide rare earth phosphor usage. In their 

comments, NEMA provided their estimate of the relative increase in rare earth phosphor 

demand for each TSL. This analysis showed the impacts at TSL 3 and TSL 4 to be very 

similar, increases of 230 percent and 250 percent, respectively. In contrast, the impacts at 

estimated by NEMA at TSL 5 are shown to be significantly larger at 350 percent. DOE 

concludes from this that NEMA perceives considerably larger risks at TSL 5 than at TSL 4 

or TSL 3. 

 At TSL 5, product availability is also a concern, particularly the elimination of 

reduced-wattage 25W lamps, due to increased standard levels. DOE agrees with 

comments received that 25W lamps are valuable energy-saving products, because they 

provide a simple pathway to energy savings that does not require ballast replacements or 

design assistance. (California Stakeholders, No. 63 at p. 9) As demonstrated in DOE’s 

national impact analysis, the level of expertise required to implement certain design 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
337

choices is a key factor in determining energy savings, as well as consumer and national 

NPV benefits. 

In summary, after carefully considering the analysis discussed above and weighing 

the benefits and burdens of TSL5, the Secretary has determined the following: At TSL 5, the 

benefits of energy savings, emissions reductions (both in terms of physical reductions and 

the monetized value of those reductions, including the likely U.S. and global benefits of 

reduced emissions of CO2), and the positive net economic savings to the Nation (over 31 

years) is outweighed by the economic burden on some consumers (as indicated by the large 

increase in total installed cost), the potentially large reduction in INPV for manufacturers 

resulting from large conversion costs and reduced gross margins, the elimination of certain 

low-wattage lamps, and the risks associated with significantly increased demand for rareearth phosphors. Consequently, the Secretary has concluded that TSL 5 is not economically 

justified. 

b. Trial Standard Level 4 

Next, DOE considered TSL 4, which would save an estimated total of 3.8 to 9.9 

quads of energy through 2042 -- a significant amount of energy. For the Nation as a whole, 

TSL4 would have a net savings of $10.0 billion to $26.3 billion at a 7-percent discount rate 

and $21.8 billion to $53.5 billion at a 3-percent discount rate. The emissions reductions at 

TSL4 are estimated at 175 to 488 MMt of CO2, 11 to 37 kt of NOX, and up to 7.3 metric 

tons of Hg. Total generating capacity in 2042 is estimated to decrease compared to the 

reference case by 1.8 to 6.2 GW under TSL4. The monetized values of emissions 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
338

reductions are estimated at $4.2 to $107.2 million for NOX and up to $67.7 million for Hg at 

a 7-percent discount rate and $4.6 to $132.4 million for NOX and up to $125.6 million for 

Hg at a 3-percent discount rate. The estimated benefits of reducing CO2 emissions using the 

mid-range of the CO2 value (using $33 per ton) is $3.1 to $8.4 billion and $6.0 to $16.9 

billion at 7-percent and 3-percent discount rates respectively. The full range of likely 

benefits of CO2 emission reductions is $0.2 billion to $20.4 billion at a 7-percent discount 

rate and $0.4 billion to $40.9 billion at a 3-percent discount rate. 

Similar to TSL5, the level of impacts on manufacturers would depend primarily on 

their ability to differentiate their product offerings to offset the reduced range of efficacy 

levels. TSL 4 would also require a complete conversion of all T12 4-foot MBP, 8-foot SP 

slimline, and 8-foot RDC HO lines to T8 lines, a capital investment of $193 million. The 

projected change in industry value ranges from a decrease of $162 million to a decrease of 

$4 million. Because manufacturers have a broader range of efficiency available at TSL 4 

than at TSL 5 (thereby permitting greater product differentiation and increased gross 

margins), DOE believes the impacts at TSL 4 will be significantly less than at TSL 5 and 

that the high range of impacts is less likely to occur. 

As seen in Table VII.5 through Table VII.12, at TSL4, DOE projects that 4-foot 

MBP, 8-foot SP slimline, and 8-foot RDC HO consumers would experience similar lifecycle cost savings and increases as they would experience at TSL5. Like TSL5, most 

consumers who own T12 ballasts prior to 2012 at TSL4 would likely experience negative 

economic impacts, either through life-cycle cost increases or by large increases in total 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
339

installed cost. For 4-foot MiniBP T5 standard-output lamps, TSL4 would require these 

lamps to meet EL1, resulting in positive LCC savings of $1.10 for lamp replacement and 

$43.30 for new construction or renovation (seen in Table VII.9). For 4-foot MiniBP T5 

high-output lamps, TSL4 would require the same efficacy level (EL1) as TSL5, resulting in 

identical life-cycle cost impacts. 

At TSL 4, the demand for rare-earth phosphors, although significantly increased 

compared to current levels, is similar to the demand at TSL 3, a level that manufacturers 

have suggested would allow them to retain the flexibility needed to manage the impacts of 

increased worldwide rare earth phosphor usage. In consideration of the small increased 

demand of rare-earth phosphors over a level that industry has indicated to be acceptable, 

DOE believes that risks of trade vulnerability and potential relocation of lamp production 

overseas in response to a standard adopted at TSL4 are low. 

 In contrast to TSL5, at TSL 4, consumers have several energy-saving lamp options 

including the reduced-wattage 25W and 30W 4-foot MBP lamps. The presence of these 

lamps on the market provides consumers with more simple pathways to achieving energy 

savings. As demonstrated in DOE’s national impact analysis, the level of expertise 

required to implement certain design choices is a key factor in determining energy 

savings, as well as consumer and national NPV benefits. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
340

In summary, after carefully considering the analysis discussed above and weighing 

the benefits and burdens of TSL4, the Secretary has determined the following: At TSL4, the 

benefits of energy savings, emissions reductions (both in terms of physical reductions and 

the monetized value of those reductions, including the likely U.S. and global benefits of 

reduced emissions of CO2), and the positive net economic savings to the Nation (over 31 

years) outweighs the economic burden on some consumers (as indicated by the large 

increase in total installed cost), the potential reduction in INPV for manufacturers, and the 

risks associated with increased demand for rare earth phosphors. Consequently, the 

Secretary has concluded that TSL4 offers the maximum improvement in efficacy that is 

technologically feasible and economically justified, and will result in significant 

conservation of energy. Therefore, DOE is adopting the energy conservation standards for 

GSFL at trial standard level 4. 

2. Incandescent Reflector Lamps Conclusion 

In addition to the results presented above, DOE also calculates the annualized 

benefits and costs of each TSL. The table below presents these values for GSFL. 

Table VII.34 Annualized Benefits and Costs for IRL 

TSL Category Unit 

Primary 

Estimate 

Low 

Estimate 

High 

Estimate 

7% 3% 7% 3% 7% 3% 

1 

Benefits 

Annualized Monetized 

($millions/year) 2008$ 120 130 68 72 173 188 

Annualized Quantified 

CO2 (Mt) 0.43 0.43 0.24 0.24 0.62 0.63 

NOx (kT) 0.09 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.11 0.08 

Hg (T) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 

Costs 

Annualized Monetized 

($millions/year) 2008$ 103 100 77 74 129 127 

Net Benefits/Costs 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
341

Annualized Monetized 

($millions/year) 2008$ 18 29 -9 -2 44 61 

2 

Benefits 

Annualized Monetized 

($millions/year) 2008$ 293 313 176 182 410 443 

Annualized Quantified 

CO2 (Mt) 1.1 1.1 0.66 0.63 1.53 1.56 

NOx (kT) 0.26 0.19 0.21 0.14 0.32 0.23 

Hg (T) 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 

Costs 

Annualized Monetized 

($millions/year) 2008$ -33 -39 -28 -32 -39 -46 

Net Benefits/Costs 

Annualized Monetized 

($millions/year) 2008$ 326 352 203 215 449 489 

3 

Benefits 

Annualized Monetized 

($millions/year) 2008$ 531 603 349 389 712 817 

Annualized Quantified 

CO2 (Mt) 1.97 1.98 1.29 1.25 2.66 2.7 

NOx (kT) 0.42 0.3 0.37 0.26 0.47 0.33 

Hg (T) 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 

Costs 

Annualized Monetized 

($millions/year) 2008$ 72 71 52 50 92 92 

Net Benefits/Costs 

Annualized Monetized 

($millions/year) 2008$ 459 532 297 339 620 725 

4 

Benefits 

Annualized Monetized 

($millions/year) 2008$ 650 696 406 424 894 968 

Annualized Quantified CO2 

(Mt) 2.39 2.4 1.51 1.45 3.28 3.35 

NOx 

(kT) 0.51 0.35 0.45 0.31 0.58 0.4 

 Hg (T) 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 

Costs 

Annualized Monetized 

($millions/year) 2008$ 118 106 227 218 9 -6 

Net Benefits/Costs 

Annualized Monetized 

($millions/year) 2008$ 532 590 179 207 885 973 

Incremental Net Benefits/Costs Relative to TSL3 

Annualized Monetized 

($millions/year) 2008$ 73 58 -118 -132 265 248 

5 

Benefits 

Annualized Monetized 

($millions/year) 2008$ 750 802 480 502 1020 1103 

Annualized Quantified CO2 (Mt) 2.76 2.76 1.83 1.76 3.69 3.75 

 NOx (kT) 0.59 0.4 0.54 0.37 0.65 0.44 

 Hg (T) 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 

Incremental Costs 

Annualized Monetized 

($millions/year) 2008$ 126 116 232 222 26 9 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
342

Net Benefits/Costs 

Annualized Monetized 

($millions/year) 2008$ 621 687 247 280 994 1093 

Incremental Net Benefits/Costs Relative to TSL4 

Annualized Monetized 

($millions/year) 2008$ 89 97 68 73 109 120 

Note: Annualized values are for the period from 2012 to 2042 

a. Trial Standard Level 5 

For IRL, DOE first considered the most efficient level, TSL5, which would save an 

estimated total of 1.12 to 2.72 quads of energy through 2042—a significant amount of 

energy. For the Nation as a whole, TSL5 would have a net savings of $4.9 billion to $10.2 

billion at a 7-percent discount rate and $9.4 billion to $20.0 billion at a 3-percent discount 

rate. The emissions reductions at TSL5 are estimated at 53 to 118 MMt of CO2, 8 to 9 kt of 

NOX, and up to 2 metric tons of Hg. Total generating capacity in 2042 is estimated to 

decrease compared to the reference case by 300 to 1400 MW under TSL5. The monetized 

values of emissions reductions are estimated at $2.2 to $27.0 million for NOX and up to 

$16.0 million for Hg at a 7-percent discount rate and $2.7 to $33.1 million for NOX and up 

to $30.2 million for Hg at a 3-percent discount rate. The estimated benefits of reducing CO2

emissions using the mid-range of the CO2 value (using $33 per ton) is $1.0 to 2.0 billion and 

$1.8 to $4.1 billion at 7-percent and 3-percent discount rates respectively. The full range of 

likely benefits of CO2 emission reductions is $0.1 billion to $4.9 billion at a 7-percent 

discount rate and $0.1 billion to $9.9 billion at a 3-percent discount rate. 

As seen in Table VII.13, regardless of the baseline lamp purchased absent standards, 

commercial-sector consumers have available lamp designs at TSL5 which would result in 

positive LCC savings ranging from $1.36 to $9.14, while residential-sector consumers have 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
343

available lamp designs which would result in positive LCC savings ranging from $1.51 to 

$9.10. 

The projected change in industry value at TSL5 would range from a decrease of 

$104 million to $111 million, or a net loss of 37 to 47 percent in INPV. The range in 

impacts is attributed in part to uncertainty concerning the future share of emerging 

technologies in the IRL market, as well as the expected migration to R-CFL and exempted 

IRL technologies under standards. 

 DOE based TSL5 on commercially-available IRL which employ a silver reflector, an 

improved IR coating, and a filament design that results in a lifetime of 4,200 hours. To 

DOE’s knowledge, only one manufacturer currently sells products that meet TSL5. In 

addition, it is DOE’s understanding that the silver reflector is a proprietary technology that 

all manufacturers may not be able to employ. However, DOE considered TSL5 in its 

analysis because it believes that there is an alternate, non-proprietary pathway to achieve 

this level. This pathway consists in redesigning the filament to achieve higher-temperature 

operation and, thus, reducing lifetime to 2,500 hours. 

DOE conducted a complete set of analyses to capture the economic impacts of a 

TSL5 lamp designed to operate with a lifetime of 2500 hours instead of 4200 hours. 

Whereas the energy savings and emission reductions do not change for the Nation as a 

whole, a reduced-life lamp would result in much reduced net savings (NPV) of $2.53 billion 

to $4.86 billion at a 7-percent discount rate and $10.1 billion to $5.1 billion at a 3-percent 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
344

discount rate. As seen in Table VII.13, as compared to one of the baseline lamps purchased 

absent standards, consumers would experience negative LCC savings, ranging from -$3.17 

(in the commercial sector) to -$1.64 (in the residential sector), at TSL5. Because reduced 

lamp life results in greater IRL shipments, the projected change in industry value would be 

greatly reduced to a decrease of $43 million to $49 million, or a net loss of 14 to 22 percent 

in INPV. 

The reduced LCC savings at TSL 5 for the reduced-life lamps brings added concern 

to the issue of hot shock, which is when vibrations that occur while the lamp is energized 

cause premature lamp failure. It is DOE’s understanding that hot shock can reduce lamp life 

by 25 percent to 30 percent for some consumers. For a lamp rated at 2500 hours, this means 

that service life could be reduced to 1750 hours. As demonstrated in Tables Table VI.1 and 

Table VI.2, DOE expects that a lamp with price and efficacy associated with TSL5 and a 

lifetime of 1750 hours would result in negative LCC savings for the vast majority of 

consumers. 

Furthermore, DOE is also concerned about the possible lessening of competition at 

TSL5. Only one manufacturer currently sells product that meets TSL 5. This commerciallyavailable product employs a proprietary technology, and while DOE has some evidence that 

alternative non-proprietary technologies may be used to meet this level, these alternative 

technologies have not been manufactured in large quantities and questions remain as to their 

cost and performance, as discussed above. Because DOE has not been able verify 

manufacturer costs associated with these alternative technologies, it is possible that these 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
345

approaches may not be cost-competitive with the currently-available product employing the 

proprietary technology. While DOE recognizes that a 2500-hour lamp at TSL 5 is 

technologically feasible and would not require the use of proprietary technologies, the LCC 

results show that these shortened-life lamps are likely to be less attractive to consumers and, 

therefore, at a competitive disadvantage. 

In summary, after carefully considering the analysis discussed above and weighing 

the benefits and burdens of TSL5, the Secretary has determined the following: At TSL5, the 

benefits of energy savings, emissions reductions (both in terms of physical reductions and 

the monetized value of those reductions, including the likely U.S. and global benefits of 

reducing CO2 emissions), the positive net economic savings to the Nation (over 31 years) is 

outweighed by the large capital conversion costs that could result in a reduction in INPV for 

manufacturers, possible negative LCC savings for some consumers of 2500-hour lamps, and 

the possible lessening of competition. Consequently, the Secretary has concluded that TSL5 

is not economically justified. 

b. Trial Standard Level 4 

Next, DOE considered TSL4, which would save an estimated total of 0.94 to 2.39 

quads of energy through 2042—a significant amount of energy. For the Nation as a whole, 

TSL4 would have a net savings of $4.20 billion to $9.06 billion at a 7-percent discount rate 

and $17.8 billion to $8.0 billion at a 3-percent discount rate. The emissions reductions at 

TSL4 are estimated at 44 to 106 MMt of CO2, 6.4 to 8.4 kt of NOX, and up to 2 metric tons 

of Hg. Total generating capacity in 2042 is estimated to decrease compared to the reference 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
346

case by 200 to 1,100 MW under TSL4. The monetized values of emissions reductions are 

estimated at $1.8 to $24.4 million for NOX and up to $15.0 million for Hg at a 7-percent 

discount rate and $2.2 to $30.0 million for NOX and up to $28.1 million for Hg at a 3-

percent discount rate. The estimated benefits of reducing CO2 emissions using the midrange of the CO2 value (using $33 per ton) is $0.8 to 1.8 billion and $1.5 to $3.7 billion at 7-

percent and 3-percent discount rates respectively. The full range of likely benefits of CO2 

emission reductions is $50 million to $4.4 billion at a 7-percent discount rate and $0.1 

billion to $8.9 billion at a 3-percent discount rate. 

The projected change in industry value at TSL4 would range from a decrease of $98 

million to $102 million, or a net loss of 34 to 44 percent in INPV. The range in impacts is 

attributed in part to uncertainty concerning the future share of emerging technologies in the 

IRL market, as well as the expected migration to R-CFL and exempted IRL technologies 

under standards. 

As seen in Table VII.13, regardless of the baseline lamp currently employed, 

commercial-sector consumers have available lamp designs at TSL4 which would result in 

positive LCC savings ranging from $1.81 to $7.95, while residential-sector consumers have 

available lamp designs which would result in positive LCC savings ranging from $1.75 to 

$7.45. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
347

 DOE does not believe TSL4 requires the use of a single proprietary technology. To 

DOE’s knowledge, two manufacturers currently sell a full-range of lamp wattages that meet 

TSL4. Unlike TSL5, where it is possible that some manufacturers would not be able to 

achieve the level without lowering lamp lifetime, DOE believes that the existence of 

multiple technology pathways to TSL4 would not necessarily result in the reduction in lamp 

lifetime at TSL4. However, DOE also recognizes that manufacturers may choose to sell 

products with reduced lifetimes. Therefore, DOE conducted a complete set of analyses to 

capture the economic impacts of a TSL4 lamps designed to operate with a lifetimes of 2500 

hours and 3000 hours instead of 4000 hours. Whereas the energy savings and emission 

reductions do not change for the Nation as a whole, a reduced-life lamp would result in 

much reduced net savings (NPV) of $1.83 billion to $5.22 billion at a 7-percent discount 

rate and $10.8 billion to $3.8 billion at a 3-percent discount rate. As seen in Table VII.13, 

as compared to one of the baseline lamps purchased absent standards, commercial 

consumers would experience small negative LCC savings of -$0.25 at TSL4. Because 

reduced lamp life results in greater IRL shipments, the projected change in industry value 

would be greatly reduced to a decrease of $21 million to $61 million, or a net loss of 7 to 28 

percent in INPV. 

Hot shock is less of a concern at TSL 4 than at TSL 5. DOE understands that 

manufacturers may choose to reduce their negative impacts by providing lamps with 

lifetimes less than 4000 hours at TSL 4. However, because 4000-hour TSL 4 lamps can be 

produced without the use of proprietary technologies, manufacturers may be able to 

implement technological changes in their lamps to prevent hot shock, while retaining 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
348

lifetimes above 3000 hours. 

In addition, competitive impacts are less severe at TSL4 than at TSL5. To DOE’s 

knowledge, two of the three major manufacturers of IRL currently sell a full product line 

(across common wattages) that meet this potential standard level. It is DOE’s understanding 

that the third manufacturer employs a technology platform that, due to the positioning of the 

filament in the HIR capsule, is inherently less efficient. Therefore, it is likely that in order 

to meet TSL4, this manufacturer would have to make higher investments than the other 

manufacturers, placing it at a competitive disadvantage. This manufacturer has commented 

that it could manufacture products at TSL4 if the standards implementation lead time were 

extended by an additional one year. While DOE recognizes the challenges inherent in 

gaining access to technology and building capacity needed to begin production, as detailed 

in section VI.D.1 of this notice, DOE does not have the statutory authority to extend the 

implementation period. 

In summary, after considering the analysis discussed above and comments on the 

April 2009 NOPR, and weighing the benefits and burdens of TSL4, the Secretary has 

determined the following: At TSL4, the benefits of energy savings, emissions reductions 

(both in terms of physical reductions and the monetized value of those reductions, including 

the likely U.S. and global benefits of reduced CO2 emissions), the positive net economic 

savings to the Nation (over 31 years), and positive life-cycle cost savings outweighs the 

reduction in INPV for manufacturers. Consequently, the Secretary has concluded that TSL4 

offers the maximum improvement in efficacy that is technologically feasible and 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
349

economically justified, and will result in significant conservation of energy. Therefore, 

DOE is adopting the energy conservation standards for IRL at trial standard level 4. 

VIII. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

 Section 1(b)(1) of Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 FR 

51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), requires each agency to identify the problem it intends to address that 

warrants agency action such as today’s final rule (including, where applicable, the failures 

of private markets or public institutions), and to assess the significance of that problem in 

evaluating whether any new regulation is warranted. DOE included a description of market 

failures in its April 2009 NOPR. 74 FR 16920, 17018-19 (April 13, 2009). DOE believes, 

in this final rule, that these market failures continue to persist. 

 In addition, because today’s regulatory action is a significant regulatory action under 

section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866, section 6(a)(3) of that Executive Order requires 

DOE to prepare and submit for review to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) an assessment of the costs and 

benefits of today’s rule. Accordingly, DOE presented to OIRA for review the draft final rule 

and other documents prepared for this rulemaking, including a regulatory impact analysis 

(RIA). These documents are included in the rulemaking record and are available for public 

review in the Resource Room of DOE’s Building Technologies Program, 950 L’Enfant 

Plaza, SW., 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586-9127, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
350

Carlins Consulting stated that regulations were not necessary for consumers to adopt 

energy efficient lighting because the marketplace has provided the consumer with adequate 

options to choose a proper light source for any application given many variables. 

Specifically, the commenter cited the shift in office lighting from incandescent to 

fluorescent, then from T12 fluorescent lamps to T8 fluorescent lamps, the extinction of 

mercury vapor lamps after the introduction of metal halide lamps, and most recently – the 

popularity of lighting controls as evidence of the marketplace and economic incentives 

leading to the creation of energy efficient products. (Carlins Consulting, No. 57 at p. 1) 

 In response, the April 2009 NOPR contained a summary of the RIA, which evaluated 

the extent to which major alternatives to standards for GSFL and IRL could achieve 

significant energy savings at reasonable cost, as compared to the effectiveness of the 

proposed rule. 74 FR 16920, 17019-22 (April 13, 2009). The complete RIA (Regulatory 

Impact Analysis for Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for General Service 

Fluorescent Lamps and Incandescent Reflector Lamps) is contained in the TSD prepared for 

today’s rule. The RIA consists of: (1) A statement of the problem addressed by this 

regulation, and the mandate for government action; (2) a description and analysis of the 

feasible policy alternatives to this regulation; (3) a quantitative comparison of the impacts of 

the alternatives; and (4) the national economic impacts of today’s standards. 

DOE sought additional information to further develop its analysis (i.e., information 

to verify estimates of the percentages of consumers purchasing efficient lighting and the 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
351

extent to which consumers will continue to purchase more-efficient lighting in future years), 

and to conduct additional analyses in support of its conclusions (i.e., data on the correlation 

between the efficacy of existing lamps, usage patterns, and associated electricity price), but 

received no additional information or data in response to the April 2009 NOPR. 

 The major alternatives to the standards that DOE analyzed are: (1) no new regulatory 

action; (2) consumer rebates; (3) consumer tax credits; (4) manufacturer tax credits; (5) 

voluntary energy-efficiency targets; (6) bulk government purchases; and (7) early 

replacement. Each of these alternatives was analyzed in the RIA, with the exception of 

early replacement, because DOE found that the lifetimes of the lamps analyzed are too short 

for early replacement to result in significant savings. As explained in the April 2009 NOPR, 

DOE determined that none of these alternatives would save as much energy or have an NPV 

as high as the proposed standards, TSL3 for GSFL and TSL4 for IRL. That same 

conclusion applies to the standards in today’s rule. DOE has determined that none of the 

alternatives save as much energy or have an NPV as high as the adopted standards, TSL4 

for GSFL and TSL4 for IRL. (DOE further notes that for GSFL, the final rule standard set 

at TSL4 would save more energy and have a higher NPV than the proposed standard at 

TSL3.) Also, several of the alternatives would require new enabling legislation, since 

authority to carry out those alternatives does not presently exist. Additional detail on the 

regulatory alternatives is found in the RIA report in the TSD. 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

 The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation of an initial 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
352

regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, 

and a final regulatory flexibility analysis for any such rule that an agency adopts as a final 

rule, unless the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. A regulatory flexibility analysis 

examines the impact of the rule on small entities and considers alternative ways of reducing 

negative impacts. Also, as required by Executive Order 13272, “Proper Consideration of 

Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,” 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE published 

procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the potential impacts of its 

rules on small entities are properly considered during the rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. 

DOE has made its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General Counsel’s 

website: http://www.gc.doe.gov. 

 The Small Business Administration (SBA) classifies manufacturers of GSFL and IRL 

as small businesses if they have 1,000 or fewer employees.84 DOE used this small business 

size standard, published at 65 FR 30386 (May 15, 2000) and codified at 13 CFR part 121, to 

determine whether any small entities would be required to comply with today’s rule. The 

size standard is listed by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code and 

industry description. GSFL and IRL manufacturing are classified under NAICS 335110, 

“Electric Lamp Bulb and Part Manufacturing.” 

 As explained in the April 2009 NOPR, DOE reviewed the proposed rule under the 

 

84 See http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_tablepdf. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
353

provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on 

February 19, 2003 (68 FR 7990). On the basis of that review, DOE certified that the 

proposed rule, if promulgated, “would not have a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities.” 74 FR 16920, 17022-23 (April 13, 2009). Therefore, 

DOE did not prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis for the proposed rule. DOE set 

forth its certification to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA and the statement of 

factual basis for that certification. 

 DOE received comments from Tailored Lighting Inc. in response to the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act discussion in the April 2009 NOPR. Tailored Lighting Inc. stated that DOE 

incorrectly characterizes the small business manufactures in the market by not including 

Tailored Lighting Inc. and possibly other businesses like it. (Tailored Lighting Inc., No. 73 

at p. 2) 

 For the April 2009 NOPR, DOE conducted an extensive characterization of the GSFL 

and IRL industries and presented its findings for review and comment. In its 

characterization, DOE found that the majority of covered GSFL and IRL are manufactured 

by three large companies. A very small percentage of the market is manufactured by either 

large or small companies that primarily specialize in lamps not covered by this rulemaking. 

74 FR 16920, 17022-23 (April 13, 2009). 

During its market survey for the April 2009 NOPR, DOE created a list of every 

company that manufactures covered and non-covered GSFL and IRL for sale in the United 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
354

States. DOE also asked stakeholders and industry representatives if they were aware of any 

other small manufacturers. DOE then reviewed publicly-available data and contacted 

companies on its list, as necessary, to determine whether they met the SBA’s definition of a 

small business manufacturer in the GSFL or IRL industries. In total, DOE contacted 57 

companies that could potentially be small businesses. During initial review of the 57 

companies in its list, DOE either contacted or researched each company to determine if it 

sold covered GSFL and IRL. Research included reviewing each company’s product 

catalogs and reviewing company’s independent research reports.85 Based on its research, 

DOE screened out companies that did not offer lamps covered by this rulemaking or if 

research reports indicated they were large manufacturers. Initially, DOE estimated that only 

12 out of 57 companies listed were potentially small business manufacturers of covered 

products. 74 FR 16920, 17023 (April 13, 2009). Out of those 12 companies, DOE 

interviewed the four companies that consented to be interviewed. From these interviews, 

DOE determined that one manufacturer was not a small business. Two of the companies 

sold covered products, but were not manufacturers. The remaining company was the small 

business manufacturer DOE indentified in the NOPR. 

For today’s final rule, DOE contacted the remaining eight companies again and 

conducted additional research. Out of the eight other companies, DOE determined that 

seven did not manufacture covered products or were not the manufacturer of the covered 

 

85 Dun and Bradstreet provides independent research regarding company cash flows, revenues, employees, and 

credit-worthiness. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
355

products that they offered. DOE was unable to determine if the remaining company was a 

small business manufacturer. 

DOE also reviewed the product offerings of Tailored Lighting to determine whether 

that company is a small business manufacturer impacted by this rule. DOE determined that 

Tailored Lighting Inc is not a “small business” manufacturer within the context of the 

present rulemaking because it does not currently manufacture covered products. 

For the final rule, DOE continued to indentify the small GSFL manufacturer 

discussed in the April 2009 NOPR as the only small business manufacturer of products 

covered by this rulemaking. In the April 2009 NOPR, DOE found that the small 

manufacturer of covered GSFL shared some of the same concerns about energy 

conservation standards as large manufacturers. DOE summarized the key issues in the April 

2009 NOPR. 74 FR 16920, 16974-75 (April 13, 2009). However, the small manufacturer 

was less concerned about the potential of standards to severely harm its business. Because 

the small manufacturer is more focused on specialty products not covered by this 

rulemaking, covered GSFL represents a smaller portion of its revenue and product portfolio. 

In addition, this manufacturer stated that it is possible to pass along cost increases to 

consumers, thereby limiting margin impacts due to energy conservation standards. 

DOE could not use the GSFL GRIM to model the impacts of energy conservation 

standards on the small business manufacturer of covered GSFL. The GSFL GRIM models 

the impacts on GSFL manufacturers if concerns about margin pressure and significant 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
356

capital investments necessitated by standards are realized. The small manufacturer did not 

share these concerns, and, therefore, the GRIM model would not be representative of the 

identified small business manufacturer. Like large manufacturers, the small business 

manufacturer stated that more-efficient products earn a premium; however, unlike larger 

manufacturers, the small manufacturer stated that it could pass costs along to its customers 

(a statement expected to apply to both the proposed TSL3 and the final rule’s TSL4). Since 

the GSFL GRIM models the financial impact of the standards commoditizing premium 

products, it is not representative of the small business manufacturer because the small 

business manufacturer did not share these concerns. Because of its focus on specialized 

products, the small manufacturer was more concerned about being able to offer the products 

to their customers than the impact on its bottom line. For further information about the 

scenarios modeled in the GRIM, see section V.F of today’s notice and chapter 13 of the 

TSD. 

 DOE reviewed the standard levels considered in today’s final rule under the 

provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on 

February 19, 2003. On the basis of the foregoing, DOE reaffirms the certification. 

Therefore, DOE has not prepared a final regulatory flexibility analysis for this rule. 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

 DOE stated in the April 2009 NOPR that this rulemaking would impose no new 

information and recordkeeping requirements, and that OMB clearance is not required under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 74 FR 16920, 17023 (April 13, 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
357

2009). DOE received no comments on this in response to the April 2009 NOPR, and, as 

with the proposed rule, today’s rule imposes no information and recordkeeping 

requirements. Therefore, DOE has taken no further action in this rulemaking with respect to 

the Paperwork Reduction Act. 

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act

 DOE prepared an environmental assessment of the impacts of today’s standards, 

which it published as chapter 16 within the TSD for the final rule. DOE found the 

environmental effects associated with today’s standards for GSFL and IRL to be not 

significant, and, therefore, it is issuing a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) pursuant 

to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the 

regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500–1508), and DOE’s 

regulations for compliance with the NEPA (10 CFR part 1021). The FONSI is available in 

the docket for this rulemaking. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

 Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999), imposes certain 

requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt 

State law or that have Federalism implications. In accordance with DOE’s statement of 

policy describing the intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the 

development of regulations that have Federalism implications, 65 FR 13735 (March 14, 

2000), DOE examined the proposed rule and determined that the rule would not have a 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
358

substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government 

and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels 

of government. 74 FR 16920, 17023 (April 13, 2009). DOE received no comments on this 

issue in response to the April 2009 NOPR, and its conclusions on this issue are the same for 

the final rule as they were for the proposed rule. This statement remains true even though 

DOE has adopted energy conservation standards for GSFL in this final rule (TSL4) that are 

at a higher level than those proposed (TSL3). Therefore, DOE is taking no further action in 

today’s final rule with respect to Executive Order 13132. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

 With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new 

regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” 61 FR 4729 

(Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following 

requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize 

litigation; and (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general 

standard and promote simplification and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 

12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure 

that the regulation: (1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies 

any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies the 

retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important 

issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the 

Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
359

review regulations in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to 

determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has 

completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, the final 

regulations meet the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988. 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

 As indicated in the April 2009 NOPR, DOE reviewed the proposed rule under Title II 

of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) (UMRA), which imposes 

requirements on Federal agencies when their regulatory actions will have certain types of 

impacts on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. 74 FR 16920, 17024 

(April 13, 2009). DOE concluded that, although this rule would not contain an 

intergovernmental mandate, it may result in expenditure of $100 million or more in one year 

by the private sector. Id. Therefore, in the April 2009 NOPR, DOE addressed the UMRA 

requirements that it prepare a statement as to the basis, costs, benefits, and economic 

impacts of the proposed rule, and that it identify and consider regulatory alternatives to the 

proposed rule. Id. DOE received no comments concerning the UMRA in response to the 

April 2009 NOPR, and its conclusions on this issue are the same for the final rule as they 

were for the proposed rule. This statement remains true even though DOE has adopted 

energy conservation standards for GSFL in this final rule (TSL4) that are at a higher level 

than those proposed (TSL3). Therefore, DOE is taking no further action in today’s final 

rule with respect to the UMRA. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
360

H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999

 DOE determined that, for this rulemaking, it need not prepare a Family Policymaking 

Assessment under Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277). Id. DOE received no comments concerning Section 654 in 

response to the April 2009 NOPR, and, therefore, takes no further action in today’s final 

rule with respect to this provision. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

 DOE determined, under Executive Order 12630, “Governmental Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,” 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 

1988), that the proposed rule would not result in any takings which might require 

compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 74 FR 16920, 17024 

(April 13, 2009). DOE received no comments concerning Executive Order 12630 in 

response to the April 2009 NOPR, and, today’s final rule also would not result in any 

takings which might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment. Therefore, DOE 

takes no further action in today’s final rule with respect to this Executive Order. 

J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 2001

 Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 

U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most disseminations of information to the 

public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by 

OMB. The OMB’s guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE’s 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
361

guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed today’s final 

rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with 

applicable policies in those guidelines. 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

 Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001) requires Federal 

agencies to prepare and submit to the OIRA a Statement of Energy Effects for any 

significant energy action. DOE determined that the proposed rule was not a “significant 

energy action” within the meaning of Executive Order 13211 because the rule, which sets 

energy efficiency standards for covered GSFL and IRL, would not have a significant 

adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been designated as a 

significant energy action by the Administrator of OIRA. 74 FR 16920, 17024 (April 13, 

2009). Accordingly, DOE did not prepare a Statement of Energy Effects on the proposed 

rule. DOE received no comments on this issue in response to the April 2009 NOPR. As with 

the proposed rule, DOE has concluded that today’s final rule is not a significant energy 

action within the meaning of Executive Order 13211. This statement remains true even 

though DOE has adopted energy conservation standards for GSFL in this final rule (TSL4) 

that are at a higher level than those proposed (TSL3). Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a 

Statement of Energy Effects on the rule. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
362

L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review

 On December 16, 2004, the OMB, in consultation with the Office of Science and 

Technology, issued its Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (the Bulletin). 70 

FR 2664 (Jan. 14, 2005). The purpose of the Bulletin is to enhance the quality and 

credibility of the Government’s scientific information. The Bulletin establishes that certain 

scientific information shall be peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is 

disseminated by the Federal Government. As indicated in the April 2009 NOPR, this 

includes influential scientific information related to agency regulatory actions, such as the 

analyses in this rulemaking. 74 FR 16920, 17024-25 (April 13, 2009). 

 As more fully set forth in the April NOPR, DOE conducted formal peer reviews of the 

energy conservation standards development process and analyses, and has prepared a Peer 

Review Report pertaining to the energy conservation standards rulemaking analyses. The 

“Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Peer Review Report,” dated February 2007, 

has been disseminated and is available at: 

www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/peer_review.html. 

M. Congressional Notification

 As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will submit to Congress a report regarding the 

issuance of today’s final rule. DOE also will submit the supporting analyses to the 

Comptroller General in the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) and make them 

available to each House of Congress.

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
363

IX. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

 The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of today’s final rule. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Parts 430 

 Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy 

conservation, Household appliances, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Intergovermental 

relations, Small businesses. 

 Issued in Washington, DC, on June 26, 2009. 

 __________________________________ 

 Cathy Zoi 

 Assistant Secretary 

 Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
364

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, chapter II, subchapter D, of Title 10, Code of 

Federal Regulations, Parts 430 is amended to read as set forth below: 

PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER 

PRODUCTS 

1. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note. 

2. Section 430.2 is amended by revising the definition of “colored fluorescent lamp,” 

“fluorescent lamp,” and “rated wattage” to read as follows: 

§ 430.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Colored fluorescent lamp means a fluorescent lamp designated and marketed as a colored 

lamp and not designed or marketed for general illumination applications with either of the 

following characteristics: (1) a CRI less than 40, as determined according to the method set 

forth in CIE Publication 13.3 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3); or (2) a correlated 

color temperature less than 2,500K or greater than 7,000K as determined according to the 

method set forth in IESNA LM-9 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3). 

* * * * * 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
365

Fluorescent lamp means a low pressure mercury electric-discharge source in which a 

fluorescing coating transforms some of the ultraviolet energy generated by the mercury 

discharge into light, including only the following: 

(1) Any straight-shaped lamp (commonly referred to as 4-foot medium bipin lamps) with 

medium bipin bases of nominal overall length of 48 inches and rated wattage of 25 or more; 

(2) Any U-shaped lamp (commonly referred to as 2-foot U-shaped lamps) with medium 

bipin bases of nominal overall length between 22 and 25 inches and rated wattage of 25 or 

more; 

(3) Any rapid start lamp (commonly referred to as 8-foot high output lamps) with recessed 

double contact bases of nominal overall length of 96 inches; 

(4) Any instant start lamp (commonly referred to as 8-foot slimline lamps) with single pin 

bases of nominal overall length of 96 inches and rated wattage of 52 or more; 

(5) Any straight-shaped lamp (commonly referred to as 4-foot miniature bipin standard 

output lamps) with miniature bipin bases of nominal overall length between 45 and 48 

inches and rated wattage of 26 or more; and 

(6) Any straight-shaped lamp (commonly referred to 4-foot miniature bipin high output 

lamps) with miniature bipin bases of nominal overall length between 45 and 48 inches and 

rated wattage of 49 or more. 

* * * * * 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
366

Rated wattage means: 

(1) With respect to fluorescent lamps and general service fluorescent lamps: 

(i) If the lamp is listed in ANSI C78.81 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3) or ANSI 

C78.901 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3), the rated wattage of a lamp determined 

by the lamp designation of Clause 11.1 of ANSI C78.81 or ANSI C78.901; 

(ii) If the lamp is a residential straight-shaped lamp, and not listed in ANSI C78.81 

(incorporated by reference; see § 430.3), the wattage of a lamp when operated on a reference 

ballast for which the lamp is designed; or 

(iii) If the lamp is neither listed in one of the ANSI standards referenced in (1)(i) of this 

definition, nor a residential straight-shaped lamp, the electrical power of a lamp when 

measured according to the test procedures outlined in Appendix R to subpart B of this part. 

(2) With respect to general service incandescent lamps and incandescent reflector lamps, the 

electrical power measured according to the test procedures outlined in Appendix R to 

subpart B of this part. 

* * * * * 

3. Section 430.3 is amended by removing paragraph (c)(1) and redesignating paragraphs 

(c)(2) through (13) as (c)(1) through (12); by amending the redesignated paragraph (c)(5) by 

adding the words “IBR approved for §§ 430.2, 430.32, and Appendix R of subpart B.” after 

the words “approved August 11, 2005;”, and by revising the redesignated paragraph (c)(2) 

to read as follows: 

§430.3 Materials incorporated by reference. 

* * * * * 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
367

(c) * * * 

(2) ANSI C78.3-1991 ("ANSI C78.3"), American National Standard for Fluorescent LampsInstant-start and Cold-Cathode Types-Dimensional and Electrical Characteristics, approved 

July 15, 1991; IBR approved for §§ 430.2 fluorescent lamp, paragraph (4); and 430.32. 

* * * * * 

4. Appendix R to Subpart B of Part 430 is amended by adding paragraphs 4.1.2.3, 4.1.2.4, 

and 4.1.2.5 to read as follows: 

* * * * * 

4.1.2.3 8-foot slimline lamps shall be operated using the following reference ballast 

settings: 

T12 lamps: 625 volts, 0.425 amps, and 1280 ohms. 

T8 lamps: 625 volts, 0.260 amps, and 1960 ohms. 

4.1.2.4 8-foot high output lamps shall be operated using the following reference ballast 

settings: 

T12 lamps: 400 volts, 0.800 amps, and 415 ohms. 

T8 lamps: 450 volts, 0.395 amps, and 595 ohms. 

4.1.2.5 4-foot miniature bipin standard output or high output lamps shall be operated using 

the following reference ballast settings: 

Standard Output: 329 volts, 0.170 amps, and 950 ohms. 

High Output: 235 volts, 0.460 amps, and 255 ohms. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
368

5. Section 430.32 is amended by revising paragraph (n) to read as follows: 

§ 430.32 Energy and water conservation standards and effective dates. 

* * * * * 

(n) General service fluorescent lamps and incandescent reflector lamps. (1) Except as 

provided in paragraphs (n)(2) and (n)(3) of this section, each of the following general 

service fluorescent lamps manufactured after the effective dates specified in the table shall 

meet or exceed the following lamp efficacy and CRI standards: 

Lamp Type Nominal 

Lamp 

Wattage 

Minimum CRI Minimum 

Average 

Lamp 

Efficacy 

(lm/W) 

Effective Date 

4-foot medium 

bipin 

>35W 69 75.0 Nov. 1, 1995 

≤35W 45 75.0 Nov. 1, 1995 

2-foot U-shaped >35W 69 68.0 Nov. 1, 1995 

≤35W 45 64.0 Nov. 1, 1995 

8-foot slimline >65W 69 80.0 May 1, 1994 

≤65W 45 80.0 May 1, 1994 

8-foot high 

output 

>100W 69 80.0 May 1, 1994 

≤100W 45 80.0 May 1, 1994 

(2) The standards described in paragraph (n)(1) of this section do not apply to: 

(i) Any 4-foot medium bipin lamp or 2-foot U-shaped lamp with a rated wattage less than 28 

watts; 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
369

(ii) Any 8-foot high output lamp not defined in ANSI C78.81 (incorporated by reference; 

see § 430.3) or related supplements, or not 0.800 nominal amperes; or 

(iii) Any 8-foot slimline lamp not defined in ANSI C78.3 (incorporated by reference; see § 

430.3). 

 (3) Each of the following general service fluorescent lamps manufactured after [INSERT 

DATE 3 YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], shall 

meet or exceed the following lamp efficacy standards shown in the table: 

Lamp Type Correlated Color 

Temperature 

Minimum Average 

Lamp Efficacy 

(lm/W) 

4-foot medium bipin ≤ 4,500K 89

> 4,500K and ≤ 7,000K 88

2-foot U-shaped ≤ 4,500K 84

> 4,500K and ≤ 7,000K 81

8-foot slimline ≤ 4,500K 97

> 4,500K and ≤ 7,000K 93

8-foot high output ≤ 4,500K 92

> 4,500K and ≤ 7,000K 88

4-foot miniature bipin 

standard output 

≤ 4,500K 86

> 4,500K and ≤ 7,000K 81

4-foot miniature bipin 

high output 

≤ 4,500K 76

> 4,500K and ≤ 7,000K 72

(4) Except as provided in paragraph (n)(5) of this section, each of the following 

incandescent reflector lamps manufactured after November 1, 1995, shall meet or exceed 

the lamp efficacy standards shown in the table: 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
370

Nominal Lamp Wattage Minimum Average Lamp 

Efficacy 

(lm/W) 

40–50 10.5 

51–66 11.0 

67–85 12.5 

86–115 14.0 

116–155 14.5 

156–205 15.0 

(5) Each of the following incandescent reflector lamps manufactured after [INSERT DATE 

3 YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], shall meet or 

exceed the lamp efficacy standards shown in the table: 

Rated Lamp 

Wattage 

Lamp 

Spectrum 

Lamp Diameter Rated Voltage Minimum Average 

Lamp Efficacy 

(lm/W) 

40-205 Standard 

Spectrum 

> 2.5 inches ≥125V 6.8*P0.27

<125V 5.9*P0.27

≤ 2.5 inches ≥125V 5.7*P0.27

<125V 5.0*P0.27

40-205 Modified 

Spectrum 

> 2.5 inches ≥125V 5.8*P0.27

<125V 5.0*P0.27

≤ 2.5 inches ≥125V 4.9*P0.27

<125V 4.2*P0.27

Note 1: P is equal to the rated lamp wattage, in watts. 

Note 2: Standard Spectrum means any incandescent reflector lamp that does not meet the definition of 

modified spectrum in 430.2

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
371

(6) (i)(A) Subject to the exclusions in paragraph (6)(ii) of this section, the standards 

specified in this section shall apply to ER incandescent reflector lamps, BR incandescent 

reflector lamps, BPAR incandescent reflector lamps, and similar bulb shapes on and after 

January 1, 2008. 

 (B) Subject to the exclusions in paragraph (6)(ii) of this section, the standards 

specified in this section shall apply to incandescent reflector lamps with a diameter of more 

than 2.25 inches, but not more than 2.75 inches, on and after June 15, 2008. 

(ii) The standards specified in this section shall not apply to the following types of 

incandescent reflector lamps: 

 (A) Lamps rated at 50 watts or less that are ER30, BR30, BR40, or ER40 lamps; 

 (B) Lamps rated at 65 watts that are BR30, BR40, or ER40 lamps; or 

 (C) R20 incandescent reflector lamps rated 45 watts or less. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
372

APPENDIX 

[The following letter from the Department of Justice will not appear in the Code of Federal 

Regulations.] 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Antitrust Division 

Main Justice Building 

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. 

Washington, DC 20530–0001 

(202) 514–2401/(202) 616–2645(f) 

antitrust.atr@usdoj.gov 

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr 

June 15, 2009 

Warren Belmar, Esq. 

Deputy General Counsel for Energy Policy 

Department of Energy 

Washington, DC 20585 

Dear Deputy General Counsel Belmar: 

I am responding to your letter seeking the views of the Attorney General about the 

potential impact on competition of proposed amended energy conservation standards for 

general service fluorescent lamps ("GSFL") and incandescent reflector lamps ("IRL"). Your 

request was submitted pursuant to Section 325(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) of the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act, as amended, ("ECPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 6295(o)(B)(i)(V), which requires the 

Attorney General to make a determination of the impact of any lessening of competition that 

is likely to result from the imposition of proposed energy conservation standards. The 

Attorney General's responsibility for responding to requests from other departments about 

the effect of a program on competition has been delegated to the Assistant Attorney General 

for the Antitrust Division in 28 CFR § 0.40(g).

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
373

In conducting its analysis the Antitrust Division examines whether a proposed 

standard may lessen competition, for example, by substantially limiting consumer choice, 

leaving consumers with fewer competitive alternatives, placing certain manufacturers of a 

product at an unjustified competitive disadvantage compared to other manufacturers, or by 

inducing avoidable inefficiencies in production or distribution of particular products. 

We have reviewed the proposed standards contained in the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking ("NOPR") (74 Fed. Reg. 16920, April 13, 2009) and the supplementary 

information submitted to the Attorney General, and attended the February 3, 2009 public 

hearing on the proposed standards. 

Based on this review, the Department of Justice does not believe that the proposed 

standard for GSFLs would likely lead to a lessening of competition. Our review has focused 

upon the standards DOE has proposed adopting; we have not determined the impact on 

competition of more stringent standards than those proposed in the NOPR. 

With respect to IRLs, the Department is concerned that the proposed Trial Standard 

Level 4 could adversely affect competition. The NOPR would increase the minimum 

efficiency levels for IRLs to the second highest level under consideration in this rulemaking. 

The IRL market is highly concentrated, with three domestic manufacturers. Based on our 

review, it appears that only two of these firms may currently manufacture IRLs that would 

meet the new standard. It is our understanding that these firms produce only limited 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92
374

quantities of such products for high-end applications. The current producers may not have 

the capacity to meet demand. In addition, one of these manufacturers uses proprietary 

technology currently unavailable to other manufacturers. 

Given the capital investments new entrants or providers would be required to make, 

and the potential that manufacturers may have to obtain proprietary technology, there is a 

risk that one or more IRL manufacturers will not produce products that meet the proposed 

standard. We request that the Department of Energy consider the possibility of new 

technology in this area as it settles on standards in this field. 

Sincerely, 

Christine A. Varney, 

Assistant Attorney General 

 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 92