```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 82 (Tuesday, April 29, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24067-24190]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08740]

[[Page 24067]]

Vol. 79

Tuesday,

No. 82

April 29, 2014

Part II

Department of Energy

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

10 CFR Part 430

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for General 
Service Fluorescent Lamps and Incandescent Reflector Lamps; Proposed 
Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 24068]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 430

[Docket Number EERE-2011-BT-STD-0006]
RIN 1904-AC43

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for 
General Service Fluorescent Lamps and Incandescent Reflector Lamps

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) and public meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as 
amended, prescribes energy conservation standards for various 
commercial and industrial equipment and certain consumer products, 
including general service fluorescent lamps (GSFLs) and incandescent 
reflector lamps (IRLs). EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of 
Energy (DOE) to determine whether more-stringent, amended standards 
would be technologically feasible and economically justified, and would 
save a significant amount of energy. In this notice, DOE proposes 
amended energy conservation standards for GSFLs and IRLs. The notice 
also announces a public meeting to receive comment on these proposed 
standards and associated analyses and results.

DATES: DOE will hold a public meeting on Thursday, May 1, 2014, from 9 
a.m. to 4 p.m., in Washington, DC. The meeting will also be broadcast 
as a webinar. See section IX Public Participation for webinar 
registration information, participant instructions, and information 
about the capabilities available to webinar participants.
    DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this NOPR 
before and after the public meeting, but no later than June 30, 2014. 
See section IX Public Participation for details.

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of 
Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 8E-089, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., 
Washington, DC 20585. To attend, please notify Ms. Brenda Edwards at 
(202) 586-2945. Please note that foreign nationals visiting DOE 
Headquarters are subject to advance security screening procedures. Any 
foreign national wishing to participate in the meeting should advise 
DOE as soon as possible by contacting Ms. Edwards to initiate the 
necessary procedures. Please also note that those wishing to bring 
laptops into the Forrestal Building will be required to obtain a 
property pass. Visitors should avoid bringing laptops, or allow an 
extra 45 minutes. Persons can attend the public meeting via webinar. 
For more information, refer to the Public Participation section near 
the end of this notice.
    Any comments submitted must identify the NOPR for Energy 
Conservation Standards for general service fluorescent lamps and 
incandescent reflector lamps and provide docket number EE-2011-BT-STD-
0006 and/or regulatory information number (RIN) number 1904-AC43. 
Comments may be submitted using any of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments.
    2. Email:GSFL-IRL_2011-STD-0006@ee.doe.gov. Include the docket 
number and/or RIN in the subject line of the message.
    3. Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building 
Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., 
Washington, DC 20585-0121. If possible, please submit all items on a 
CD. It is not necessary to include printed copies.
    4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Building Technologies Program, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 
600, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 586-2945. If possible, 
please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not necessary to 
include printed copies.
    Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other 
aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this 
proposed rule may be submitted to Office of Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy through the methods listed above and by email to 
Chad_S_Whiteman@omb.eop.gov.
    For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see section IX of this document 
(Public Participation).
    Docket: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public 
meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting 
documents/materials, is available for review at regulations.gov. All 
documents in the docket are listed in the regulations.gov index. 
However, some documents listed in the index, such as those containing 
information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly 
available.
    A link to the docket Web page can be found at: 
www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/24. This Web page contains a link to the docket for this notice 
on the regulations.gov site. The regulations.gov Web page contains 
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, 
in the docket. See section IX for further information on how to submit 
comments through www.regulations.gov.
    For further information on how to submit a comment, review other 
public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting, 
contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email: 
Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Lucy deButts, 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) 287-1604. Email: General_Service_Fluorescent_Lamps@ee.doe.gov.
Ms. Elizabeth Kohl, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General 
Counsel, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-
0121. Telephone: (202) 586-7796. Email: Elizabeth.Kohl@hq.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Summary of the Proposed Rule
    A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers
    B. Impact on Manufacturers
    C. National Benefits
II. Introduction
    A. Authority
    B. Background
    1. Current Standards
    2. Corrections to Codified Standards
    3. History of Standards Rulemaking for General Service 
Fluorescent Lamps and Incandescent Reflector Lamps
    4. Test Procedure Standby and Off Mode Energy Consumption
III. General Discussion
    A. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage
    B. Technological Feasibility
    1. General
    2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
    C. Energy Savings
    1. Determination of Savings
    2. Significance of Savings
    D. Economic Justification
    1. Specific Criteria
    a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
    b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price
    c. Energy Savings
    d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
    e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
    f. Need for National Energy Conservation

[[Page 24069]]

    g. Other Factors
    2. Rebuttable Presumption
IV. Issues Affecting Rulemaking Schedule
V. Issues Affecting Scope
    A. Clarifications of General Service Fluorescent Lamp Definition
    B. General Service Fluorescent Lamp Scope of Coverage
    1. Additional General Service Fluorescent Lamp Types
    2. Additional General Service Fluorescent Lamp Wattages
    C. Incandescent Reflector Lamp Scope of Coverage
    1. Incandescent Reflector Lamp Types
    2. Incandescent Reflector Lamp Wattages
    D. Summary of Scope of Coverage
VI. Methodology and Discussion
    A. Market and Technology Assessment
    1. General Service Fluorescent Lamp Technology Options
    2. Incandescent Reflector Lamp Technology Options
    B. Screening Analysis
    1. General Service Fluorescent Lamp Design Options
    2. Incandescent Reflector Lamp Design Options
    C. Product Classes
    1. General Service Fluorescent Lamp Product Classes
    2. Incandescent Reflector Lamp Product Classes
    D. Engineering Analysis
    1. General Approach
    2. General Service Fluorescent Lamp Engineering
    a. Data Approach
    b. Representative Product Classes
    c. Baseline Lamps
    d. More Efficacious Substitutes
    e. General Service Fluorescent Lamp Systems
    f. Maximum Technologically Feasible
    g. Efficacy Levels
    h. Scaling to Other Product Classes
    i. Rare Earth Phosphors
    3. Incandescent Reflector Lamp Engineering
    a. Metric
    b. Representative Product Classes
    c. Baseline Lamps
    d. More Efficacious Substitutes
    e. Maximum Technologically Feasible
    f. Efficacy Levels
    g. Scaling to Other Product Classes
    h. Xenon
    i. Proposed Standard
    E. Product Pricing Determination
    F. Energy Use
    1. Operating Hours
    2. Lighting Controls
    a. General Service Fluorescent Lamp Lighting Controls
    b. Incandescent Reflector Lamp Lighting Controls
    G. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis and Payback Period Analysis
    1. Consumer Product Price
    2. Sales Tax
    3. Installation Cost
    4. Annual Energy Use
    5. Product Energy Consumption Rate
    6. Electricity Prices
    7. Electricity Price Projections
    8. Replacement and Disposal Costs
    9. Lamp Purchase Events
    10. Product Lifetime
    a. Lamp Lifetime
    b. Ballast Lifetime
    11. Discount Rates
    12. Analysis Period
    13. Compliance Date of Standards
    14. General Service Fluorescent Lamp Life-Cycle Cost Results in 
the Preliminary Analysis
    15. Incandescent Reflector Lamp Life-Cycle Cost Results in the 
Preliminary Analysis
    H. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
    I. Shipments Analysis
    J. National Impact Analysis-National Energy Savings and Net 
Present Value Analysis
    1. National Energy Savings
    2. Net Present Value of Consumer Benefit
    a. Total Annual Installed Cost
    b. Total Annual Operating Cost Savings
    K. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
    1. Overview
    2. GRIM Analysis and Key Inputs
    a. Capital and Product Conversion Costs
    b. Manufacturer Production Costs
    c. Shipment Scenarios
    d. Markup Scenarios
    3. Discussion of Comments
    a. Potential Shift to Other Lighting Technologies
    b. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
    c. Potential Decrease in Competition
    4. Manufacturer Interviews
    a. Rare Earth Oxides in General Service Fluorescent Lamps
    b. Unknown Impacts of the 2009 Lamps Rule
    c. Technology Shift
    d. Impact on Residential Sector
    L. Emissions Analysis
    M. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other Emissions Impacts
    1. Social Cost of Carbon
    a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions
    b. Social Cost of Carbon Values Used in Past Regulatory Analyses
    c. Current Approach and Key Assumptions
    2. Valuation of Other Emissions Reductions
    N. Utility Impact Analysis
    O. Employment Impact Analysis
    P. Other Comments
VII. Analytical Results
    A. Trial Standard Levels
    B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings
    1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers
    a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
    b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
    c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
    2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
    a. Industry Cash-Flow Analysis Results
    b. Impacts on Employment
    c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
    d. Impacts on Sub-Groups of Manufacturers
    e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
    3. Shipments Analysis and National Impact Analysis
    a. Significance of Energy Savings
    b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits
    c. Impact of Product Class Switching
    d. Alternative Scenario Analyses
    e. Indirect Impacts on Employment
    4. Impact on Utility or Performance
    5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
    6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy
    7. Summary of National Economic Impacts
    8. Other Factors
    C. Proposed Standards
    1. Benefits and Burdens of Trial Standard Levels Considered for 
General Service Fluorescent Lamps
    2. Summary of Benefits and Costs (Annualized) of the Proposed 
Standards for General Service Fluorescent Lamps
    3. Benefits and Burdens of Trial Standard Levels Considered for 
Incandescent Reflector Lamps
    4. Summary of Benefits and Costs (Annualized) of the Proposed 
Standards for Incandescent Reflector Lamps
VIII. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
    B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    1. Description and Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
    a. Methodology for Estimating the Number of Small Entities
    b. Manufacturer Participation
    c. General Service Fluorescent Lamp and Incandescent Reflector 
Lamp Industry Structures and Nature of Competition
    d. Comparison Between Large and Small Entities
    2. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements
    3. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and 
Regulations
    4. Significant Alternatives to the Proposed Rule
    5. Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments
    C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
    D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
    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, 1999
    I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
    J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 2001
    K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
    L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
IX. Public Participation
    A. Attendance at the Public Meeting
    B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for 
Distribution
    C. Conduct of the Public Meeting
    D. Submission of Comments
    E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
X. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Summary of the Proposed Rule

    Title III, Part B \1\ of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 
1975 (EPCA or the Act), Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as 
codified), established the

[[Page 24070]]

Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than 
Automobiles. Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation 
standard that DOE prescribes for certain products, such as GSFLs and 
IRLs, 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)). Furthermore, the new or amended standard 
must result in a significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(3)(B)). In accordance with these and other statutory provisions 
discussed in this notice, DOE proposes amended energy conservation 
standards for GSFLs and IRLs. The proposed standards, which are the 
minimum lumen output per watt of a lamp, are shown in Table I.1 and 
Table I.2. These proposed standards, if adopted, would apply to all 
products listed in Table I.1 and manufactured in, or imported into, the 
United States on or after the date three years after the publication of 
the final rule for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, 
Part B was redesignated Part A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With the exception of certain IRLs, these proposed standards, if 
adopted, would apply to all products listed in Table I.2 and 
manufactured in, or imported into, the United States on or after the 
date three years after the publication of the final rule for this 
rulemaking. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (Public Law 113-
76, Jan. 17, 2014), in relevant part, restricts the use of appropriated 
funds in connection with several aspects of DOE's incandescent lamps 
program. Specifically, section 322 states that none of the funds made 
available by the Act may be used to implement or enforce standards for 
BPAR incandescent reflector lamps, BR incandescent reflector lamps, and 
ER incandescent reflector lamps. The majority of IRLs in this 
rulemaking are PAR IRLs and therefore do not fall into category of 
lamps prohibited by section 322. The small number of lamps that are 
BPAR, ER, and BR IRLs are not included in this rulemaking pursuant to 
section 322. DOE had initiated a separate rulemaking for lamps rated 50 
watts or less that are ER30, BR30, BR40, or ER40; lamps rated 65 watts 
that are BR30, BR40, or ER40 lamps; and R20 IRLs rated 45 watts or 
less, but has suspended activity on this rulemaking as a result of 
section 322 of Public Law 113-76. (See section II.B.3 for further 
details.)

             Table I.1--Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for General Service Fluorescent Lamps
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      Percent
                                                                    Correlated                     increase over
                            Lamp type                                  color      Proposed level      current
                                                                    temperature         lm/W       standards or
                                                                                                     baseline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4-Foot Medium Bipin.............................................       4,500 K            90.6             3.0
2-Foot U-Shaped.................................................       4,500 K            84.3             4.1
8-Foot Slimline.................................................       4,500 K            94.1             1.2
8-Foot Recessed Double Contact High Output......................       4,500 K            95.6             8.6
4-Foot Miniature Bipin Standard Output..........................       4,500 K            91.3            12.7
4-Foot Miniature Bipin High Output..............................       4,500 K            78.6             9.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

               Table I.2--Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Incandescent Reflector Lamps
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Percentage
                                                                                                   increase over
                    Lamp type                        Diameter       Voltage  V    Proposed level      current
                                                      inches                          *  lm/W      standards or
                                                                                                    baseline %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Spectrum 40 W--205 W...................            >2.5           >=125      7.1P\0.27\             4.4
                                                  ..............            =125      6.0P\0.27\             5.3
                                                  ..............            2.5           >=125      6.0P\0.27\             3.4
                                                  ..............            =125      5.1P\0.27\             4.1
                                                  ..............            2.5 inches, 2), 730 thousand tons of methane, 250 
thousand tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2), 210 thousand tons of 
nitrogen oxides (NOX), 2.8 thousand tons of nitrous oxide 
(N2O), and 0.32 tons of mercury (Hg). The energy savings 
would result in cumulative emission reductions of 98 Mt of 
CO2 through 2030.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for 
NOX and Hg are presented in short tons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed standards for IRL would also have significant 
environmental benefits. The energy savings would result in cumulative 
emission reductions of 0.70 Mt of CO2, 2.7 thousand tons of 
methane, 0.69 thousand tons of SO2, 0.79 thousand tons of 
NOX, 0.01 thousand tons of N2O, and 0.001 tons of 
Hg. The energy savings would result in cumulative emission reductions 
of 1 Mt of CO2 through 2030.
    The value of the CO2 reductions for the proposed 
standards for GSFLs is calculated using a range of values per metric 
ton of CO2 (otherwise known as the Social Cost of Carbon, or 
SCC) developed by an interagency process. The derivation of the SCC 
values is discussed in section VI.M. Using discount rates appropriate 
for each set of SCC values, DOE estimates the present monetary value of 
the CO2 emissions reduction is between $1.3 billion and $17 
billion. DOE also estimates the present monetary value of the 
NOX emissions reduction, is $200 million at a 7-percent 
discount rate and $340 million at a 3-percent discount rate.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ DOE is currently investigating monetary valuation of avoided 
Hg and SO2 emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The value of the CO2 reductions for the proposed 
standards of IRL is calculated using the same SCC values and discount 
rates used for GSFLs. DOE

[[Page 24072]]

estimates the present monetary value of the CO2 emissions 
reduction is between $0.0062 billion and $0.076 billion. DOE also 
estimates the present monetary value of the NOX emissions 
reduction, is $1.1 million at a 7-percent discount rate and $1.6 
million at a 3-percent discount rate.\4\
    Table I.5 and Table I.6 summarize the national economic costs and 
benefits expected to result from the proposed standards for GSFLs and 
IRLs.

 Table I.5--Summary of National Economic Benefits and Costs of Proposed
  Energy Conservation Standards for General Service Fluorescent Lamps *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Present value      Discount rate
             Category                 Billion 2012$        (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating Cost Savings............                 12                  7
                                                   22                  3
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value                     1.3                  5
 ($11.8/t case) **................
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value                     5.6                  3
 ($39.7/t case) **................
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value                     8.9                2.5
 ($61.2/t case) **................
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value                      17                  3
 ($117/t case) **.................
NOX Reduction Monetized Value (at                 0.2                  7
 $2,639/ton) **...................
                                                  0.3                  3
Total Benefits [dagger]...........                 18                  7
                                                   28                  3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental Installed Costs.......                8.8                  7
                                                   13                  3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Total Net Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Including Emissions Reduction                     9.0                  7
 Monetized Value [dagger].........
                                                   14                  3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This table presents the costs and benefits associated with GSFL
  shipped in 2017-2046. These results include benefits to consumers
  which accrue after 2046 from the products purchased in 2017-2046. The
  results account for the incremental variable and fixed costs incurred
  by manufacturers due to the standard, some of which may be incurred in
  preparation for the rule.
** The CO2 values represent global monetized values of the SCC, in
  2012$, in 2015 under several scenarios of the updated SCC values. The
  first three cases use the averages of SCC distributions calculated
  using 5%, 3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The fourth case
  represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated
  using a 3% discount rate. The SCC time series used by DOE incorporate
  an escalation factor. The value for NOX is the average of the low and
  high values used in DOE's analysis.
[dagger] Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using
  the series corresponding to average SCC with 3-percent discount rate.

 Table I.6--Summary of National Economic Benefits and Costs of Proposed
     Energy Conservation Standards for Incandescent Reflector Lamps
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Present value      Discount rate
             Category                 Billion 2012$        (Percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating Cost Savings............               0.07                  7
                                                 0.11                  3
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value                   0.006                  5
 ($11.8/t case) **................
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value                    0.03                  3
 ($39.7/t case) **................
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value                    0.04                2.5
 ($61.2/t case) **................
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value $117/              0.08                  3
 t case) *........................
NOX Reduction Monetized Value (at               0.001                  7
 $2,639/ton) **...................
                                                0.002                  3
Total Benefits[dagger]............               0.10                  7
                                                 0.13                  3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental Installed                           -0.11                  7
 Costs[Dagger]....................
                                                -0.17                  3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Total Net Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Including Emissions Reduction                    0.20                  7
 Monetized Value[dagger]..........
                                                 0.31                  3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This table presents the costs and benefits associated with IRLs
  shipped in 2017-2046. These results include benefits to consumers
  which accrue after 2046 from the products purchased in 2017-2046. The
  results account for the incremental variable and fixed costs incurred
  by manufacturers due to the standard, some of which may be incurred in
  preparation for the rule.

[[Page 24073]]

 
** The CO2 values represent global monetized values of the SCC, in
  2012$, in 2015 under several scenarios of the updated SCC values. The
  first three cases use the averages of SCC distributions calculated
  using 5%, 3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The fourth case
  represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated
  using a 3% discount rate. The SCC time series used by DOE incorporate
  an escalation factor. The value for NOX is the average of the low and
  high values used in DOE's analysis.
[dagger] Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using
  the series corresponding to average SCC with 3-percent discount rate.
[Dagger] This reduction in product costs occurs because the more
  efficacious products have substantially longer lifetimes than the
  products that would be eliminated by the proposed standard.

    The benefits and costs of today's proposed standards, for products 
sold in 2017-2046, can also be expressed in terms of annualized values. 
The annualized monetary values are the sum of (1) the annualized 
national economic value of the benefits from consumer operation of 
products that meet the proposed standards (consisting primarily of 
operating cost savings from using less energy, minus increases in 
product purchase and installation costs, which is another way of 
representing consumer NPV), and (2) the annualized monetary value of 
the benefits of emission reductions, including CO2 emission 
reductions.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ DOE used a two-step calculation process to convert the time-
series of costs and benefits into annualized values. First, DOE 
calculated a present value in 2013, the year used for discounting 
the NPV of total consumer costs and savings, for the time-series of 
costs and benefits using discount rates of three and seven percent 
for all costs and benefits except for the value of CO2 
reductions. For the latter, DOE used a range of discount rates, as 
shown in Table I.5 and Table I.6. From the present value, DOE then 
calculated the fixed annual payment over a 30-year period (2017 
through 2046) that yields the same present value. The fixed annual 
payment is the annualized value. Although DOE calculated annualized 
values, this does not imply that the time-series of cost and 
benefits from which the annualized values were determined is a 
steady stream of payments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although combining the values of operating savings and 
CO2 emission reductions provides a useful perspective, two 
issues should be considered. First, the national operating savings are 
domestic U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of 
market transactions while the value of CO2 reductions is 
based on a global value. Second, the assessments of operating cost 
savings and CO2 savings are performed with different methods 
that use different time frames for analysis. The national operating 
cost savings is measured for the lifetime of GSFLs and IRLs shipped in 
2017-2046. The SCC values, on the other hand, reflect the present value 
of some future climate-related impacts resulting from the emission of 
one ton of CO2 in each year. These impacts continue well 
beyond 2100.
    Estimates of annualized benefits and costs of the proposed 
standards for GSFLs are shown in Table I.7. The results under the 
primary estimate are as follows. Using a 7-percent discount rate for 
benefits and costs other than CO2 reduction, for which DOE 
used a 3-percent discount rate along with the average SCC series that 
uses a 3-percent discount rate, the cost of the standards proposed in 
today's rule is $873 million per year in increased product costs; while 
the estimated benefits are $1,180 million per year in reduced product 
operating costs, $314 million per year in CO2 reductions, 
and $19.3 million per year in reduced NOX emissions. In this 
case, the net benefit would amount to $642 million per year. Using a 3-
percent discount rate for all benefits and costs and the average SCC 
series, the estimated cost of the standards proposed in today's rule is 
$751 million per year in increased product costs; while the estimated 
benefits are $1,200 million per year in reduced operating costs, $314 
million per year in CO2 reductions, and $18.9 million per 
year in reduced NOX emissions. In this case, the net benefit 
would amount to approximately $783 million per year.
    Estimates of annualized benefits and costs of the proposed 
standards for IRLs are shown in Table I.8. The results under the 
primary estimate are as follows. Using a 7-percent discount rate for 
benefits and costs other than CO2 reduction, for which DOE 
used a 3-percent discount rate along with the average SCC series that 
uses a 3-percent discount rate, the annualized cost of today's proposed 
standards is negative $10.4 million per year in reduced product 
costs,\6\ and the annualized benefits are $7.2 million per year in 
reduced product operating costs, $1.4 million per year in 
CO2 reductions, and $0.11 million per year in reduced 
NOX emissions. In this case, the net benefit would amount to 
$19 million per year. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits 
and costs and the average SCC series, the estimated annualized cost of 
the standards proposed in today's rule is negative $9.7 million per 
year in reduced product costs, and the annualized benefits of the 
standards proposed in today's rule are $5.9 million per year in reduced 
operating costs, $1.4 million per year in CO2 reductions, 
and $0.09 million per year in reduced NOX emissions. In this 
case, the net benefit would amount to approximately $17 million per 
year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ This negative cost represents a reduction in product costs 
compared to the base case, because the more efficacious products 
have substantially longer lifetimes than the products that would be 
eliminated by the proposed standard.

     Table I.7--Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for General Service
                                                Fluorescent Lamps
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Primary estimate   Low net benefits  High net benefits
                                       Discount rate             *              estimate *         estimate *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            million 2012$/year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating Cost Savings...........  7%..................              1,180              1,160              1,220
                                   3%..................              1,200              1,170              1,250
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value      5%..................                 98                 98                 98
 ($11.8/t case) **.
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value      3%..................                314                314                314
 ($39.7/t case) **.
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value      2.5%................                456                456                456
 ($61.2/t case) **.
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value      3%..................                968                968                968
 ($117/t case) **.
NOX Reduction Monetized Value (at  7%..................               19.3               19.3               19.3
 $2,639/ton) **.
                                   3%..................               18.9               18.9               18.9
Total Benefits[dagger]...........  7% plus CO2 range...     1,300 to 2,160     1,280 to 2,140     1,340 to 2,210
                                   7%..................              1,520              1,490              1,560

[[Page 24074]]

 
                                   3% plus CO2 range...     1,320 to 2,180     1,290 to 2,160     1,370 to 2,230
                                   3%..................              1,530              1,510              1,580
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental Product Costs........  7%..................                873                910                873
                                   3%..................                751                785                751
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Net Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total [dagger]...................  7% plus CO2 range...       426 to 1,291       367 to 1,232       469 to 1,330
                                   7%..................                642                583                685
                                   3% plus CO2 range...       567 to 1,432       505 to 1,370       615 to 1,480
                                   3%..................                783                722                831
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This table presents the annualized costs and benefits associated with GSFLs shipped in 2017-2046. These
  results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2046 from the products purchased in 2017-2046. The
  results account for the incremental variable and fixed costs incurred by manufacturers due to the standard,
  some of which may be incurred in preparation for the rule. The Primary Benefits Estimate assumes the central
  energy prices from AEO 2013 and a decreasing incremental product cost, due to price learning. The Low Benefits
  Estimate assumes the low estimate of energy prices from AEO 2013 and constant real product prices. The High
  Benefits Estimate assumes the high energy price estimates from AEO 2013 and decreasing incremental product
  costs, due to price learning.
** The CO2 values represent global monetized values of the SCC, in 2012$, in 2015 under several scenarios of the
  updated SCC values. The first three cases use the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5%, 3%, and
  2.5% discount rates, respectively. The fourth case represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution
  calculated using a 3% discount rate. The SCC time series used by DOE incorporate an escalation factor. The
  value for NOX is the average of the low and high values used in DOE's analysis.
[dagger] Total Benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are derived using the series corresponding to
  average SCC with 3-percent discount rate. In the rows labeled ``7% plus CO2 range'' and ``3% plus CO2 range,''
  the operating cost and NOX benefits are calculated using the labeled discount rate, and those values are added
  to the full range of CO2 values.

  Table I.8--Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Incandescent Reflector
                                                      Lamps
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Primary estimate   Low net benefits  High net benefits
                                       Discount rate             *              estimate *         estimate *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            million 2012$/year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating Cost Savings...........  7%..................                7.2                7.1                 10
                                   3%..................                5.9                5.8                5.8
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value      5%..................                0.5                0.5                0.5
 ($11.8/t case) **.
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value      3%..................                1.4                1.4                1.4
 ($39.7/t case) **.
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value      2.5%................                2.0                2.0                2.0
 ($61.2/t case) **.
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value      3%..................                4.2                4.2                4.2
 ($117/t case) *.
NOX Reduction Monetized Value (at  7%..................               0.11               0.11               0.16
 $2,639/ton) **.
                                   3%..................               0.09               0.09               0.09
Total Benefits [dagger]..........  7% plus CO2 range...          7.8 to 12          7.7 to 11          7.8 to 12
                                   7%..................                8.7                8.6                8.7
                                   3% plus CO2 range...          6.4 to 10          6.4 to 10          6.4 to 10
                                   3%..................                7.4                7.3                7.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental Product Costs          7%..................              -10.4              -10.5              -10.4
 [Dagger].
                                   3%..................               -9.7               -9.8               -9.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Net Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total [dagger]...................  7% plus CO2 range...           18 to 22           18 to 22           18 to 22
                                   7%..................                 19                 19                 19
                                   3% plus CO2 range...           16 to 20           16 to 20           16 to 20
                                   3%..................                 17                 17                 17
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This table presents the annualized costs and benefits associated with IRLs shipped in 2017-2046. These results
  include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2046 from the products purchased in 2017-2046. The results
  account for the incremental variable and fixed costs incurred by manufacturers due to the standard, some of
  which may be incurred in preparation for the rule. The Primary Benefits Estimate assumes the central energy
  prices from AEO 2013 and a decreasing incremental product cost, due to price learning. The Low Benefits
  Estimate assumes the low estimate of energy prices from AEO 2013 and constant real product prices. The High
  Benefits Estimate assumes the high energy price estimates from AEO 2013 and decreasing incremental product
  costs, due to price learning.

[[Page 24075]]

 
** The CO2 values represent global monetized values of the SCC, in 2012$, in 2015 under several scenarios of the
  updated SCC values. The first three cases use the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5%, 3%, and
  2.5% discount rates, respectively. The fourth case represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution
  calculated using a 3% discount rate. The SCC time series used by DOE incorporate an escalation factor. The
  value for NOX is the average of the low and high values used in DOE's analysis.
[dagger] Total Benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are derived using the series corresponding to
  average SCC with 3-percent discount rate. In the rows labeled ``7% plus CO2 range'' and ``3% plus CO2 range,''
  the operating cost and NOX benefits are calculated using the labeled discount rate, and those values are added
  to the full range of CO2 values.
[Dagger] This reduction in product costs occurs because the more efficacious products have substantially longer
  lifetimes than the products that would be eliminated by the proposed standard.

    DOE has tentatively concluded that the proposed standards represent 
the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically 
feasible and economically justified, and would result in the 
significant conservation of energy. DOE further notes that products 
achieving these standard levels are already commercially available. 
Based on the analyses described above, DOE has tentatively concluded 
that the benefits of the proposed standards to the nation (energy 
savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, consumer LCC savings, and 
emission reductions) would outweigh the burdens (loss of INPV for 
manufacturers and LCC increases for some consumers).
    Based on consideration of the public comments DOE receives in 
response to this notice and related information collected and analyzed 
during the course of this rulemaking effort, DOE may adopt energy 
efficiency levels presented in this notice that differ from the 
proposed standards, or some combination of level(s) that incorporate 
the proposed standards in part.

II. Introduction

    The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority 
underlying today's proposal, as well as some of the relevant historical 
background related to the establishment of standards for GSFLs and 
IRLs.

A. Authority

    Title III, Part B of the EPCA, Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-
6309, as codified) established the Energy Conservation Program for 
Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles,\7\ a program covering most 
major household appliances (collectively referred to as ``covered 
products''), which includes the types of GSFLs and IRLs that are the 
subject of this rulemaking. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(14)) EPCA prescribed 
energy conservation standards for these products (42 U.S.C. 
6295(i)(1)), and directed DOE to conduct two cycles of rulemakings to 
determine whether to amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(3)-(5)) 
On July 14, 2009, DOE published a final rule in the Federal Register, 
which completed the first rulemaking cycle to amend energy conservation 
standards for GSFLs and IRLs (hereafter the ``2009 Lamps Rule''). 74 FR 
34080. That rule adopted standards for additional GSFLs, amended the 
definition of ``colored fluorescent lamp'' and ``rated wattage,'' and 
also adopted test procedures applicable to the newly covered GSFLs. 
Information regarding the 2009 Lamps Rule can be found on 
regulations.gov, docket number EERE-2006-STD-0131 at 
www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2006-STD-0131.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, 
Part B was redesignated Part A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This rulemaking encompasses DOE's second cycle of review to 
determine whether the standards in effect for GSFLs and IRLs should be 
amended, including whether the standards should be applicable to 
additional GSFLs.
    Pursuant to EPCA, DOE's energy conservation program for covered 
products consists essentially of four parts: (1) testing; (2) labeling; 
(3) the establishment of Federal energy conservation standards; and (4) 
certification and enforcement procedures. The Federal Trade Commission 
(FTC) is primarily responsible for labeling, and DOE implements the 
remainder of the program. Subject to certain criteria and conditions, 
DOE is required to develop test procedures to measure the energy 
efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of each 
covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6293) Manufacturers of covered products 
must use the prescribed DOE test procedure as the basis for certifying 
to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy 
conservation standards adopted under EPCA and when making 
representations to the public regarding the energy use or efficiency of 
those products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and 6295(s)) Similarly, DOE must use 
these test procedures to determine whether the products comply with 
standards adopted pursuant to EPCA. Id. The DOE test procedures for 
GSFLs and IRLs currently appear at title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR) part 430, subpart B, appendix R.
    DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing amended 
standards for covered products. As indicated above, any amended 
standard for a covered product 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)) Furthermore, DOE may 
not adopt any standard that would not result in the significant 
conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)) Moreover, DOE may not 
prescribe a standard: (1) for certain products, including GSFLs and 
IRLs, if no test procedure has been established for the product, or (2) 
if DOE determines by rule that the proposed standard is not 
technologically feasible or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(3)(A)-(B)) In deciding whether a proposed standard is 
economically justified, DOE must determine whether the benefits of the 
standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make 
this determination after receiving comments on the proposed standard, 
and 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 the covered 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, or as applicable, water, 
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;
    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 and water conservation; and
    7. Other factors the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) considers 
relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))
    EPCA, as codified, also contains what is known as an ``anti-
backsliding'' provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing 
any amended standard that either increases the maximum

[[Page 24076]]

allowable energy use or decreases the minimum required energy 
efficiency of a covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, 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 covered product type (or class) of 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. 6295(o)(4))
    Further, EPCA, as codified, establishes a rebuttable presumption 
that a standard 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 savings during the first year that the 
consumer will receive as a result of the standard, as calculated under 
the applicable test procedure. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii).
    Additionally, 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1) specifies requirements when 
promulgating a standard for a type or class of covered product that has 
two or more subcategories. DOE must specify a different standard level 
than that which applies generally to such type or class of products for 
any group of covered products that have the same function or intended 
use if DOE determines that 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 
performance-related feature which other products within such type (or 
class) do not have and such feature justifies a higher or lower 
standard. (42 U.S.C. 6294(q)(1)) In determining whether a performance-
related feature justifies a different standard for a group of products, 
DOE must consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of the 
feature and other factors DOE deems appropriate. Id. Any rule 
prescribing such a standard must include an explanation of the basis on 
which such higher or lower level was established. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(q)(2))
    Federal energy conservation requirements generally supersede state 
laws or regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, 
and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c)) DOE may, however, grant waivers 
of federal preemption for particular state laws or regulations, in 
accordance with the procedures and other provisions set forth under 42 
U.S.C. 6297(d)).
    Any final rule for new or amended energy conservation standards 
promulgated after July 1, 2010, must also address standby mode and off 
mode energy use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) Specifically, when DOE adopts 
a standard for a covered product after that date, it must, if justified 
by the criteria for adoption of standards under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)), incorporate standby mode and off mode energy use into the 
standard, or, if that is not feasible, adopt a separate standard for 
such energy use for that product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)(A)-(B)) DOE 
has determined that standby mode and off mode do not apply to GSFLs and 
IRLs and that their energy use is accounted for entirely in the active 
mode. Therefore, DOE is not addressing standby and off modes, and will 
only address active mode in this rulemaking.
    DOE has also reviewed this regulation pursuant to Executive Order 
13563, issued on January 18, 2011. 76 FR 3281 (Jan. 21, 2011). EO 13563 
is supplemental to and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, 
and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive 
Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, agencies are required by 
Executive Order 13563 to: (1) Propose or adopt a regulation only upon a 
reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing 
that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor 
regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with 
obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other 
things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative 
regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory 
approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits (including 
potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other 
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the extent 
feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the 
behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; 
and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct 
regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the 
desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing 
information upon which choices can be made by the public.
    DOE emphasizes as well that Executive Order 13563 requires agencies 
to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present 
and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its 
guidance, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has 
emphasized that such techniques may include identifying changing future 
compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or 
anticipated behavioral changes. For the reasons stated in the preamble, 
DOE believes that today's NOPR is consistent with these principles, 
including the requirement that, to the extent permitted by law, 
benefits justify costs and that net benefits are maximized. Consistent 
with EO 13563, and the range of impacts analyzed in this rulemaking, 
the energy efficiency standard proposed herein by DOE achieves maximum 
net benefits.

B. Background

1. Current Standards
    In the 2009 Lamps Rule, DOE prescribed the current energy 
conservation standards for GSFLs and IRLs manufactured on or after July 
14, 2012 (hereafter the ``July 2012 standards''). 74 FR 34080. The 
current standards are set forth in Table II.1 and Table II.2.

  Table II.1--July 2012 Standards for General Service Fluorescent Lamps
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Minimum
             Lamp type                Correlated color     average lamp
                                         temperature       efficacy lm/W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Four-Foot Medium Bipin............  4,500 K and 4,500 K and 4,500 K and 4,500 K and 4,500 K and 4,500 K and 
                                                               inches                                  W
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
40-205.....................  Standard Spectrum.........               >2.5            >=125 V        6.8*P\0.27\
                                                                                       =125 V        5.7*P\0.27\
                                                                                       2.5        \8\ >=125 V        5.8*P\0.27\
                                                                                       =125 V        4.9*P\0.27\
                                                                                       W), the rated wattage should be less than or equal to 65 W, not 
greater than 65 W. The revised table should read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Shown correctly in this table; erroneously written as 
``W
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4-foot medium bipin...................  >35 W...................              69            75.0   Nov. 1, 1995.
                                        35 W...................              69            68.0   Nov. 1, 1995.
                                        65 W...................              69            80.0    May 1, 1994.
                                        100 W..................              69            80.0    May 1, 1994.
                                        W
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
40-205..........................  Standard Spectrum.............            >2.5         >=125 V     6.8*P\0.27\
                                                                                          =125 V     5.7*P\0.27\
                                                                                          2 .5         >=125 V     5.8*P\0.27\
                                                                                          =125 V     4.9*P\0.27\
                                                                                          regulations.gov under docket number EERE-2011-BT-STD-
0006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE issued the preliminary analysis for this rulemaking on February 
20, 2013 and published it in the Federal Register on February 28, 2013. 
78 FR 13563 (February 28, 2013). DOE posted the preliminary analysis, 
as well as the complete preliminary technical support document (TSD), 
on its Web site.\11\ The preliminary TSD includes the results of the 
following DOE preliminary analyses: (1) market and technology 
assessment; (2) screening analysis; (3) engineering analysis; (4) 
energy use characterization;

[[Page 24079]]

(5) product price determinations; (6) LCC and PBP analyses; (7) 
shipments analysis; and (8) national impact analysis (NIA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The preliminary analysis, preliminary TSD, and preliminary 
analysis public meeting information are available at regulations.gov 
under docket number EERE-2011-BT-STD-0006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the preliminary analysis, DOE described and sought comment on 
the analytical framework, models, and tools (e.g., LCC and national 
energy savings [NES] spreadsheets) DOE used to analyze the impacts of 
energy conservation standards for GSFLs and IRLs. Specifically, DOE 
invited comment on the following issues: (1) consideration of 
additional GSFLs; (2) amended definitions; (3) market trends; (4) 
technology options; (5) product classes; (6) market and technology 
assessment methodology; (7) screening of design options; (8) 
representative product classes; (9) baseline lamps; (10) more 
efficacious substitutes; (11) lamp-and-ballast systems; (12) 4-foot T5 
miniature bipin (MiniBP) HO model lamp; (13) candidate standard levels 
(CSLs); (14) compliance requirements; (15) scaling to product classes 
not analyzed; (16) engineering analysis methodology; (17) product price 
determination; (18) GSFL ballast prices; (19) dimmed GSFL systems; (20) 
lighting controls market penetration; (21) lighting controls 
performance characteristics; (22) operating profiles for energy use 
characterization; (23) residential GSFL LCC analysis; (24) sales tax in 
the LCC analysis; (25) spacing adjustments in the LCC analysis; (26) 
LCC analysis overall methodology and results; (27) T5s in the 
residential market; (28) the shipments and national impact analyses; 
(29) LCC subgroups; (30) small businesses that manufacture GSFLs and 
IRLs; (31) manufacturer subgroup analysis; (32) key issues and data for 
the manufacturer impact analysis (MIA); (33) valuing airborne emission 
reductions; (34) data and programs for the regulatory impact analysis 
(RIA); and (35) TSLs. (See executive summary and chapter 2 of the 
preliminary TSD.)
    DOE held a public meeting on April 9, 2013, to present the 
methodologies and results for the preliminary analyses. Manufacturers, 
trade associations, and environmental advocates attended the meeting. 
The participants discussed multiple issues, including the methodology 
and results of the market and technology assessment, screening 
analysis, engineering analysis, product price determination, energy 
use, LCC analysis, shipments analysis, and NIA. Other issues brought up 
during the public meeting included regulatory authority and rulemaking 
schedule. Finally, the MIA and additional analyses that are undertaken 
during the NOPR stage were discussed. The comments received during the 
public meeting, along with the written comments submitted to DOE since 
publication of the preliminary analysis, have contributed to DOE's 
proposed resolution of the issues in this rulemaking. This NOPR 
responds to the issues raised in these public comments.
4. Test Procedure
    EPCA sets forth generally applicable criteria and procedures for 
DOE's adoption and amendment of test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6293) 
Manufacturers of covered products must use these test procedures to 
certify to DOE that their product complies with EPCA energy 
conservation standards and to quantify the efficiency of their product. 
Similarly, DOE uses the test procedure to determine compliance with 
energy conservation standards. DOE's test procedures for fluorescent 
and incandescent reflector lamps are set forth in title 10 of the CFR, 
part 430, subpart B, appendix R. These test procedures provide 
instructions for measuring GSFL and IRL performance, largely by 
incorporating industry standards. The test procedures were updated in a 
final rule published in July 2009. 74 FR 31829 (July 6, 2009). The rule 
updated citations to industry standards and made several other 
modifications. DOE further amended the test procedures to update 
references to industry standards for GSFLs in a final rule published in 
January 2012. 77 FR 4203 (January 27, 2012).
Standby and Off Mode Energy Consumption
    EPCA requires 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)) EPCA defines active mode as the condition 
in which an energy-using piece of equipment is connected to a main 
power source, has been activated, and provides one or more main 
functions. (42 U.S.C. 6295)(gg)(1)(A)) Standby mode is defined as the 
condition in which an energy-using piece of equipment is connected to a 
main power source and offers one or more of the following user-oriented 
or protective functions: facilitating the activation or deactivation of 
other functions (including active mode) by remote switch (including 
remote control), internal sensor, or timer; or providing continuous 
functions, including information or status displays (including clocks) 
or sensor-based functions. Id. Off mode is defined as the condition in 
which an energy-using piece of equipment is connected to a main power 
source, and is not providing any standby or active mode function. Id.
    To satisfy the EPCA definitions of standby mode and off mode (42 
U.S.C. 6295(gg)(1)), the lamp must not be providing any active mode 
function (i.e., emitting light). However, to reach such a state, the 
lamp must be entirely disconnected from the main power source (i.e., 
switched off), thereby not satisfying the requirements of operating in 
off mode or standby mode. Further, neither GSFLs nor IRLs covered under 
this rulemaking provide any secondary user-oriented or protection 
functions or continuous standby mode functions. Thus, these lamps do 
not satisfy the EPCA definition of standby mode. While EPCA allows DOE 
to amend the mode definitions (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(1)(B)), DOE believes 
that the energy use of GSFLs and IRLs is accounted for entirely in the 
active mode. Therefore, DOE is not addressing lamp operation in the 
standby and off modes in this rulemaking.

III. General Discussion

A. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage

    When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE 
divides covered products into product classes by the type of energy 
used or by capacity or other performance-related features that 
justifies a different standard. In making a determination whether a 
performance-related feature justifies a different standard, DOE must 
consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of the feature and 
other factors DOE determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) For 
further details on the scope of coverage for this rulemaking, see 
section V. For further details on product classes, see section VI.C and 
chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD.

B. Technological Feasibility

1. General
    In each standards rulemaking, DOE conducts a screening analysis 
based on information gathered on all current technology options and 
prototype designs that could improve the efficiency of the products or 
equipment that are the subject of the rulemaking. As the first step in 
such an analysis, DOE develops a list of technology options for 
consideration in consultation with manufacturers, design engineers, and 
other interested parties. DOE then determines which of those means for 
improving efficiency are technologically feasible. DOE considers 
technologies incorporated in commercially available products or in 
working prototypes to be

[[Page 24080]]

technologically feasible. 10 CFR 430, subpart C, appendix A, section 
4(a)(4)(i)
    After DOE has determined that particular technology options are 
technologically feasible, it further evaluates each technology option 
in light of the following additional screening criteria: (1) 
practicability to manufacture, install, or service; (2) adverse impacts 
on product utility or availability; and (3) adverse impacts on health 
or safety. Section VI.B of this notice discusses the results of the 
screening analysis for GSFLs and IRLs, particularly the designs DOE 
considered, those it screened out, and those that are the basis for the 
TSLs in this rulemaking. For further details on the screening analysis 
for this rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD.
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
    When DOE proposes to adopt an amended standard for a type or class 
of covered product, it must determine the maximum improvement in energy 
efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is technologically 
feasible for such product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1)) Accordingly, in the 
engineering analysis, DOE determined the maximum technologically 
feasible (``max tech'') improvements in energy efficiency for GSFLs and 
IRLs, using the design parameters for the most efficient products 
available on the market or in working prototypes. (See chapter 5 of the 
NOPR TSD.) The max tech levels that DOE determined for this rulemaking 
are described in section VI.D.2.f for GFSLs and VI.D.3.e for IRLs of 
this proposed rule.

C. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings
    For each TSL, DOE projected energy savings from the products that 
are the subject of this rulemaking purchased in the 30-year period that 
begins in the year of compliance with any amended standards (2017-
2046). The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of products 
purchased in the 30-year period.\12\ DOE quantified the energy savings 
attributable to each TSL as the difference in energy consumption 
between each standards case and the base case. The base case represents 
a projection of energy consumption in the absence of amended mandatory 
efficiency standards, and considers market forces and policies that 
affect demand for more efficient products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ DOE previously presented energy savings results for the 30-
year period that begins in the year of compliance. In the 
calculation of economic impacts, however, DOE considered operating 
cost savings measured over the entire lifetime of products purchased 
in the 30-year period. DOE has modified its presentation of NES to 
be consistent with the approach used for its national economic 
analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE used its NIA spreadsheet model to estimate energy savings from 
amended standards for the products that are the subject of this 
rulemaking. The NIA spreadsheet model (described in section VI.J of 
this notice) calculates energy savings in site energy, which is the 
energy directly consumed by products at the locations where they are 
used. For electricity, DOE reports NES in terms of the savings in the 
energy that is used to generate and transmit the site electricity. To 
calculate this quantity, DOE derives annual conversion factors from the 
model used to prepare the U.S. Energy Information Administration's 
(EIA's) Annual Energy Outlook (AEO).
    DOE also estimates full-fuel-cycle (FFC) energy savings. 76 FR 
51282 (Aug. 18, 2011), as amended at 77 FR 49701 (August 17, 2012). The 
FFC metric includes the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and 
transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels), 
and thus presents a more complete picture of the impacts of energy 
efficiency standards. DOE's approach is based on calculation of an FFC 
multiplier for each of the energy types used by covered products. For 
more information on FFC energy savings, see section VI.J.
2. Significance of Savings
    As noted above, 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B) prevents DOE from adopting 
a standard for a covered product unless such standard would result in 
``significant'' energy savings. Although the term ``significant'' is 
not defined in the Act, the 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.'' The energy 
savings for all of the TSLs considered in this rulemaking (presented in 
section VII.A) are nontrivial, and, therefore, DOE considers them 
``significant'' within the meaning of section 325 of EPCA.

D. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria
    EPCA provides seven factors to be evaluated in determining whether 
a potential energy conservation standard 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 this rulemaking.
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
    In determining the impacts of an amended standard on manufacturers, 
DOE first uses an annual cash-flow approach to determine the 
quantitative impacts. This step includes both a short-term assessment--
based on the cost and capital requirements during the period between 
when a regulation is issued and when entities must comply with the 
regulation--and a long-term assessment over a 30-year period. The 
industry-wide impacts analyzed include INPV, which values the industry 
on the basis of expected future cash flows; cash flows by year; changes 
in revenue and income; and other measures of impact, as appropriate. 
Second, DOE analyzes and reports the impacts on different types of 
manufacturers, including impacts on small manufacturers. Third, DOE 
considers the impact of standards on domestic manufacturer employment 
and manufacturing capacity, as well as the potential for standards to 
result in plant closures and loss of capital investment. Finally, DOE 
takes into account cumulative impacts of various DOE regulations and 
other regulatory requirements on manufacturers. For this rulemaking, 
these impacts include those resulting from the 2009 Lamps Rule.
    For individual consumers, measures of economic impact include the 
changes in LCC and PBP associated with new or amended standards. These 
measures are discussed further in the following section. For consumers 
in the aggregate, DOE also calculates the national NPV of the economic 
impacts applicable to a particular rulemaking. DOE also evaluates the 
LCC impacts of potential standards on identifiable subgroups of 
consumers that may be affected disproportionately by a national 
standard.
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price
    EPCA requires DOE to consider the savings in operating costs 
throughout the estimated average life of the covered product compared 
to any increase in the price of the covered product that is likely to 
result from the imposition of the standard. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducts this comparison in its LCC and PBP 
analysis. The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of a product 
(including its installation) and the operating expense (including 
energy, maintenance, and repair expenditures) discounted over the 
lifetime of the product. To account for uncertainty and variability in 
specific inputs, such as product lifetime and discount rate, DOE uses a

[[Page 24081]]

distribution of values, with probabilities attached to each value. For 
its analysis, DOE assumes that consumers will purchase the covered 
products in the first year of compliance with amended standards.
    The LCC savings and the PBP for the considered efficacy levels 
(ELs) are calculated relative to a base case that reflects projected 
market trends in the absence of amended standards. DOE identifies the 
percentage of consumers estimated to receive LCC savings or experience 
an LCC increase, in addition to the average LCC savings associated with 
a particular standard level.
c. Energy Savings
    Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory 
requirement for imposing an energy conservation standard, EPCA requires 
DOE, in determining the economic justification of a 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 
discussed in section VI.J, DOE uses the NIA spreadsheet to project NES.
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
    In establishing classes of products, and in evaluating design 
options and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE evaluates 
standards that would not lessen the utility or performance of the 
considered products. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) The standards 
proposed in today's notice will not reduce the utility or performance 
of the products under consideration in this rulemaking.
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
    EPCA directs DOE to consider the impact of any lessening of 
competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is 
likely to result from the imposition of a standard. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) It also directs the Attorney General to determine 
the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result 
from a proposed standard and to transmit such determination to the 
Secretary, together with an analysis of the nature and extent of the 
impact. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2) (B)(ii)) DOE will transmit a copy of 
today's proposed rule to the Attorney General with a request that the 
U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) provide its determination on this 
issue. DOE will address the Attorney General's determination in the 
final rule.
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
    The energy savings from the proposed standards are likely to 
provide improvements to the security and reliability of the nation's 
energy system. Reductions in the demand for electricity also may result 
in reduced costs for maintaining the reliability of the nation's 
electricity system. DOE conducts a utility impact analysis to estimate 
how standards may affect the nation's needed power generation capacity.
    The proposed standards also are likely to result in environmental 
benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air pollutants and 
greenhouse gases (GHGs) associated with energy production. DOE reports 
the emissions impacts from today's standards, and from each TSL it 
considered, in section VI.L of this notice. DOE also reports estimates 
of the economic value of emissions reductions resulting from the 
considered TSLs.
g. Other Factors
    EPCA allows the Secretary, 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))
2. Rebuttable Presumption
    As set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii), EPCA creates a 
rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is 
economically justified if the additional cost to the consumer of a 
product that meets the standard is less than three times the value of 
the first year's energy savings resulting from the standard, as 
calculated under the applicable DOE test procedure. DOE's LCC and PBP 
analyses generate values used to calculate the effects that proposed 
energy conservation standards would have on the payback period for 
consumers. These analyses include, but are not limited to, the 3-year 
payback period contemplated under the rebuttable-presumption test. In 
addition, DOE routinely conducts an economic analysis that considers 
the full range of impacts to consumers, manufacturers, the nation, and 
the environment, as required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The 
results of this analysis serve as the basis for DOE's evaluation of the 
economic justification for a potential standard level (thereby 
supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of 
economic justification). The rebuttable presumption payback calculation 
is discussed in section III.D of this proposed rule.

IV. Issues Affecting Rulemaking Schedule

    In the schedule presented in the framework document of this 
rulemaking, the preliminary analysis was scheduled to be published in 
September 2012, the NOPR in August 2013, and the final rule 
establishing any amended standards in 2014. During the framework stage, 
stakeholders expressed concerns that because the 2009 Lamps Rule 
standards would require compliance July 14, 2012, the preliminary 
analysis published in September 2012 would not be able to account for 
the impacts of the July 2012 standards. DOE noted these concerns and 
extended the schedule, publishing the preliminary analysis in February 
2013. DOE received additional comments regarding the timing of this 
rulemaking in the preliminary analysis phase.
    Philips questioned whether this rulemaking is statutorily required 
to be completed at this time, specifically asking if EPAct 1992 
provided a date by which the final rule of the second cycle of energy 
conservation standards for GSFLs and IRLs has to be published. 
(Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 27-28)
    In a Joint Comment, the Appliance Standards Awareness Project 
(ASAP), the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the Alliance to 
Save Energy, the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy 
(ACEEE), the Consumer Federation of America, and the National Consumer 
Law Center, (hereafter the ``Joint Comment'') and Northeast Energy 
Efficiency Partnerships (NEEP) emphasized that EPAct 1992 requires DOE 
to complete two rounds of rulemakings for IRLs and GSFLs. The Joint 
Comment noted that final rule of the first cycle was required to be 
published by April 1997. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(3)) DOE was required to 
publish the final rule of the second cycle five years later. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(i)(4)) NEEP and the Joint Comment stated that as DOE failed to 
publish a final rule for the first cycle until July 2009, it is not 
possible for DOE to meet the required deadline date for the second 
cycle. Therefore, NEEP and the Joint Comment agreed that the second 
cycle should occur within the interval contemplated by Congress when it 
set out the original deadlines, and a final rule should be issued no 
later than 2014. (NEEP, No. 33 at p. 1; Joint Comment, No. 35 at pp. 1-
2) ASAP agreed stating that given that the 2009 Lamps Rule was 
complete, it was not

[[Page 24082]]

discretionary for DOE to have any other schedule than the one currently 
in place for this rulemaking. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 
at pp. 192-193)
    General Electric (GE) stated its concern that this rulemaking is 
occurring too soon after the 2009 Lamps Rule, making it difficult for 
manufacturers to recover investments in new technologies or to develop 
products meeting even higher standards. GE indicated that the close 
proximity of the rulemakings will have a severe and negative impact on 
manufacturers. (GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at p. 192) 
National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) noted that for 
certain GSFL product classes, Office of Hearing and Appeals (OHA) 
issued waivers providing a stay of enforcement for many manufacturers 
due to the limited availability of rare earth phosphors. NEMA pointed 
out that as a result, the July 2012 standards still have not been fully 
implemented. (Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 27-28; 
NEMA, No. 36 at p. 1) Therefore, NEMA stated that the market has not 
fully shifted to reflect the impacts of the July 2012 standards and 
there is little to no accurate information available regarding future 
market shares and technology capability. Hence, NEMA concluded that as 
it is too soon after the 2009 Lamps Rule to set new energy conservation 
standards, DOE and the Secretary should declare no new standard in this 
rulemaking. (NEMA, No. 36 at p. 1) Further, NEMA called attention to 
DOE's newer authority to review energy conservation standards six years 
after a final rule is published. NEMA found that this review will 
provide an opportunity to better assess standards for GSFLs and IRLs. 
(NEMA, No. 36 at pp. 1-2)
    The California investor-owned utilities, including Pacific Gas and 
Electric Company (PG&E), Southern California Gas Company (SCGC), San 
Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E), and Southern California Edison (SCE), 
(hereafter the ``CA IOUs'') approved of the current timeline for this 
rulemaking. They commented that because DOE waited until after the July 
2012 standards required compliance before completing the preliminary 
analysis and due to the amount of time before standards promulgated by 
this rulemaking would require compliance, now is the correct time to 
proceed with the second cycle of energy conservation standards for 
these products. (CA IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 30-
31)
    The Joint Comment emphasized the significance of this rulemaking as 
a reason to proceed within the five-year timeframe. They stated that 
according to the 2010 U.S. Lighting Market Characterization (2010 
LMC),\13\ the U.S. inventory of installed IRLs was estimated to be in 
excess of 641 million lamps, representing almost 8 percent of the total 
installed lighting base, consuming an estimated 39 terawatt hours (TWh) 
annually. The 2010 LMC estimated an inventory of nearly 2.4 billion 
GSFLs, representing 29 percent of the total installed base, consuming 
approximately 294 TWh annually. While the Joint Comment recognized that 
these numbers will likely begin to decrease over time with the 
increased prevalence of light-emitting diode (LED) alternatives, they 
noted that IRLs and GSFLs will still likely command a significant 
portion of the lighting market for decades to come, as a perceived 
cheaper alternative to LEDs. Due to this and the findings of the 
preliminary analysis that this rulemaking offers the potential for 
significant, cost-effective savings for U.S. consumers and businesses, 
the Joint Comment urged DOE to place this rulemaking's completion as a 
high priority. (Joint Comment, No. 35 at p. 2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ U.S. Department of Energy. 2010 U.S. Lighting Market 
Characterization. January 2012. Available at http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/2010-lmc-final-jan-2012.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE is obligated to conduct this second review of GSFL and IRL 
standards. EPCA required DOE to initiate the first review of standards 
no earlier than three years after October 24, 1992, and publish a final 
rule no later than four years and six months after that date. 42 U.S.C. 
6295(i)(3) The second review of standards was to be initiated no 
earlier than eight years after October 24, 1992, and the final rule 
published no later than nine years and six months after that date. 42 
U.S.C. 6295(i)(4) DOE published the final rule for the first review of 
standards in July 2009. DOE is conducting this rulemaking to satisfy 
the EPCA requirement for a second review of the standards. Applying the 
schedule DOE developed for the second review of standards would result 
in an interval of five years between the publications of the final 
rules for the first and second review of standards, and any final rule 
for this rulemaking would be published in 2014.
    To address comments that product availability, product pricing, and 
investment decisions in response to the July 2012 standards would not 
be finalized within the proposed scheduled, DOE delayed the publication 
of the preliminary analysis to update its product databases and 
assessments based on changes that took place after the compliance date 
on July 14, 2012. Additionally, for the preliminary analysis stage, DOE 
obtained information during interviews with manufacturers regarding new 
product lines they were preparing to launch to ensure that DOE's 
analysis captured the initial market impacts of the July 2012 
standards. The analysis presented in this NOPR was updated and 
finalized more than a year after the July 2012 standards required 
compliance, reflecting the most recent data available. Further, in 
manufacturer interviews conducted for this NOPR, DOE learned that most 
manufacturers were not planning to introduce any additional covered 
products to market. Therefore, DOE believes that the revised schedule 
for this GSFL and IRL rulemaking has allowed the preliminary analysis 
and NOPR analysis to be conducted so as to have adequately captured the 
impacts of the July 2012 standards for these products. Any additional 
data received will be considered in the development of any final rule.

V. Issues Affecting Scope

A. Clarifications of General Service Fluorescent Lamp Definition

    The scope of this rulemaking for GSFLs is defined by the terms 
``fluorescent lamp'' and ``general service fluorescent lamp.'' 10 CFR 
430.2 The definition of general service fluorescent lamp includes 
certain exemptions. DOE has received several questions on the 
application of these exemptions. Therefore, in the preliminary analysis 
DOE evaluated each exemption and determined that the following 
exemption categories could be further clarified: ``impact-resistant 
fluorescent lamps,'' ``reflectorized or aperture lamps,'' ``fluorescent 
lamps designed for use in reprographic equipment,'' and ``lamps 
primarily designed to produce radiation in the ultra-violet region of 
the spectrum.'' For these exemption categories, the terminology was 
either not defined elsewhere or the application of the exemption could 
be further clarified. DOE examined product literature and industry 
reference sources to determine language that would further explain 
these exemptions. DOE determined that the exemptions should be 
clarified as follows:
    Impact-resistant fluorescent lamp means a lamp that:
    a. Has a coating or equivalent technology that is compliant with 
NSF/ANSI 51 (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3) and designed 
to contain the glass if the glass envelope of the lamp is broken; and

[[Page 24083]]

    b. Is designated and marketed for the intended application, with:
    i. The designation on the lamp packaging; and
    ii. Marketing materials that identify the lamp as being impact-
resistant, shatter-resistant, shatter-proof, or shatter-protected.
    Reflectorized or aperture lamp means a fluorescent lamp that 
contains an inner reflective coating on the bulb to direct light.
    Fluorescent lamp designed for use in reprographic equipment means a 
fluorescent lamp intended for use in equipment used to reproduce, 
reprint, or copy graphic material.
    Lamps primarily designed to produce radiation in the ultra-violet 
region of the spectrum mean fluorescent lamps that primarily emit light 
in the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum where light has a 
wavelength between 10 and 400 nanometers.
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE also considered clarifications of 
the terms ``designed'' and ``marketed'' as applied to definitions of 
lighting products covered under DOE standards. These terms are 
generally used to ensure that exemptions from applicable standards 
apply only to lamps used in certain intended applications and/or 
functions. Therefore, DOE considered the terms ``designed,'' 
``designated,'' ``designation,'' ``designated and marketed,'' and 
``designed and marketed,'' for covered lighting products to mean that 
manufacturers explicitly state the intended application of the lamp in 
a publicly available document (e.g., product literature, catalogs, 
packaging labels, and labels on the product itself).
    NEMA agreed with the proposed clarifications to definitions for 
GSFLs. (NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at p. 45; NEMA, No. 36 
at pp. 4-5) NEMA noted that the definitions have been in use since the 
early 1990s and are well understood within the industry; the additional 
clarification suggested is in line with current industry practice. NEMA 
stated that no further definitions are required beyond this 
clarification. (NEMA, No. 36 at pp. 4-5)
    The CA IOUs agreed that DOE should clearly define the lamp types 
exempted from standards. Specifically, the CA IOUs recommended further 
clarifying the definition for fluorescent lamps ``designed for cold 
temperature applications.'' (CA IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 
at pp. 31-32; CA IOUs, No. 32 at p. 12) The CA IOUs expressed concern 
that that many common GSFLs are currently being designed with amalgam 
to be operated in lower temperatures, but without a negative effect on 
the lamps' efficacy and not intended to be exempt from standards. The 
CA IOUs stated their understanding that the exemption for cold 
temperature lamps has been preserved to accommodate uncommon lamps 
designed to be used outdoors in extreme, sub-freezing temperatures that 
cannot meet the efficacy requirements established for GSFLs. (CA IOUs, 
No. 32 at p. 12)
    The Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) and Northwest Power 
and Conservation Council (NPCC) agreed with the CA IOUs and found the 
descriptor ``designed for cold temperature applications'' to be too 
vague to adequately differentiate between products that are covered 
currently and those that have design features that make it impossible 
for them to meet the standards. NEEA and NPCC commented that this lack 
of clarity seems to create a significant loophole. (NEEA and NPCC, No. 
34 at p. 3) In addition to clearly defining the exempt cold temperature 
lamps, the CA IOUs asked DOE to revisit the market share and 
performance of these lamps to confirm that they do in fact justify an 
exemption. (CA IOUs, No. 32 at p. 12)
    The exemption for cold temperature lamps is stated in the CFR as 
``Fluorescent lamps specifically designed for cold temperature 
applications.'' Further the CFR provides a definition for ``cold 
temperature fluorescent lamp'' stated as follows:
    Cold temperature fluorescent lamp means a fluorescent lamp 
specifically designed to start at -20[emsp14][deg]F when used with a 
ballast conforming to the requirements of American National Standards 
Institute (ANSI) C78.81 (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3) 
and ANSI C78.901 (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3), and is 
expressly designated as a cold temperature lamp both in markings on the 
lamp and in marketing materials, including catalogs, sales literature, 
and promotional material. 10 CFR 430.2
    Cold weather starting is accomplished through both the lamp and 
ballast design. Product literature indicates that cold temperature 
fluorescent lamps paired with the appropriate ballast can be started at 
temperatures as low as -20[emsp14][deg]F. Therefore, the existing 
definition, which includes the specific starting temperature and the 
requirement of being marketed and designed for cold temperature 
applications, is a sufficient description of fluorescent lamps designed 
to be operated in cold temperatures. Additionally, product offerings of 
cold temperature fluorescent lamps remain limited, indicating their 
specialty use. Hence, DOE is not proposing any further clarification 
for the exemption category of fluorescent lamps designed for cold 
temperature applications.
    DOE did not receive any further comment on definitions considered 
in the preliminary analysis. In this NOPR, DOE is also considering 
providing a definition for 700 series fluorescent lamps. OHA has 
granted several manufacturers waivers from standards for their 700 
series T8 products. (See section VI.D.2.a for further discussion 
regarding OHA waivers.) A definition for 700 series lamps would provide 
clarification regarding these lamp types.
    The term ``700 series'' is widely used in industry when referring 
to fluorescent lamps with a CRI in the range of 70 to 79. The 
Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) Lighting 
Handbook \14\ presents fluorescent lamp nomenclature and states that 
color is represented by a three digit number (i.e., 735 or 835) 
beginning with the first digit of the lamp's CRI (i.e., 7 or 8) and 
followed by the first two digits of the lamp's correlated color 
temperature (CCT) (e.g., 30, 35, 41). DOE explained this nomenclature 
in chapter 3 of the 2009 Lamps Rule TSD,\15\ stating that typically 
lamps with a CRI in the 60s use only less efficient halophosphors, 
while lamps with a CRI in the 70s (700 series phosphor) and in the 80s 
(800 series phosphor) use more efficient rare earth phosphors. The DOE 
test procedure at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix R requires CRI 
to be measured and reported to demonstrate compliance with standards. 
Thus, the measured CRI of a lamp is used to determine if the lamp 
qualifies as a 700 series lamp. Hence DOE is proposing to define 700 
series fluorescent lamps to mean a fluorescent lamp with a CRI that is 
in the range of 70 to 79.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ DiLaura, D. L., K. W. Houser, R. G. Mistrick, and G. R. 
Steffy. Lighting Handbook: Reference and Application, 10th Edition. 
New York: IESNA, 2011.
    \15\ The 2009 Lamps Rule TSD is available at 
www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2006-STD-0131-0147.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this NOPR, DOE is proposing the definitions as previously 
specified in this section and in the preliminary analysis for ``impact-
resistant fluorescent lamps,'' ``reflectorized or aperture lamps,'' 
``fluorescent lamps designed for use in reprographic equipment,'' and 
``lamps primarily designed to produce radiation in the ultra-violet 
region of the spectrum.'' DOE is also proposing a definition of 
``designed and marketed.'' This definition is intended to apply to the 
use of these and similar terms (i.e., designated or labeled) in any

[[Page 24084]]

grammatical form or combination. In addition, DOE is proposing a 
definition for ``700 series fluorescent lamp.''

B. General Service Fluorescent Lamp Scope of Coverage

1. Additional General Service Fluorescent Lamp Types
    In this rulemaking, DOE evaluates energy efficiency standards for 
additional GSFLs beyond those for which standards have already been 
established. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(5)) Any additional GSFLs considered for 
coverage under standards must meet the definition of a fluorescent lamp 
in 42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(A); satisfy the majority of fluorescent lighting 
applications; not be within the exclusions specified in 42 U.S.C. 
6291(30)(B); and not already be subject to energy conservation 
standards. 73 FR 13620, 13629 (March 13, 2008). For each additional 
GSFLs that meets these criteria, DOE then assesses whether standards 
could result in significant energy savings and are technologically 
feasible and economically justified. Standards for any applicable 
additional GSFLs are adopted based on the same criteria used to set new 
or amended standards for products pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(o).
    Using these criteria, DOE evaluated whether the following GSFL 
types warranted coverage under standards: (1) pin base compact 
fluorescent lamps (CFLs); (2) non-linear fluorescent lamps (e.g., 
circline); and (3) fluorescent lamps with alternate lengths (e.g., 2-, 
3-, and 5-foot lamps).
    For pin base CFLs, DOE determined that these lamp types fall within 
the definition of ``general service lamps,'' which excludes GSFLs. (42 
U.S.C. 6291(30)(BB)) Therefore, these lamp types cannot be considered 
under this rulemaking. DOE is evaluating these lamp types in the 
rulemaking for general service lamps. Documents related to this 
rulemaking can be found on regulations.gov, docket number EERE-2013-BT-
STD-0051.
    For non-linear fluorescent lamps, DOE considered circline 
fluorescent lamps, the primary shape not currently covered under 
standards. DOE used the miscellaneous category of fluorescent lamps 
reported by the 2010 LMC to determine market share and energy 
consumption of circline fluorescent lamps. This category included 
fluorescent lamps other than the T5, T8, T12 linear lamps, and T8 and 
T12 U-shaped lamps, and is therefore mainly comprised of circline lamps 
and lamps with unknown characteristics. The 2010 LMC reported this 
category made up 2.1 percent of lighting and consumed 4 TWh of 
electricity in 2010. Interviews with manufacturers also confirmed the 
low market share of these lamp types. Therefore, DOE tentatively 
concluded that coverage should not be expanded to non-linear 
fluorescent lamps as standards would not likely result in significant 
energy savings.
    For linear lengths not already covered by standards, DOE focused on 
linear medium bipin (MBP) fluorescent lamps ranging from 1 to 6 feet, 
with the exception of the 4-foot MBP, which is already subject to 
standards. DOE's analysis showed that 5- and 6-foot lengths comprise a 
very low percentage of the linear MBP product offerings. For the T8 
\16\ MBP lamps with lengths less than 4 feet, according to the 2010 
LMC, these lamps comprised about 0.2 percent of all installed lighting 
and consumed 1 TWh of electricity in 2010. Feedback from manufacturers 
also indicated a low market share for these lamp types. Therefore, DOE 
tentatively concluded that coverage should not be expanded to linear 
fluorescents of lengths not covered by standards as standards would not 
likely result in significant energy savings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The majority of T12 MBP lamps with lengths less than 4 feet 
do not comply with the July 2012 standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE received several comments on its assessment not to extend 
coverage to linear fluorescent lamps of lengths not already covered. In 
particular, several stakeholders asserted that the 2-foot linear 
fluorescent lamps comprised a market share that warranted coverage 
under standards. The CA IOUs urged DOE to reassess the 2-foot linear 
fluorescent lamp market share and recommended that they be included in 
the scope of coverage of this rulemaking. (CA IOUs, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 32-33; CA IOUs, No. 32 at pp. 11-12) NEEA and 
NPCC advised that 2-foot linear fluorescent lamps be included under 
scope of coverage and in their own product class, if appropriate. (NEEA 
and NPCC, No. 34 at pp. 2-3) Specifically, the CA IOUs asserted that 
DOE should have considered the proportion of GSFL market share that 
these lamps represent and also included T12 lamps in its assessment, as 
these lamps would be covered by standards for 2-foot linear lamps. (CA 
IOUs, No. 32 at pp. 11-12)
    In assessing whether additional GSFL types should be included under 
coverage of standards in the preliminary analysis, DOE evaluated the 
market share and energy consumption of the lamp type relative to the 
entire lighting market. DOE's analysis provided a comprehensive 
representation of the lamp type and the energy savings potential of 
standards for the lamp type. In the NOPR, DOE also evaluated market 
share relative to the entire fluorescent lamp market. Based on the 2010 
LMC, T8 MBP lamps less than 4 feet comprised 0.7 percent of the 
fluorescent lamp market versus 0.2 percent of the entire lighting 
market. Therefore, the evaluation of these lamps relative to the 
fluorescent lamp market also indicates that 2-foot MBP linear lamps 
have a very low market share.
    DOE excluded T12 lamps from this analysis to reflect future market 
trends. The 2011 final rule amending energy conservation standards for 
fluorescent lamp ballasts (hereafter the ``2011 Ballast Rule''), which 
will require compliance on November 14, 2014, set standards difficult 
for T12 ballasts to meet.\17\ 76 FR 70548 (Nov. 14, 2011). Therefore, 
the market will likely shift away from T12 lamps. Additionally, 
historical shipments of most T12 lamps have been decreasing steadily 
and manufacturer feedback from interviews suggests that this trend will 
continue. Therefore, DOE focused on T8 lamps when evaluating the energy 
savings of additional GSFL types to include under coverage of 
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The full text and all related documents of the 2011 Ballast 
Rule can be found on regulations.gov, docket number EERE-2007-BT-
STD-0016 at www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2007-BT-STD-
0016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CA IOUs also asserted that in the 2010 LMC, T8 and T12 lamps 
less than 4 feet have GSFL market shares very similar to the market 
shares for three other product types currently subject to DOE 
standards: T8 lamps greater than 4 feet (1.4 percent of the linear 
fluorescent market), T8 U-shaped lamps (2 percent of the linear 
fluorescent market), and T12 U-shaped lamps (0.5 percent of the linear 
fluorescent market). (CA IOUs, No. 32 at pp. 11-12; NEEA and NPCC, No. 
34 at pp. 2-3)
    The standards for GSFL types cited by the CA IOUs, specifically, 
the 2-foot U-shaped lamps, 8-foot SP slimline lamps, and 8-foot 
recessed double contact (RDC) HO lamps, were established in EPAct 1992. 
(42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(1)) As noted, for this rulemaking, in determining 
whether additional GSFL types should be covered under standards 
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(5) DOE considers several criteria. In 
particular, DOE assesses whether a potential standard for an additional 
GSFL type would result in significant energy savings. Therefore, DOE 
examined parameters such as market share and energy consumption of each 
lamp type under consideration relative to the fluorescent lighting

[[Page 24085]]

market. DOE believes that this evaluation of each potential additional 
GSFL provides the most useful indication of whether significant energy 
savings could be gained from regulation of the lamp type.
    Stakeholders also cited data sources in addition to the 2010 LMC 
indicating that 2-foot linear lamps should be included under coverage 
of standards. The CA IOUs asserted that an anecdotal survey from their 
lighting audit teams suggest 2-foot linear lamps may be 5 to 10 percent 
of lamps installed in the CA IOUs' service territory, which is higher 
than suggested by the 2010 LMC. The CA IOUs also reported that the vast 
majority of commercial buildings in California have some two-by-two 
fixtures, and many of these have been retrofitted from U-shaped to 2-
foot linear lamps within the last several years, indicating a growing 
trend toward 2-foot linear lamps over U-shaped lamps. (CA IOUs, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 32-34; CA IOUs, No. 32 at pp. 11-12) 
NEEA and NPCC stated that they would submit field data to DOE and 
asserted that currently available data indicates 2-foot linear GSFLs 
make up a notably larger fraction of the market than the preliminary 
analysis suggests. (NEEA and NPCC, No. 34 at pp. 2-3)
    The CA IOUs and NEEA and NPCC referred to a Navigant Consulting, 
Inc. (Navigant) study published in October 2012 that surveyed existing 
commercial and industrial building stock in Vermont, the 2011 Vermont 
Market Characterization and Assessment Study.\18\ The raw data from the 
Navigant study, obtained in May 2013 from the state of Vermont by NEEP, 
shows that of more than 136,000 lamps surveyed, 2-foot lamps 
represented 6.3 percent of installed fluorescent lamps. This included 
3.6 percent of high performance T8s, 9.3 percent of standard efficiency 
T8s, 3.9 percent of T12s, and 5.2 percent of T5s. Behind 4-foot lamps, 
2-foot lamps were by far the most common lamp length in these sectors. 
The CA IOUs stated that 6.3 percent of fluorescent lamp sales represent 
a significant amount of energy and, as explained in previous comments 
submitted by the CA IOUs, 2-foot lamps are available in a wide range of 
efficacies. (CA IOUs, No. 32 at pp. 11-12; NEEA and NPCC, No. 34 at pp. 
2-3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Navigant Consulting, Inc. 2011 Vermont Market 
Characterization and Assessment Study. October 2012. Available at 
http://publicservice.vermont.gov/sites/psd/files/Topics/Energy_Efficiency/EVT_Performance_Eval/VT%20CI%20Existing%20Buildings%20Market%20Assessment%20and%20Characterization_2012-10-6_FINAL.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NEMA, however, stated that the 2010 LMC showed a low market share 
\19\ for these products, which does not justify standards for these 
lamps. (NEMA, No. 36 at p. 4) Edison Electric Institute (EEI) stated 
its belief that 2-foot linear lamps were mainly installed in task 
lighting applications. (EEI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at p. 
34) GE advised that 2-foot linear lamps should not be included in the 
scope of this rulemaking. While installing these lamps may be customary 
in California, GE stated that they are not very common across the 
nation. Further, GE commented that DOE had received shipment data in 
preliminary manufacturer interviews that showed the sales of 2-foot 
straight lamps to be significantly less than the sales of 4-foot lamps. 
(GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 35-36) ASAP requested DOE 
make the shipment data publicly available so stakeholders could 
determine the significance. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at 
pp. 36-39)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ DOE's assessment indicated that the T8 MBP lamps less than 
4 feet comprised 0.2 percent of the entire lighting market. NEMA's 
written comment had incorrectly quoted this number as 0.02 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE did not receive shipment data specifically for 2-foot linear 
lamps and based its assessment of market share and energy consumption 
provided in the 2010 LMC report and feedback received in manufacturer 
interviews. The anecdotal survey and the Vermont study cited by the CA 
IOUs are focused on very specific areas of the nation, while the 2010 
LMC is the most recent assessment of installed stock and energy use of 
fluorescent lighting at the national level. The Vermont study collected 
primary data through on-site visits from a random selection of 120 
commercial and industrial buildings in specific regions in Vermont. 
Therefore, DOE found the 2010 LMC provided a more comprehensive basis 
for its assessment. A comparison of the installed stock provided in the 
2000 LMC report \20\ and the 2010 LMC report shows that installed stock 
for both T8 and T12 lamps less than 4 feet has declined by about 50 
percent over that 10-year period. DOE also received feedback from 
manufacturers in interviews stating that 2-foot linear lamps, both in 
the MBP and MiniBP categories, comprise a low market share that will 
either stay the same or decline. Further, manufacturers noted in 
interviews that the 2-foot linear lamps are generally used for 
kitchens, bathrooms, vanity lighting, hospitality applications, 
cabinets, and to round out edges of ceilings in commercial spaces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ U.S. Department of Energy. U.S. Lighting Market 
Characterization Volume I: National Lighting Inventory and Energy 
Consumption Estimate. September 2002. Available at http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/lmc_vol1_final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the above, DOE finds insufficient evidence to indicate that 
the market share or energy consumption of 2-foot linear fluorescent 
lamps would result in significant energy savings if DOE established 
standards for these lamps. DOE is not proposing standards for any 
additional GSFL types that are not currently covered.
2. Additional General Service Fluorescent Lamp Wattages
    DOE specifies a certain minimum wattage for each lamp type included 
in the definition of ``fluorescent lamp.'' In this rulemaking, DOE also 
evaluates whether coverage should be extended to additional wattages of 
these lamp types. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(5)) As part of this assessment, 
DOE reviewed product offerings for covered lamp types to determine if 
any new, lower wattage products had been introduced since publication 
of the 2009 Lamps Rule. DOE found the following reduced wattage lamps 
not covered under standards: 49 W, 50 W, 51 W 8-foot SP slimline, 25 W 
4-foot T5 MiniBP standard output (SO), and 44 W, 47 W 4-foot T5 MiniBP 
HO lamps. DOE currently covers 8-foot SP slimline lamps with wattages 
of 52 W or more; 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO lamps with wattages of 26 W or 
more; and 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO lamps with wattages of 49 W or more. 
Therefore, in the preliminary analysis, DOE considered extending 
coverage to the following GSFLs:
     8-foot SP slimline lamps with wattages >=49 W and  4-foot T5 MiniBP SO lamps with wattages >=25 W and  4-foot T5 MiniBP HO lamps with wattages >=44 W and regulations.gov under docket ID EERE-2010-BT-STD-0005 at 
www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2010-BT-STD-0005. DOE has 
suspended activity on this rulemaking as a result of section 315 of 
Public Law (Pub. L.) 112-74 (Dec. 23, 2011), which prohibits DOE from 
using appropriated funds to implement or enforce standards for ER, BR, 
and bulged parabolic reflector IRLs.
2. Incandescent Reflector Lamp Wattages
    In this rulemaking, DOE also does not consider IRLs with wattages 
lower than 40. EPCA defines an incandescent reflector lamp 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)) DOE received several comments on this 
lower limit on wattage for IRLs. EEI reported that highly efficacious 
39 W halogen IRLs capable of replacing less efficacious 60 W IRLs are 
on the market. (EEI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 24-25) 
The CA IOUs considered the presence of commercially available 39 W 
lamps to suggest that DOE should extend the IRL wattage range covered. 
(CA IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at p. 33) EEI also noted 
that the 39 W IRLs are close to covered lamps in efficacy and serve as 
replacements for IRLs of higher wattages, possibly increasing efficacy 
by 30 to 40 percent. (EEI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 34-
35) The CA IOUs responded that in the California market there is a wide 
range of efficacy for the 39 W products. (CA IOUs, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 30 at p. 35)
    GE stated that EPAct 1992 gave 40 W as the lower wattage limit for 
IRLs and that this limit is appropriate. GE asserted that there was no 
need to cover lower wattage IRLs as they use less energy, and a market 
shift to them would still fulfill the purpose of this rulemaking. (GE, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at p. 36) ASAP questioned whether DOE 
had the authority to cover lower wattages if the 40 W limit was a 
statutorily defined scope. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at 
p. 39) NEMA asserted that because the CFR stipulates coverage for 40 W 
IRLs and above, DOE does not have the authority to expand the scope to 
lower wattages. (NEMA, No. 36 at p. 2)
    NEEA noted that if the 40 W limit was statutory, it is doubtful DOE 
would change it. However, NEEA found that a lower wattage limit is an 
increasingly less useful way to describe coverage as technologies 
shift. Additionally, NEEA noted that a wattage limit was not an 
appropriate qualifier for products subject to a lm/W standard that 
drives products to use fewer watts to deliver a certain lumen output, 
such as a 20 W IRL that has the same lumen output as a 60 W IRL. NEEA 
commented that it had seen a similar shift occur in the market for 
street lighting. (NEEA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 43-44)
    As described by commenters, the 40 W limit is included in the EPCA 
definition of IRLs. (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(C), (C)(ii), and (F)) 
Therefore, proposed standards in this notice apply only to covered IRLs 
40 W or higher. Additionally, while the definition of IRLs does not 
provide an upper wattage limit, DOE did not assess covered IRLs higher 
than 205 W in this proposed rule. DOE research indicated that wattages 
greater than 205 W comprise a very small portion of the market and are 
typically designed for specialty uses, and therefore, do not represent 
significant energy savings.

D. Summary of Scope of Coverage

    In conclusion, in this rulemaking DOE is proposing extending the 
scope of coverage for GSFLs to certain wattages but not additional GSFL 
types. Further, DOE is proposing clarifying certain exemptions noted 
under the definition of ``general service fluorescent lamp.'' DOE is 
not considering IRLs less than 40 W or greater than 205 W and is also 
not considering the following IRL types: (1) Lamps rated 50 W or less 
that are ER30, BR30, BR40, or ER40; (2) lamps rated 65 W that are BR30, 
BR40, or ER40 lamps; and (3) R20 IRLs rated 45 W or less.

VI. Methodology and Discussion

    In the preliminary phase of this rulemaking, DOE conducted a market 
and technology assessment, screening analysis, engineering analysis, 
product price determination, energy-use characterization, LCC and PBP 
analyses, shipments analysis and NIA, as well as a preliminary MIA. 
These analyses were then updated and revised as appropriate based on 
feedback received for this NOPR. Further, in this NOPR DOE conducted an 
LCC subgroup analysis, a complete MIA, a utility impact assessment, an 
employment impact assessment, an emissions analysis, a determination of 
monetization of reduced emissions from proposed standard levels, and an 
RIA.
    DOE used three spreadsheet tools to estimate the impact of 
standards proposed in this NOPR. The first spreadsheet calculates LCCs 
and payback periods of potential new energy conservation standards. The 
second provides shipments forecasts and then calculates NES and NPV 
impacts of potential new energy conservation standards. The Department 
also assessed manufacturer impacts, largely through use of the 
Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM).
    DOE used a version of EIA's National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) 
for the utility and environmental analyses. The NEMS model simulates 
the energy sector of the U.S. economy. EIA uses NEMS to prepare its 
AEO, a widely known baseline energy forecast for the United States. The 
version of NEMS used for appliance standards analysis is called NEMS-BT 
\21\, and is based on the

[[Page 24087]]

AEO 2013 version with minor modifications. The NEMS-BT accounts for the 
interactions between the various energy supply and demand sectors and 
the economy as a whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The EIA approves the use of the name ``NEMS'' to describe 
only an 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 (2009), available at: 
http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/overview/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NEEA and NPCC stated that analyses presented in the preliminary 
analysis phase need further development before stakeholders will be 
able to comment in depth. NEEA and NPCC also offered to provide DOE 
field data from 2012-2013 on lamp and fixture types from their 
Residential Building Stock Assessment (RBSA) and the survey data from 
their Commercial Building Stock Assessment (CBSA). (NEEA and NPCC, No. 
34 at p. 6) NEEA and NPCC strongly support the comments provided by the 
CA IOUs for this rulemaking. (NEEA and NPCC, No. 34 at p. 2)
    In the preliminary analyses, DOE assessed the products that are the 
subject of this rulemaking, as well as the achievable levels of 
efficiency and their impacts. As noted, DOE has updated these analyses 
with more recent data and, where appropriate, made adjustments based on 
comments received from stakeholders in the preliminary analysis phase. 
DOE will also consider any additional data submitted by commenters in 
response to the NOPR.

A. Market and Technology Assessment

    In the energy conservation standards rulemaking process, DOE 
conducts a market and technology assessment to provide an overall 
picture of the market for products concerned. Based primarily on 
publicly available information, the analysis provides both qualitative 
and quantitative information. The market and technology assessment 
includes the major manufacturers, product classes, retail market 
trends, shipments of covered products, regulatory and non-regulatory 
programs, and technologies that could be used to improve the efficacy 
of GSFLs and IRLs. DOE identified several technology options after 
conducting this assessment for the preliminary analysis.
    DOE received a general comment from NEMA on the market and 
technology assessment questioning why a rulemaking is justified given 
the lack of technological innovations and changes since the 2009 Lamps 
Rule, the steep decline in GSFL and IRL sales expected, as shown in 
DOE's projections, and the waivers still providing certain products a 
stay of enforcement from the July 2012 standards. (NEMA, No. 36 at p. 
6)
    As explained in II.A, EPCA directs DOE to complete a rulemaking 
that examines whether current GSFL and IRL standards should be amended 
and if so, amend them as appropriate based on its analysis. Further, in 
any rulemaking DOE must adopt standard levels that achieve the maximum 
energy savings that is technologically feasible (see chapter 3 of the 
NOPR TSD) and economically justified (see chapters 8 and 12 of the NOPR 
TSD). Additionally, as noted previously, DOE understands that OHA has 
granted numerous manufacturers 2-year waivers from standards for their 
700 series T8 products that expire in 2014. Because standards from this 
rulemaking would become effective in 2017, DOE conducts its analysis 
assuming that the waivers will not be in place.
    NEMA also added that whether there are any technological 
innovations that have happened since the 2009 Lamps Rule is a valid 
point of discussion, but each potential technology would have to be 
given the same level of rigor regarding whether it is a feasible 
pathway or not. (NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 178-
179) DOE examines the latest industry literature and patents, and 
receives feedback from manufacturers to develop viable technology 
options that can increase the efficacy of GSFLs and IRLs. The 
identified technology options are then subjected to rigorous screening 
criteria before they can be considered as design options in the 
engineering analysis (see section VI.B). For further details on the 
technology options and the screening process, see, respectively, 
chapters 3 and 4 of the NOPR TSD.
1. General Service Fluorescent Lamp Technology Options
    DOE received comments specific to the GSFL technology options put 
forth in the preliminary analysis. Specifically, stakeholders provided 
feedback on higher efficiency lamp diameters, higher efficiency lamp 
fill gas composition, and higher efficiency phosphors.
Higher Efficiency Lamp Diameters
    DOE considered more efficient lamp diameters as one of the 
technology options to increase GSFL efficacy in the preliminary 
analysis. This option is considered as there is an optimum design 
diameter for a specific fluorescent lamp type that can increase lamp 
efficacy.
    NEMA stated that strictly speaking the reduction of lamp diameter 
does not necessarily increase efficacy and that T5 and T8 lamps are 
already at their optimum diameters. Further, NEMA and GE stated that 
the market has already shifted to the most efficient diameters. (NEMA, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 73; NEMA, No. 36 at p. 5; GE, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 71-72) While NEMA did not 
believe higher efficiency diameter should be retained as a technology 
option, NEMA and Philips requested additional clarifying information 
about DOE's underlying analysis of this option. (NEMA, No. 36 at p. 5; 
Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at p. 70)
    In small diameter lamps, an increase in diameter decreases the 
number of electrons and mercury ion recombination at the bulb wall, 
increasing ultraviolet (UV) output and lamp efficacy. In large diameter 
lamps, this recombination may already be minimal and a further 
enlargement in diameter causes a greater imprisonment of radiation 
within the lamp, decreasing light output and efficacy. Therefore, DOE 
understands this technology option should be applied only in cases 
where there is a potential to optimize the lamp diameter in order to 
achieve higher lamp efficacy gain. Based on DOE's assessment there are 
less efficacious lamps on the market that can be improved by using a 
higher efficiency diameter. For example, standards-compliant T12 
diameter product offerings remain in the 4-foot MBP and 8-foot SP 
slimline product classes. Therefore, DOE continues to consider higher 
efficiency lamp diameter as a technology option to increase the 
efficacy of GSFLs.
Higher Efficiency Lamp Fill Gas Composition
    Higher efficiency lamp fill gas composition was another technology 
option identified in the preliminary analysis. Lamp fill gases in 
fluorescent lamps increase mobility of mercury ions and electrons, 
facilitating recombination and resulting in increased UV output and 
higher lamp efficacy. Gases with lower molecular weight, such as argon, 
generally result in higher lamp efficacy. Full wattage lamps generally 
use argon gas. Reduced wattage lamps use a mixture of krypton and 
argon. Krypton, while a higher molecular weight gas, lowers the wattage 
of the lamp, thereby resulting in a higher lamp efficacy. NEMA stated 
that GSFLs are already optimized for the tradeoff of argon and krypton 
mixes and further efficacy gains are not possible using krypton. (NEMA, 
No. 36 at p. 14)
    Based on DOE's research and feedback from manufacturers in 
interviews, the type and ratios of fill gases remain a mechanism to 
increase

[[Page 24088]]

lamp efficacy. Because lamps are present on the market at more than one 
level of efficacy, DOE believes lamp fill gas is one option that can be 
utilized to improve the efficacy of less efficacious products. 
Therefore, DOE continues to consider higher efficiency lamp fill gas as 
a means to improve the efficacy of fluorescent lamps covered under this 
rulemaking.
Higher Efficiency Phosphors
    DOE also identified higher efficiency phosphors as an option for 
increasing efficacy in GSFLs. The main purpose of phosphor in a 
fluorescent lamp is to absorb the UV radiation and reemit it as visible 
radiation. In particular, the lamp efficacy can be improved in this 
manner by using triband phosphors containing rare earth elements, which 
can greatly increase UV absorption and emission of radiation in the 
visible spectrum relative to other phosphors. In response to this 
technology option, NEMA stated that GSFLs are already optimized for 
rare earth phosphors. (NEMA, No. 36 at p. 14)
    Based on DOE's research and feedback from manufacturers in 
interviews, the blend, weight, and thickness of rare earth phosphors in 
fluorescent lamps is a key element in increasing the lamp efficacy. 
Because lamps are present on the market at more than one level of 
efficacy, DOE believes higher efficiency phosphor is one option that 
can be utilized to improve the efficacy of less efficacious products. 
Therefore, DOE continues to consider higher efficiency phosphors as a 
means to improve the efficacy of fluorescent lamps covered under this 
rulemaking.
Summary of GSFL Technology Options
    In summary, DOE has developed the list of technology options shown 
in Table VI.1 to increase efficacy of GSFLs.

        Table VI.1--GSFL Technology Options in the NOPR Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Name of technology option                   Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highly Emissive Electrode Coatings.....  Improved electrode coatings
                                          allow electrons to be more
                                          easily removed from
                                          electrodes, reducing lamp
                                          power and increasing overall
                                          efficacy.
Higher Efficiency Lamp Fill Gas          Fill gas compositions improve
 Composition.                             cathode thermionic emission or
                                          increase mobility of ions and
                                          electrons in the lamp plasma.
Higher Efficiency Phosphors............  Phosphors increase the
                                          conversion of ultraviolet
                                          light into visible light.
Glass Coatings.........................  Coatings on inside of bulb
                                          enable the phosphors to absorb
                                          more UV energy, so that they
                                          emit more visible light.
Higher Efficiency Lamp Diameter........  Optimal lamp diameters improve
                                          lamp efficacy.
Multi-Photon Phosphors.................  Phosphors emit more than one
                                          visible photon for each
                                          incident UV photon.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Incandescent Reflector Lamp Technology Options
    DOE received comments specific to the IRL technology options put 
forth by DOE in the preliminary analysis. Specifically, stakeholders 
provided feedback on efficient filament placement, higher efficiency 
inert fill gas, and integrally ballasted low voltage lamps.
Efficient Filament Placement
    Efficient filament placement is one of the technology options 
presented in the preliminary analysis that can increase the efficacy of 
IRLs. An optimally placed filament allows a portion of the spectrum 
emitted by the filament to focus back onto it. The additional heat 
provided to the filament increases the operating temperature and 
thereby increases lamp efficacy.
    NEMA disagreed that efficient filament placement should be 
considered a technology option for improving efficacy. NEMA commented 
that filament placement determines the beam spread of a lamp, which is 
considered a performance characteristic, not a degree of efficacy. If 
the filament placement were changed to make a lamp more efficacious, it 
would also change the beam spread, thereby altering a lamp's utility. 
(NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 74-75) Understanding 
that efficient filament placement refers to the placement of the 
filament in an infrared (IR) capsule, the CA IOUs stated that filament 
placement impacts the amount of reflected radiation that hits the 
filament, which in turn impacts the amount of light emitted by the 
lamp. (CA IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at p. 81-82) GE 
responded that filaments must be placed as close to the center of IR 
capsules as possible, and their placement has already been optimized. 
(GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 82) Philips noted that 
manufacturers do not know how to place filaments any more precisely 
than they are now, although there is manufacturing variation. (Philips, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 82-83)
    DOE acknowledges that it is theoretically well understood where the 
filament should be placed to achieve higher efficacy in IRLs. 
Additionally, the above comments and feedback during manufacturer 
interviews indicate that lamps are being designed so that the filament 
is placed in the most optimal position. Therefore, because the optimal 
filament placement design has been identified and is being applied in 
all commercially available products, DOE proposes to not consider 
efficient filament placement as a technology option.
Higher Efficiency Inert Fill Gas
    DOE presented high efficiency inert fill gas as another technology 
option to increase IRL efficacy in the preliminary analysis. Fill gases 
such as krypton and xenon have low thermal conductivity that decreases 
the convective cooling of the filament, allowing for higher temperature 
operation and therefore higher efficacy. These gas molecules are larger 
relative to other gases, and can more effectively slow down the 
evaporation of tungsten and thereby extend the life of the lamp. Xenon, 
having even lower heat conductivity and larger mass than krypton, can 
more drastically change efficacy and life, but has a higher cost. Most 
lamps compliant with the July 2012 standards use xenon as a fill gas.
    NEEA and NPCC indicated that xenon fill gas should not be 
considered a technology option as it is already used in all, or nearly 
all, halogen-based technologies, including those at the lower end of 
the efficacy scale. Comparatively, there is an approximately 3 percent 
drop in efficacy when using a fill gas like krypton, and accordingly 
the market has clearly adopted xenon and uses it almost exclusively. 
(NEEA and NPCC, No. 34 at p. 2, 5) The CA IOUs also stated that their 
research indicated that most, if not all, commercially available 
parabolic aluminized reflector (PAR) lamps, including those that are 
lower efficacy products or minimally compliant with the 2009 Lamps 
Rule, are already using xenon as their fill gas. The CA IOUs, 
therefore, concluded that additional xenon would not be required to 
meet higher standards. (CA IOUs, No. 32 at pp. 9-10)
    Based on feedback from manufacturer interviews, DOE confirmed that 
the majority of covered standards-compliant

[[Page 24089]]

IRLs are utilizing xenon. However, DOE also learned that the amount of 
xenon used in lamp can vary based on several factors. Because lamps are 
present on the market at more than one level of efficacy, higher 
efficiency inert fill gas is one option that can be utilized to improve 
the efficacy of less efficacious products. Therefore, DOE continues to 
consider high efficiency inert fill gas as a technology option.
Integrally Ballasted Low Voltage Lamps
    DOE also considered integrally ballasted low voltage lamps as a 
technology option in the preliminary analysis. The use of an integral 
ballast in an incandescent lamp allows an increase in the efficacy 
because it converts the line voltage to lower lamp operating voltages, 
thereby reducing the lamp wattage.
    NEMA stated that integrally ballasted low voltage lamps are not 
viable at high wattages, and the technology is expensive and rarely 
used. Therefore, NEMA asserted that this technology is for a niche 
product, and cannot be applied across the board. (NEMA, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 30 at p. 74-75; NEMA, No. 36 at p. 7)
    While the technology is not appropriate for higher wattage 
products, the CA IOUs argued that it is still a valid design option for 
reduced wattage lamps. The CA IOUs explained that in halogen infrared 
reflector (HIR) lamps, making the filament a denser target increases 
the amount of radiation that is successfully reflected back to it, 
thereby increasing the lamp efficacy. At line voltage, a higher wattage 
halogen burner incorporates a relatively large diameter filament; 
however a lower wattage capsule must use a finer filament. For these 
low wattage lamps, reducing the line voltage to low voltage allows the 
use of a shorter, fatter filament, which is ideal for HIR technology. 
While a lamp greater than 50 W is suited for line voltage and may 
operate at too high of a temperature for an integral ballast, a lamp 
less than 50 W is better suited for low voltage operation and run at 
temperatures compatible with an integral transformer. Particularly, as 
halogen lamps are designed to be more efficacious, lower reduced 
wattage products will be more common; for this reason, the CA IOUs 
envisioned integrally ballasted low voltage halogen products to be the 
predominant design strategy for very high efficacy halogen products 
going forward. (CA IOUs, No. 32 at p. 9)
    In interviews, manufacturers stated that the use of an integral 
ballast to lower voltage is not a feasible technology in higher wattage 
lamps due to issues with dissipating heat generated by the electronic 
components. Manufacturers indicated that heat dissipation becomes a 
problem at wattages ranging from 20 to 35 W. DOE research also 
indicated that in converting to a lower voltage, current is increased 
and greater heat generated from the filament. In higher wattage IRLs, 
the resulting increased temperature can be damaging to the voltage 
conversion circuitry. Further, based on manufacturer interviews there 
are no covered IRLs that currently utilize this technology option. 
Because the lower limit of IRL wattages covered under standards is 40 
W, DOE is no longer considering integrally ballasted low voltage lamps 
as a technology option for improving lamp efficacy.
Higher Efficiency Burner
    DOE did not consider a higher efficiency halogen burner as a 
technology option in the preliminary analysis. DOE acknowledged that 
use of a double-ended burner in an IRL can increase the efficacy 
compared to a single-ended burner. Further, because double-ended 
burners could not fit into small diameter IRLs (i.e., diameters less 
than or equal to 2.5 inches), DOE applied a 3.5 percent reduction when 
scaling efficacy levels from large diameter lamps (i.e., all diameters 
greater than 2.5 inches) that could utilize a double-ended burner to 
small diameter lamps. (For further discussion on IRL scaling factor see 
section VI.D.3.g and chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.)
    Based on further research and interviews with manufacturers, DOE 
confirmed in the NOPR analysis that a key aspect of higher efficiency 
IRLs is HIR technology. Because the type of burner utilized is an 
important component of an HIR lamp, in this NOPR analysis, DOE is 
considering higher efficiency burners as a technology option to 
increase IRL efficacy. Single-ended burners feature a lead wire inside 
of the capsule that carries current between the filament and the 
electrical connection in the base of the lamp. The presence of this 
wire inside of the capsule prevents a certain amount of energy from 
reaching the capsule wall and being reflected (recycled) back to the 
capsule filament. However, double-ended burners have a lead wire 
outside of the capsule that does not interfere with the reflectance of 
energy back to the filament, allowing for a more efficacious lamp. 
Hence, DOE is proposing higher efficiency burner as a technology option 
that can increase efficacy of IRLs.
Summary of IRL Technology Options
    Of the IRL technology options presented in the preliminary 
analysis, DOE is no longer considering integrally ballasted low voltage 
lamps as a technology option. In addition to the IRL technology options 
identified in the preliminary analysis, DOE is proposing the inclusion 
of the higher efficiency burner as a technology option. In summary, in 
this NOPR analysis, DOE is proposing the IRL technology options listed 
in Table VI.2.

         Table VI.2--IRL Technology Options in the NOPR Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Name of technology option                   Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Higher Temperature Operation.  Operating the filament at higher
                                temperatures, the spectral output shifts
                                to lower wavelengths, increasing its
                                overlap with the eye sensitivity curve.
Microcavity Filaments........  Texturing, surface perforations,
                                microcavity holes with material
                                fillings, increasing surface area and
                                thereby light output.
Novel Filament Materials.....  More efficient filament alloys that have
                                a high melting point, low vapor
                                pressure, high strength, high ductility,
                                or good radiating characteristics.
Thinner Filaments............  Thinner filaments to increase operating
                                temperature. This measure may shorten
                                the operating life of the lamp.
Efficient Filament Coiling...  Coiling the filament to increase surface
                                area, thus increasing light output.
Crystallite Filament Coatings  Layers of micron or submicron
                                crystallites deposited on the filament
                                surface that increases emissivity of the
                                filament.
Efficient Filament             Positioning (horizontal or vertical) the
 Orientation.                   incandescent filament to increase light
                                emission from the lamp. Vertical
                                orientation, used by majority of lamps,
                                allows for greater light emission.
Higher Efficiency Inert Fill   Filling lamps with alternative gases,
 Gas.                           such as Krypton, to reduce heat
                                conduction.
Higher Pressure Tungsten-      Increased halogen bulb capsule
 Halogen Lamps.                 pressurization, allowing higher
                                temperature operation.

[[Page 24090]]

 
Non-Tungsten-Halogen           Novel filament materials that regenerate.
 Regenerative Cycles.
Infrared Glass Coatings......  When used with a halogen capsule, this is
                                referred to as a HIR lamp. Infrared
                                coatings on the inside of the bulb to
                                reflect some of the radiant energy back
                                onto the filament.
IR Phosphor Glass Coatings...  Phosphor coatings that can absorb IR
                                radiation and re-emit it at shorter
                                wavelengths (visible region of light),
                                increasing the lumen output.
UV Phosphor Glass Coatings...  Phosphor coatings that convert UV
                                radiation into longer wavelengths
                                (visible region of light), increasing
                                the lumen output.
Electron Stimulated            A low voltage cathodoluminescent phosphor
 Luminescence.                  that emits green light (visible region
                                of light) upon impingement by thermally
                                ejected electrons, increasing the lumen
                                output.
Higher Efficiency Reflector    Alternative reflector coatings such as
 Coatings.                      silver, with higher reflectivity
                                increase the amount of directed light.
Corner Reflectors............  Individual corner reflectors in the cover
                                glass that reflect light directly back
                                in the direction from which it came.
High Reflectance Filament      Filament supports that include a
 Supports.                      reflective face that reflects light to
                                another filament, the reflective face of
                                another filament support, or radially
                                outward.
Permanent Infrared Reflector   Permanent shroud with an IR reflector
 Coating Shroud.                coating and a removable and replaceable
                                lamp can increase efficiency while
                                reducing manufacturing costs by allowing
                                IR reflector coatings to be reused.
Higher Efficiency Burners....  A double-ended burner that 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 in HIR
                                lamps.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Screening Analysis

    After DOE identifies the technologies that improve the efficacy of 
GSFLs and IRLs, DOE conducts the screening analysis. The purpose of the 
screening analysis is to determine which options to consider further 
and which options to screen out. DOE consults with industry, technical 
experts, and other interested parties in developing a list of 
technology options. DOE then applies the following set of screening 
criteria to determine which options are unsuitable for further 
consideration in the rulemaking (10 CFR Part 430, subpart C, appendix A 
at 4(a)(4) and 5(b)):
     Technological Feasibility: DOE will consider technologies 
incorporated in commercially available products or in working 
prototypes to be technologically feasible.
     Practicability to Manufacture, Install, and Service: If 
mass production of a technology and reliable installation and servicing 
of the technology could be achieved on the scale necessary to serve the 
relevant market at the time the standard comes into effect, then DOE 
will consider that technology practicable to manufacture, install, and 
service.
     Adverse Impacts on Product Utility or Product 
Availability: If DOE determines a technology to have significant 
adverse impact on the utility of the product to significant subgroups 
of consumers, or to result in the unavailability of any covered product 
type with performance characteristics (including reliability), 
features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the 
same as products generally available in the United States at the time, 
it will not further consider this technology.
     Adverse Impacts on Health or Safety: If DOE determines 
that a technology will have significant adverse impacts on health or 
safety, it will not further consider this technology.
    Those technology options not screened out by the above four 
criteria are called ``design options'' and are considered as possible 
methods of improving efficacy in the engineering analysis. DOE received 
several comments on technology options not screened out and retained as 
design options in the preliminary analysis for GSFLs and IRLs.
1. General Service Fluorescent Lamp Design Options
    In the preliminary analysis, of the GSFL technology options 
identified, DOE did not consider screening out higher efficiency lamp 
fill gas composition and glass coatings; however, DOE received several 
comments on these two design options. DOE did not receive any feedback 
on the other GSFL design options put forth in the preliminary analysis.
Higher Efficiency Lamp Fill Gas Composition
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE determined that higher efficiency 
lamp fill gas composition met the screening criteria and considered it 
as a design option. As previously described, lamp fill gases such as 
argon increase mobility of mercury ions and electrons, facilitating 
recombination and thereby increasing UV output and resulting in higher 
lamp efficacy. Krypton is primarily used as a fill gas in reduced 
wattage lamps because it lowers lamp wattage, thereby resulting in 
higher lamp efficacy. NEMA noted that the resulting reduced wattage 
lamps have issues with cold temperature applications, striations, and 
dimmability due to the use of krypton and pointed out that these items 
are performance characteristics that should be considered in the 
screening analysis. NEMA encouraged DOE to explore the trade-offs to 
ensure the right balance is obtained. (NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, 
No. 30 at pp. 78-79)
    Based on previous manufacturer feedback, DOE is aware that the 
presence of krypton in reduced wattage lamps causes issues with lamp 
starting and striations in cold temperature applications below 60-
65[emsp14][deg]F. Feedback from manufacturers in interviews has also 
indicated that problems encountered with dimming linear fluorescent 
lamps, including lamp starting, striations, and dropout, are 
exacerbated by the use of krypton in reduced wattage lamps. Krypton, 
which lowers the wattage of a fluorescent lamp, is the primary fill gas 
used in reduced wattage fluorescent lamps. Based on feedback from 
manufacturers the use of any amount of krypton will result in dimming 
issues and increase with the amount of krypton.
    Philips noted that issues with dimming reduced wattage lamps could 
also be related to the ballast as well as compatibility with the dimmer 
and lamp. Philips further noted that they had observed that a lamp-
ballast system would dim successfully in one building but fail when put 
in a different building.

[[Page 24091]]

(Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at p. 225)
    Despite the issues with dimming and operation in cold temperatures, 
DOE has determined that reduced wattage lamps using krypton can be 
found on the market in various wattages. Feedback from manufacturers in 
interviews also indicates that reduced wattage lamps comprise a 
significant portion of their GSFL shipments. Additionally, consumers 
have other options, as more reliable dimming can be attained using full 
wattage lamps and fluorescent lamps designed to be operated in cold 
temperature applications exist on the market.
    Therefore, DOE has determined that higher efficiency lamp fill gas 
composition, specifically in the form of krypton, meets the criteria of 
being technologically feasible and practicable to manufacture as it is 
used in commercially available products. DOE has found no evidence to 
indicate it has adverse impacts on health and safety. Because DOE is 
considering standard levels that ensure the availability of both full 
and reduced wattage lamps, DOE has determined that the use of this 
technology does not have an adverse impact on product utility or 
availability. Therefore, DOE proposes to maintain higher efficiency 
lamp fill gas as a design option for GSFLs.
Glass Coatings
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE determined that glass coatings met 
the screening criteria and considered them as a design option. To 
increase the UV absorption by the phosphors, the lamp glass can be 
covered with an antireflective coating. This coating is a refractory 
oxide, such as aluminum oxide (Al2O3), silicon 
oxide (SiO2), and titanium oxide (TiO2) that 
reflects any UV radiation that passes through the phosphor back onto 
the phosphor, allowing a greater portion of UV to be absorbed, thereby 
increasing light output and lamp efficacy. NEMA stated that glass 
coatings should be screened out as the techniques are not feasible, 
which is the reason they are not already widely used. (NEMA, No. 36 at 
p. 7; NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 70)
    DOE determined that most modern lamps utilize glass coatings that 
minimize the absorption of mercury and act as reflectors of UV 
radiation.\22\ An undercoat layer, preferably composed of aluminum 
oxide and a getter material, reflects UV radiation that has passed 
through the luminescent material of the lamp back onto the material for 
increased visible light output and also reduces the contaminants in the 
lamp. A patent relevant to this technology notes that such undercoating 
is a common feature of modern fluorescent lamps.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ DiLaura, D. L., K. W. Houser, R. G. Mistrick, and G. R. 
Steffy. IESNA Lighting Handbook: Reference and Application, 10th 
Edition. New York: IESNA, 2011.
    \23\ Trushell, Charles and Liviu Magean. Method of manufacturing 
a fluorescent lamp having getter on a UV reflective base coat. U.S. 
Patent No. 7,500,896 B2, filed May 9, 2005, and issued Mar 10, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because this technology option is being used in commercially 
available fluorescent lamps, DOE considers it to be practicable to 
manufacture. DOE is not aware of any evidence indicating that the 
technology has adversely impacted product utility or health and safety. 
Therefore, DOE proposes to maintain glass coatings as a design option 
for GSFLs.
    In summary, in this NOPR analysis DOE is proposing as design 
options the following GSFL technologies that have met the screening 
criteria:
     Highly Emissive Electrode Coatings
     Higher Efficiency Lamp Fill Gas Composition
     Higher Efficiency Phosphors
     Glass Coatings
     Higher Efficiency Lamp Diameter

    See chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD for further details on the GSFL 
screening analysis.
2. Incandescent Reflector Lamp Design Options
    DOE did not receive any feedback on IRL design options put forth in 
the preliminary analysis.
Higher Efficiency Burners
    As mentioned previously, in this NOPR analysis DOE is proposing the 
additional technology option of a higher efficiency burner as a means 
to improve IRL efficacy. DOE evaluated the higher efficiency burner 
technology against the screening criteria. DOE found that higher 
efficiency burners, such as the double-ended burner, are currently 
being utilized in commercially available lamps and have demonstrated 
that they are technologically feasible, practicable to manufacture, 
install, and service on a commercial scale by the compliance date of 
any amended standards, and do not result in adverse impacts on product 
utility or availability, or health and safety. DOE acknowledges that 
double-ended burners cannot be used in small diameter lamps without 
changing the physical shape of the lamp, which may impact whether the 
lamp can fit standard fixtures, and thereby affect product utility. 
Therefore, DOE is proposing higher efficiency burners as a design 
option only for IRLs with diameters greater than 2.5 inches.
    In summary, in this NOPR analysis DOE is proposing as design 
options the following IRL technologies that have met the screening 
criteria:
     Higher Temperature Operation
     Thinner Filaments
     Efficient Filament Coiling
     Efficient Filament Orientation
     Higher Efficiency Inert Fill Gas
     Higher Pressure Tungsten-Halogen Lamps
     Infrared Glass Coatings
     Higher Efficiency Reflector Coatings (with the exception 
of gold reflector coatings)
     Higher Efficiency Burner

    See chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD for further details on the IRL 
screening analysis.

C. Product Classes

    DOE divides covered products into classes by: (a) The type of 
energy used; (b) the capacity of the product; or (c) other performance-
related features that justify different standard levels, considering 
the consumer utility of the feature and other relevant factors. (42 
U.S.C. 6295(q)) In a general comment, NEMA requested that DOE ensure 
CSLs do not potentially eliminate utility from the market. (NEMA, No. 
36 at p. 20) As noted, when assessing factors for product class 
divisions, DOE considers consumer utility.
    DOE received several comments regarding product classes considered 
in the preliminary analysis.
1. General Service Fluorescent Lamp Product Classes
    In the preliminary analysis DOE considered product classes for 
GSFLs based on the following three factors: (1) CCT; (2) physical 
constraints of lamps (i.e., lamp shape and length); and (3) lumen 
package. DOE received comments regarding the CCT product class division 
and a suggestion to establish a product class division based on a 
lamp's dimming functionality. DOE did not receive feedback on the other 
product class divisions put forth for GSFLs in the preliminary 
analysis.
CCT
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE considered CCT, noted in degrees 
Kelvin (K), as a class setting factor, specifically, product classes 
for GSFLs with a CCT less than or equal to 4,500 K and a product class 
for GSFLs with a CCT greater than 4,500 K. NEEA and NPCC noted that 
while DOE stated that GSFLs with a CCT greater than 4,500 K show a 
decline in efficacy, DOE did not

[[Page 24092]]

state the degree of the decline of efficacy, whether it was consistent 
across manufacturers, or if the decline was inherent in the phosphor 
mixes required to produce the higher CCT values. NEEA and NPCC noted 
that they may support having a separate product class for these lamps, 
but that additional data is needed. (NEEA and NPCC, No. 34 at p. 3)
    CCT is a measure of the perceived color of white light emitted from 
a lamp. The lower CCTs correspond to warm light and are in the red 
wavelengths while the higher CCTs correspond to cooler light and are in 
blue wavelengths. The human eye is less responsive to light in the blue 
wavelengths and therefore, efficacy decreases in lamps with higher 
CCTs. The phosphor blend used in a lamp substantially impacts the 
lamp's CCT. For example, the use of rare earth phosphors results in 
light emitted at wavelengths to which the human eye is most sensitive, 
thereby increasing the lamp efficacy. Therefore, different phosphor 
blends in lamps achieve different CCTs. (See chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD 
for further details on fluorescent lamp technology.)
    DOE determined through analysis and confirmed with manufacturers 
that lamps with CCTs greater than 4,500 K start showing a decline in 
efficacy. Feedback from manufacturers varied regarding the exact 
efficacy reduction correlated with CCT and whether it was consistent 
across GSFL types. DOE's evaluation of catalog and compliance 
efficacies for similar lamp types at different CCTs for various 
manufacturers has shown that in general, there is a reduction in the 
range of 2-6 percent going from a CCT of 4,500 K or less to a CCT 
greater than 4,500 K. (See section VI.D.2.h and chapter 5 of the NOPR 
TSD for scaling to higher CCT product classes.)
    Therefore, because consumers are afforded a different perception of 
light at different CCTs and efficacy is impacted with varying CCTs, DOE 
proposes to maintain CCT as a product class division factor. 
Specifically DOE is proposing to establish a product class of lamps 
with CCTs less than or equal to 4,500 K and a product class with CCTs 
greater than 4,500 K.
Dimming Utility
    NEMA noted that DOE may not set standards that would eliminate full 
wattage GSFLs because the Secretary may not prescribe standards 
``likely to result in the unavailability in the United States in any 
covered product type (or class) of performance characteristics 
(including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that 
are substantially the same as those generally available in the United 
States at the time of the Secretary's finding.'' (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4)) 
NEMA emphasized that as dimmability and uniformity of light (absence of 
flicker or striation) are all performance characteristics highly 
desirable in the marketplace, they must be maintained. (NEMA, No. 36 at 
p. 4) Further, NEMA stated that potential energy savings from dimming 
will be reduced or lost if DOE eliminates full wattage 32 W GSFLs from 
the market. (NEMA, No. 36 at p. 15) Lutron agreed that elimination of 
full wattage lamps that are argon-filled would also get rid of dimming. 
(Lutron, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 25)
    EEI noted that the increase of lighting controls requirements in 
building codes such as those put out by American Society of Heating, 
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) and International 
Energy Conservation Code (IECC) means that dimmability is a performance 
characteristic necessary for operation in commercial buildings. (EEI, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at p. 79-80) The CA IOUs reiterated 
the importance of not eliminating dimming products from the market. 
They suggested that if there are two sets of products, one with dimming 
capability and one with higher efficacy, there may be grounds to create 
separate product classes so that covered products will comply with 
standards either by having higher efficacy or by dimming. (CA IOUs, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 135)
    DOE acknowledges that there are issues with dimming reduced wattage 
lamps that do not typically manifest in full wattage lamps. DOE is 
aware that unreliable dimming is in part due to the use of krypton as 
the fill gas in reduced wattage lamps as well as other factors. (See 
the discussion on higher efficiency lamp fill gas composition in 
VI.A.1.) Therefore, DOE is ensuring that any proposed level can be met 
by full wattage lamps. Because the utility of dimming is being 
preserved in the existing product class structure and for the analyzed 
standard levels, DOE is not proposing fill gas that allows for reliable 
dimming as a product class setting factor. (See section VI.D.2.g and 
chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD for the GSFL engineering analysis.)
Summary of GSFL Product Classes
    In this NOPR analysis, DOE is proposing the product classes for 
GSFLs summarized in Table VI.3. See chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD for 
further details on each GSFL product class.

            Table VI.3--GSFL Product Classes in NOPR Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Lamp type                               CCT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4-foot medium bipin.....................................       4,500 K
2-foot U-shaped.........................................       4,500 K
8-foot single pin slimline..............................       4,500 K
8-foot recessed double contact high output..............       4,500 K
4-foot T5, miniature bipin standard output..............       4,500 K
4-foot T5, miniature bipin high output..................       4,500 K
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Incandescent Reflector Lamp Product Classes
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE considered product classes for 
IRLs based on the following three factors: (1) Rated voltage, 
separating lamps less than 125 V from lamps greater than or equal to 
125 V; (2) lamp spectrum, separating lamps with a standard spectrum 
from lamps with a modified spectrum; and (3) lamp diameter, separating 
lamps with a diameter greater than 2.5 inches from lamps with a 
diameter less than or equal to 2.5 inches. DOE received several 
comments on the rated voltage class setting factor. DOE did not receive 
feedback on the other product class divisions put forth for IRLs in 
this preliminary analysis.
Rated Voltage
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE considered rated voltage as a 
class setting factor, establishing a product class for IRLs with 
voltages less than 125 V and a product class for IRLs with voltages 
greater than or equal to 125 V. IRLs mainly come in rated voltages of 
120 or 130. This product class division establishes two separate 
product classes for the 120 V IRLs and the 130 V IRLs.
    NEEA and NPCC stated that DOE should maintain separate product 
classes for lamps that are less than 125 V and those that are greater 
than or equal to 125 V. They indicated that if there were demand for 
130 V lamps, it would be highly likely that standards compliant 130 V 
lamps would enter the market, as there is nothing inherent in the 
standard levels that would eliminate 130 V lamps. (NEEA and NPCC, No. 
34 at p. 4)
    Advanced Lighting Technologies (ADLT) agreed, pointing out that 
combining lamps less than 125 V and greater than or equal to 125 V 
lamps into one product class would allow 130 V lamps on the market that 
fall below

[[Page 24093]]

the July 2012 efficacy requirement of 5.9P\0.27\ when operated at 120 
V. ADLT gave the example that a 130 V 70 W lamp would be required to 
produce 19.5 lm/W under DOE's CSL 1 of 6.2P\0.27\ for less than 125 V 
lamps. However, operating the same 130 V, 70 W lamp in a 120 V socket 
would result in lowering the wattage to 61.5 W and efficacy to 16.8 lm/
W,\24\ which equates to 5.4P\0.27\. Therefore, a 130 V, 70 W lamp 
operating at 120 V would fall well below the July 2012 requirement of 
5.9P\0.27\. (ADLT, No. 31 at p. 2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ DiLaura, D. L., K. W. Houser, R. G. Mistrick, and G. R. 
Steffy. IESNA Lighting Handbook: Reference and Application, 10th 
Edition. New York: IESNA, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Existing DOE test procedures provide for lamps rated at 130 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 EL for lamps rated at each voltage, this 
situation would effectively lead to a lower efficacy requirement for 
these 130 V lamps run at 120 V, compared to 120 V lamps run at 120 V. 
The 130 V lamps would not require the same level of technology as 120 V 
lamps to meet the same standard, and, thus, would be cheaper to 
produce. Therefore, setting higher standards for IRLs without 
accounting for voltage differences could result in increased migration 
to 130 V lamps instead of the 120 V lamps. When consumers operate these 
lamps at 120 V, they may need to purchase more lamps to obtain 
sufficient light output, thereby increasing energy consumption. Hence, 
in order to preserve energy savings, DOE proposes to maintain the rated 
voltage class division that separates covered IRLs less than 125 V from 
those that are greater than or equal to 125 V.
Summary of IRL Product Classes
    In this NOPR analysis, DOE is proposing the product classes for 
IRLs summarized in Table VI.4. See chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD for 
further details on each IRL product class.

            Table VI.4--IRL Product Classes in NOPR Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Diameter (in
                Lamp type                     inches)         Voltage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Spectrum.......................            >2.5         >=125 V
                                          ..............          =125 V
                                          ..............          2.5         >=125 V
                                          ..............          =125 V
                                          ..............          www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Usability of Certification Data and Catalog Data
    The CA IOUs noted statements made during the public meeting 
indicated that the catalog data may not be precise as it is not subject 
to any reporting regulations and further the certification database may 
be inaccurate. The CA IOUs asked that clarification be provided 
regarding the data used in the GSFL analysis. (CA IOUs, No. 32 at pp. 
12-13) The CA IOUs also noted that a large number of products in DOE's 
certification database did not seem to have been included in this 
rulemaking analysis for GSFLs. In particular, the CA IOUs noted that 
there were about 20 or 30 products that are above 96 lm/W for the 
representative 4-foot MBP product class from about ten manufacturers 
including MaxLite, Satco, Philips, and Westinghouse, as well as a 
product exceeding 100 lm/W. (CA IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 
at pp. 114-115)
    GE suggested that because such high measured lm/W values are not 
achievable, the issue may be that the information in the certification 
database is being misread or there may be confusion among manufacturers 
about what exactly to report in each column which could be resulting in 
false calculations. (GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at p. 115, 
pp. 141) GE noted that manufacturers have questions pending to DOE 
regarding certification reporting. (GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 
30 at pp. 141) The CA IOUs agreed with GE that there could be 
inconsistencies or confusion with which values to report and encouraged 
DOE to look into these issues further. (CA IOUs, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 115-116) ASAP pointed out that there may be 
possible enforcement issues if there are products in the certification 
database that are non-compliant. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 
30 at pp. 139) GE added that it could be that the lamps are in 
compliance but the claims being made are aggressive. (GE, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 141)
    NEEA disagreed that the certification database was being misread. 
NEEA recommended the use of a consistent set of data and requested 
general clarification on the data utilized in the analysis. (NEEA, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 139-140) ASAP asked if there 
is a discrepancy between catalog and certification values for products. 
(ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 146-147) Philips 
explained that values initially published in catalogs are based on a 
small set of samples and these values change as the sample size 
increases and is more representative of manufacturing. The initially 
published catalog values are eventually synched with values based on 
the greater sample size but catalogs are updated only every two or 
three years. Further there is some allowable difference between the 
marketed efficacy values and the certification efficacy values. 
(Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 147-148)
    NEEA and NPCC stated that they are unable to comment extensively on 
the GSFL analysis due to DOE's use of catalog efficacy values and ANSI 
rated wattages instead of measured and/or certified values including 
using test data at appropriate test conditions such as testing at 25 
[deg]C. (NEEA and NPCC, No. 34 at p. 2, 3) Noting that comments by 
manufacturers during the public meeting indicated that catalog and 
certification values will be different, NEEP as well as NEEA and NPCC 
recommended DOE use measured and/or certified values for its analysis, 
and not use catalog values for any part of the analysis. (NEEA and 
NPCC, No. 34 at p. 2, 3; NEEP, No. 33 at p. 2) NEEA and NPCC stated 
that once it had seen measured and/or certified values, it suspected 
the range of lamp performance will be much narrower than presented in 
the preliminary analysis. (NEEA and NPCC, No. 34 at p. 2, 3) NEEP 
stated that while there appear to be significant energy savings for 
GSFLs at CSL1, DOE's use of catalog data puts the accuracy of these 
estimates into question. (NEEP, No. 33 at p. 2)
    DOE understands the concerns raised by stakeholders regarding the 
difference between catalog and certification values and their 
subsequent recommendations to utilize certification data. At the time 
of the preliminary analysis, DOE's certification database consisted of 
data for only 38 percent of covered GSFLs. Because not all commercially 
available products had associated certification data, DOE was unable to 
rely solely on certification data in the preliminary analysis. At the 
time of the NOPR analysis, DOE's certification database

[[Page 24095]]

contained data for 68 percent of the covered commercially available 
lamps. While this was an increase from the preliminary analysis, it 
still did not represent a comprehensive dataset on which to base an 
engineering analysis. Therefore, in this NOPR analysis, DOE again 
utilized catalog data to identify baseline products and develop initial 
efficacy levels. This approach ensured consideration of all available 
products. DOE then used available certification data to adjust the 
initial efficacy levels, if necessary, thereby ensuring that the 
proposed levels can be met based on the certification values submitted 
by manufacturers to demonstrate compliance with standards.
Wattage
    The CA IOUs asked why DOE is using ANSI rated wattage to calculate 
efficacy when the certification database lists specific wattages for 
products. (CA IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 96) The CA 
IOUs stated that using a rated wattage of 32.5 W gives an expected 
average efficacy and recommended looking at whether lamps are 
performing at different levels of efficacy than projected and setting 
baselines and standards around more measured data rather than a rated 
wattage. (CA IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at p. 100)
    NEMA noted the rated wattage is based on a very large number of 
samples that are averaged out and manufacturers produce lamps to fall 
on and around that point. Therefore, the individual lamp tested wattage 
will differ from this rated value of that lamp. NEMA stated that it 
would defer to its members, but in general it supported using the ANSI 
rated wattage rather than the measured wattage. (NEMA, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 98) GE did not think industry had a firm 
position on the issue, recognizing different wattages can be used. (GE, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 99-100; NEMA, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 98-99)
    For the preliminary analysis and the NOPR analysis, DOE used 
catalog data to develop initial CSLs and ELs and assessed certification 
data to make any adjustments to the levels. As noted, DOE's 
certification database does not include data for all covered GSFLs; 
therefore, the measured wattages of all commercially available covered 
lamps are not readily accessible. Additionally, DOE identified 
inconsistencies with the values reported for wattage, specifically in 
some cases nominal wattage may be reported rather than the measured 
wattage in DOE's certification database. Therefore, as mentioned 
previously, DOE used manufacturer lamp catalogs to establish initial 
CSLs in the preliminary analysis and ELs in the NOPR. To determine 
catalog efficacies, DOE used catalog lumen output and ANSI rated 
wattage instead of the nominal wattage provided by manufacturers in 
catalogs. ANSI rated wattage is the result of standardized ANSI testing 
and represents an industry agreed upon wattage, as explained by NEMA. 
If an ANSI standard did not provide a rated wattage for a lamp type 
analyzed, efficacy was calculated using the nominal wattage.
    For the assessment of certification values, DOE used the reported 
values for efficacy, which are based on measured lumen output and 
measured wattage as specified in DOE's test procedures for GSFLs set 
forth at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix R. Utilizing ANSI rated 
wattage to calculate catalog efficacy and reported efficacy for 
developing final efficacy levels eliminates the uncertainty associated 
with the wattages reported for compliance.
Using Data at 25 Degrees Celsius
    NEMA stated that DOE should conduct all its analyses, payback and 
feasibility equations based on data referenced to and measured at 25 
[deg]C, not 35 [deg]C, otherwise, results will be skewed because 
efficiency can ``appear'' higher at 35 [deg]C for certain products made 
(optimized) for those conditions. NEMA noted that DOE's test procedure, 
existing and previous rules, as well as reporting and catalogs, use 25 
[deg]C data. (NEMA, No. 36 at p. 18; NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, 
No. 30 at p. 127) GE noted that discussions during the 2009 Lamps Rule 
had concluded that T5 lamps should be tested at 25 [deg]C as currently 
done by labs because testing becomes very unreliable at 35 [deg]C. 
Therefore, it is not appropriate to have a lm/W level based on 35 
[deg]C. (GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 89-90) Philips 
stated that lamps for which efficacy values are provided at 35 [deg]C 
operating temperature in catalogs are particular amalgam lamps that 
were designed specifically for that environment. (Philips, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at p. 127)
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE developed efficacy levels based on 
performance at 25 [deg]C because the DOE test procedure for GSFLs 
requires the lamps to be tested at 25 [deg]C, including T5 lamps. 
However, because all manufacturers do not provide lumen output data at 
25 [deg]C for T5 lamps in their catalogs but do provide it at 35 
[deg]C, DOE developed initial efficacy levels based on 35 [deg]C 
catalog data for T5 lamps. This allowed DOE to evaluate performance for 
all T5 lamps based on data provided by manufacturers at the same 
operating temperature. As noted, because the DOE test procedure used to 
determine compliance with standards requires GSFLs to be tested at 25 
[deg]C, DOE adjusted the initial efficacy levels to reflect operation 
at 25 [deg]C. To do this, DOE utilized information in lamp manufacturer 
catalogs that provided performance characteristics for lamp operation 
at both 25 [deg]C and 35 [deg]C. In cases where this information was 
not available, DOE adjusted the 35 [deg]C data to reflect lamp 
operation at 25 [deg]C. Specifically, when operated at 25 [deg]C, the 
lumen output of T5 lamps is approximately 10 percent lower than the 
lumen output of such lamps when operated at 35 [deg]C. For this NOPR 
analysis, DOE has maintained this approach and developed efficacy 
levels based on performance at 25 [deg]C.
Decimal Usage for lm/W
    Philips stated that the CSLs analyzed in the preliminary analysis 
are to the tenths decimal place which provides an artificial measure of 
accuracy that doesn't even exist and Philips doesn't think it can be 
measured accurately. (Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at p. 
146) Regarding this comment that reporting lm/W to one significant 
digit is not conducive to repeated and reliable measurements, the CA 
IOUs stated the rulemaking must adhere to the existing DOE test 
procedure that calculates an efficacy value using a specific sample 
size and confidence limit procedure. (CA IOUs, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 149-151)
    As specified in DOE's test procedures for GSFLs set forth at 10 CFR 
part 430, subpart B, appendix R, lamp efficacy is the ratio of measured 
lumen output in lumens to the measured lamp electrical power input in 
watts rounded to the nearest tenth in units of lumens per watt. In the 
2009 final rule for the GSFL and IRL test procedure, DOE amended the 
test procedure to require reported efficacy measurements for GSFLs to 
be rounded to the nearest tenth of a lumen per watt allowing for future 
energy conservation standards to be rounded to the nearest tenth of a 
lumen per watt. 74 FR 31829, 31836 (July 6, 2009). DOE concluded this 
amendment to the test procedure was feasible because manufacturers 
routinely generate test results that would allow reporting to at least 
the tenth of a lumen per watt level. 74 FR at 31836 (July 6, 2009). 
Therefore, DOE is analyzing efficacy levels in this rulemaking rounded 
to the nearest tenth of a lumen per watt as DOE maintains

[[Page 24096]]

that this is an achievable level of accuracy.
Using High Frequency Test Data
    According to NEMA, in recognition of the marketplace shift to 
electronic high frequency (HF) ballasts, the American National 
Standards Institute Lighting Group has drafted new standards for the 
electrical and photometric characterization of GSFL T8 lamps that are 
based on HF rather than the former low frequency 60 Hz reference 
ballasts. When these new standards are published later in 2013, the 
industry will comply and begin characterizing their products using HF-
based photometry. (NEMA, No. 36 at p. 2) NEMA also stated that current 
test procedures unfairly compare energy-saver lamps to standard lamps, 
owing to the removal of cathode heat voltage from the energy-efficiency 
calculation of energy-saver lamps, thus they cannot be compared without 
unfairly skewing the numbers in favor of low-wattage lamps. High 
frequency measurement standards account for this difference. (NEMA, No. 
36 at pp. 14-15) Therefore, NEMA recommends that this rulemaking should 
be based on the new ANSI HF standards. (NEMA, No. 36 at p. 2)
    The current GSFL test procedure as specified in 10 CFR part 430, 
subpart B, appendix R requires lamps be tested at low frequency unless 
only high frequency ballast specifications are available for the lamp. 
The test procedure also specifies that for high frequency testing, 
cathode heat should not be used when the lamp is in operation. DOE 
acknowledges that high frequency reference specifications may be in 
development for additional lamp types and may consider standards based 
on high frequency operation after ANSI publishes the revised industry 
standard.
700 Series Waiver
    NEMA also noted that 700 series lamps are under the U.S. Office of 
Hearings and Appeals (OHA) compliance waivers from the July 2012 
standards. Therefore, their performance and market changes are still 
several years away from being known. (NEMA, No. 36 at p. 1)
    In April of 2012, several manufacturers \27\ were granted exception 
relief exempting their 700 series T8 lamps from the July 2012 standards 
for a period of two years. The waiver was granted due to the global 
supply restrictions on rare earth phosphors, the rising world demand of 
these phosphors, and the resulting impacts on producing higher efficacy 
GSFLs.\28\ Because this waiver will expire in 2014, and any standards 
adopted by this rulemaking are expected to require compliance in 2017, 
DOE has conducted this analysis for GSFLs assuming that the waiver 
would not be in place and has therefore not considered non-compliant 
700 series lamps in its analysis. DOE notes that the term ``700 
series'' is widely used in industry when referring to fluorescent lamps 
with a CRI in the range of 70 to 79. See section V.A for the proposed 
definition of a 700 series lamp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ At the time of this analysis, the following manufacturers 
had been granted exception relief exempting their 700 series T8 
lamps from current standards: Philips, GE, OSI, Ushio America, Halco 
Lighting Technologies, Premium Quality Lighting, Inc., Tailored 
Lighting, Inc., Litetronics International, Inc., Satco Products, 
Inc., DLU Lighting USA, Westinghouse Lighting Corporation, Ascent 
Battery Supply, LLC, Eiko, Ltd, Topaz Lighting Corporation, 
Technical Consumer Products, Feit Electric Company.
    \28\ Philips Lighting Company, et al. OHA Case Nos. EXC-12-0001, 
EXC-12-0002, EXC-12-0003 (2012). Accessible here: http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/oha/EE/EXC-12-0001thru03.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Representative Product Classes
    When a covered product has multiple product classes, DOE identifies 
and selects certain product classes as representative and analyzes 
those product classes directly. DOE chooses these representative 
product classes primarily due to their high market volumes. For GSFLs, 
in the preliminary analysis DOE identified all GSFLs with CCTs less 
than or equal to 4,500 K with the exception of the 2-foot U-shaped 
lamps as representative product classes as shown (in gray) in Table 
VI.5. NEMA agreed with the representative product classes presented for 
GSFLs. (NEMA, No. 36 at p. 7)

             Table VI.5--GSFL Representative Product Classes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Lamp type                               CCT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4-foot medium bipin.....................................       4,500 K
2-foot U-shaped.........................................       4,500 K
8-foot single pin slimline..............................       4,500 K
8-foot recessed double contact high output..............       4,500 K
4-foot T5, miniature bipin standard output..............       4,500 K
4-foot T5, miniature bipin high output..................       4,500 K
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NEEA questioned why none of the products with CCT greater than 
4,500 K were being directly analyzed and noted that at least one should 
be assessed in order to ensure the analysis is accounting for the 
magnitude of difference between greater than and less than or equal to 
4,500 K CCT products. (NEEA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at p. 
88)
    As noted previously, DOE chose representative product classes based 
on high market volumes. DOE received feedback from manufacturers in 
interviews indicating that the volume of lamps with CCT greater than 
4,500 K is considerably lower than the volume of lamps with CCT less 
than or equal to 4,500 K. In addition, DOE used manufacturer feedback 
and catalog data to quantify the difference in performance between 
lamps with higher CCTs and lamps with lower CCTs. For these reasons, 
DOE did not directly analyze lamps with CCT greater than 4,500 K in the 
preliminary analysis and this NOPR analysis. DOE scaled the directly 
analyzed product classes with CCTs less than or equal to 4,500 K to 
those with CCTs greater than 4,500 K in the preliminary and NOPR 
analyses. See section VI.D.2.h and chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD for 
further information.
    EEI stated it thought that the 2-foot U-shaped lamps would have 
sales comparable to some of the other product classes. EEI also did not 
agree with determining the efficiency standard for the 2-foot U-shaped 
lamps using the 4-foot MBP lamps as a proxy. (EEI, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 30 at p. 86-88)
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE utilized the 4-foot MBP linear 
fluorescent products to scale to the 2-foot U-shaped products, as both 
products use the same fluorescent technology, span the same range of 
wattages, and, without its bent curve, the 2-foot U-shaped lamp would 
be approximately the same length as the 4-foot MBP linear lamp. Thus, 
DOE could determine impact on efficacy from the bent curve and scale 
from the 4-foot MBP product class. Further, the market share of 2-foot 
U-shaped lamps is significantly lower than 4-foot MBP lamps. As 
indicated in the LMC, T8 4-foot linear lamps comprise 44 percent of all 
linear fluorescent lighting, whereas T8 2-foot U-shaped lamps make up 
just 2 percent. Therefore, in this NOPR analysis, DOE did not directly 
analyze the 2-foot U-shaped lamps and scaled ELs from the 4-foot MBP 
product class to the 2-foot U-shaped product class. See section 
VI.D.2.h and chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD for further information.
c. Baseline Lamps
    Once DOE identifies the representative product classes for 
analysis, it selects baseline lamps to analyze in each class. 
Typically, a

[[Page 24097]]

baseline lamp is the most common, least efficacious lamp that just 
meets existing energy conservation standards. For fluorescent lamps, 
the most common lamps were determined based on characteristics such as 
wattage, lumen output, lifetime, and CCT. To identify baseline lamps, 
DOE reviews product offerings in catalogs, shipment information, and 
manufacturer feedback obtained during interviews.
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE considered commercially available 
lamps as baselines. In some cases, the most common, least efficacious 
commercially available product was at an efficacy above the existing 
standard level. Specifically, for the 8-foot RDC HO, T5 MiniBP SO, and 
T5 MiniBP HO product classes, DOE was unable to identify a commercially 
available product at the existing standard level. DOE received several 
comments regarding the selection of these lamps with efficacies higher 
than the existing standard levels as baselines.
    NEMA stated that the arguments for baseline, CSL 0 in the 
preliminary TSD, are based on predictions of market shift that 
erroneously justify a new baseline higher than the minimum requirements 
put forth by the 2009 Lamps Rule. (NEMA, No. 36 at p. 1) NEMA 
questioned why the baselines for product classes were not set at the 
standard level adopted in the 2009 Lamps Rule. (NEMA, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 85-85) The CA IOUs recommended DOE use the 
efficacy levels set in the 2009 Lamps Rule as the baselines for all 
GSFL product classes because minimum product performance generally 
gravitates to the minimum standards set for the product. (CA IOUs, No. 
32 at p. 13) GE concurred, stating that the market will move to lamps 
at that level due to the cost of rare earth materials. Therefore, GE 
asserted that it is easy to make the assumption that lamps will 
gravitate towards that minimum level over time and that that should be 
the analysis going forward over the next six to ten years. (GE, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 93-94)
    NEEA and NPCC agreed that DOE should use products that minimally 
comply with existing standards as baselines and this would be validated 
by the measured and/or certified values. (NEEA and NPCC, No. 34 at p. 
1, 4) The CA IOUs also noted that the certification database shows that 
there are products right at the level, particularly for the 4-foot MBP 
class. (CA IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 93-94)
    As noted previously, DOE assesses commercially available products 
on the market and chooses baseline lamps representative of the common 
characteristics within that product class and just meet existing 
standards. However, feedback from stakeholders and manufacturer 
interviews has indicated that manufacturers will likely produce lamps 
at the existing standard level even if no products are currently 
available. Further, after the 2009 Lamps Rule, DOE observed the 
introduction of products that were not previously available at the 
newly adopted standard levels for some product classes. Thus, DOE 
believes this trend could continue and additional lamps may be offered 
that just meet the existing standard level for the remaining product 
classes.
    Therefore, in this NOPR analysis DOE is proposing baselines at the 
existing standard levels for all product classes. For the 4-foot MBP 
product class, DOE determined the baseline selected in the preliminary 
analysis to be the least efficient product on the market at the 
existing standards. For the 8-foot SP slimline product class, DOE also 
changed the baseline lamp to be the least efficient product on the 
market at the existing standards. For representative product classes in 
which there were no commercially available lamps at the existing 
standard level, DOE modeled baseline lamps. To determine the 
performance characteristics of these lamps, DOE took the ANSI rated 
wattage of the most common, least efficacious commercially available 
lamp and calculated the lumen output required to develop an efficacy at 
the existing standard level. DOE assumed the modeled baseline lamp 
would have similar characteristics as the most common commercially 
available lamps in each product class, including lifetime and lumen 
depreciation. DOE modeled baseline lamps for the 8-foot RDC HO, T5 
MiniBP SO, and T5 MiniBP HO product classes.
    If DOE considered additional types of GSFLs in the scope of this 
rulemaking, NEEA and NPCC recommended that for product classes that do 
not currently have a standard, DOE should establish the baseline at the 
lowest level of efficiency commonly found in the marketplace. (NEEA and 
NPCC, No. 34 at p. 1, 4) In this NOPR analysis, DOE is not considering 
additional types of GSFLs that are not subject to standards. See 
section V.B for more details.
    NEEP noted that the 2011 Vermont Market Characterization and 
Assessment Study conducted by Navigant for Vermont's Public Service 
Department (mentioned previously in this notice) established baselines 
for certain products in the state's commercial sector. NEEP urged DOE 
to utilize the fluorescent lighting data collected to corroborate DOE's 
findings. (NEEP, No. 33 at p. 3)
    DOE reviewed the study and found that, given the level of detail 
provided, it was difficult to use the results to corroborate DOE's 
baseline selections. The study aims to characterize the prevalence of 
T8 lamps, high performance T8 lamps, T12 lamps, and T5 lamps in the 
state of Vermont. While it provides market share information for 
standard T8s and high performance T8s, it does not provide this 
information by level of efficiency for T5 lamps. Further, the lengths 
of these lamp types are not included, and thus DOE was unable to 
compare the results on a product class basis.
    When considering general overall trends, the study confirmed that 
T8 lamps are significantly more prevalent than T12 lamps, and T8 
standard efficiency lamps are more commonly installed than high 
performance T8 lamps. These high level results support certain aspects 
of the baseline selections, namely the selection of T8 standard 
performance lamps at the baseline. However, the study covers a very 
limited service area and therefore cannot be regarded as indicative of 
the most commonly installed lamp types at a national level.
    DOE is proposing the baseline lamps for GSFLs specified in Table 
VI.6. See chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD for further details on this 
assessment. DOE requests comment on the baseline lamps analyzed in the 
NOPR analysis, in particular the modeled baseline lamps in the 8-foot 
RDC HO, T5 MiniBP SO, and T5 MiniBP HO product classes.

[[Page 24098]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29AP14.000

d. More Efficacious Substitutes
    DOE selects more efficacious replacements for the baseline lamps 
considered within each representative product class. DOE considers only 
design options identified in the screening analysis. In the preliminary 
analysis, these selections were made such that potential substitutions 
maintained light output within 10 percent of the baseline lamp's light 
output with similar performance characteristics, when possible. DOE 
also sought to keep other characteristics of substitute lamps as 
similar as possible to the baseline lamps, such as rated life, CRI, and 
CCT. In identifying the more efficacious substitutes, DOE utilized a 
database of commercially available lamps. DOE received comments 
regarding its choices for more efficacious substitutes in the 
preliminary analysis.
T5 HO Product Class
    For the preliminary analysis, in its assessment of commercially 
available products, DOE was unable to find a full wattage T5 HO lamp 
with an efficacy higher than the baseline. However, DOE did find 
several more efficacious, reduced wattage T5 HO lamps at higher levels 
of efficacy. As discussed in section VI.D.2.e, DOE is only analyzing 
efficacy levels that can be met by full wattage lamps. Therefore, in 
the preliminary analysis, DOE modeled a more efficacious full wattage 
T5 HO lamp. Specifically, DOE created a higher efficacy model lamp 
using a more efficacious commercially available reduced wattage T5 HO 
lamp to calculate the characteristics of a full wattage T5 HO lamp of 
comparable efficacy. The CSL considered for the T5 HO product class was 
set according to the efficacy of this modeled full wattage lamp.
    DOE received several comments regarding this approach. NEMA stated 
that it could not comment on the manufacturability or functionality of 
the T5 HO model lamp put forth in the preliminary analysis because the 
product does not exist, and it is poor practice to invent new products. 
(NEMA, No. 36 at p. 8) NEMA stated that if DOE is unable to use a 
commercially available lamp for analysis for this product class it 
should not pursue an increased efficiency level. However, in the case 
that DOE does intend to further regulate this product class, NEMA 
stated DOE should arrange for the construction and testing of a 
representative number of this modeled lamp to obtain information on 
manufacturing feasibility. (NEMA, No. 36 at p. 8-9) Philips agreed, 
stating that DOE is designing and inventing new lamps and it is not 
known whether they are even feasible. This approach could potentially 
result in a product class where there are no products available. 
(Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at p. 124)
    GE stated it had to get more information but noted that its 
engineers had significant concerns regarding the T5 MiniBP HO model 
lamp and the high efficacy of the max tech level being considered for 
this product class. Noting that it had not seen DOE take this approach 
before, GE stated that DOE seems to be going from T5 efficacy levels 
that are relatively easy to meet to efficacy levels that may not even 
be technically feasible. (GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 
125-126)
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE concluded that the higher efficacy 
level achieved by reduced wattage T5 HO lamps demonstrated the 
potential for a full wattage lamp to achieve an efficacy level above 
the baseline. Accordingly, DOE modeled the lamp efficacy of a higher 
efficacy full wattage lamp using commercially available reduced wattage 
lamps. DOE acknowledged in the preliminary analysis that in determining 
whether it is appropriate to consider a CSL based on this model lamp, 
DOE would gather additional information on the manufacturability and 
functionality of this lamp, as well as its projected efficacy, when 
measured according to the DOE test procedure. DOE does not have the 
necessary information to determine whether the higher efficacy full 
wattage T5 HO model lamp was technologically feasible, and therefore is 
not considering the higher efficacy modeled T5 HO lamp in the NOPR 
analysis.
    As noted previously, in response to the stakeholder comments 
discussed in section VI.D.2.c, DOE modeled a

[[Page 24099]]

baseline lamp for the NOPR analysis because the T5 HO product class 
does not have a commercially available lamp that just meets the 
existing standard. Because there are full wattage products that have 
demonstrated efficacy higher than the existing standard, DOE believes 
the modeled baseline lamp is feasible. Based on this new baseline, in 
the NOPR analysis DOE was able to identify a more efficacious full 
wattage T5 HO substitute that is commercially available. The more 
efficacious T5 HO lamps are shown in Table VI.7.
Lifetime Characteristics
    NEEP stated that Energy Efficiency Program Administrators from 
Efficiency Vermont and National Grid noted that the rated life values 
for the lamps DOE has identified as more efficacious substitutes (for 
4-foot MBP) are low. They specifically pointed out that GE's reduced 
wattage 25 and 28 W lamps and their high lumen 32 W lamps are all rated 
between 40-50,000 hours (instant start [IS], 3 hours per start). 
Further Philips rates their reduced wattage 25 and 28 W lamps at 32,000 
hours (IS, 3 hours per start). ``Extended life'' lamps offer even 
longer rated lifetimes. (NEEP, No. 33 at p. 3)
    As noted in section VI.D.2.c, baseline lamps are selected in part 
based on the most common characteristics of their respective product 
classes, and DOE selects more efficacious substitutes with similar 
performance characteristics as the baseline representative unit when 
possible. Thus, the baseline and more efficacious substitutes selected 
represent the most common lifetimes for each product class. In the case 
of the 4-foot MBP product class, DOE found that a 24,000 hour lifetime 
on IS ballasts with 3 hour starts and a 40,000 hour lifetime on 
programmed start ballasts with 3 hour starts were the most common 
lifetimes for the product class. DOE notes that the rated lifetime 
values cited by NEEP for GE's reduced wattage 25 and 28 W lamps and 
high lumen 32 W lamps represent rated lifetime on a programmed start 
ballast with 3 hour starts rather than an IS ballast. Therefore the 40-
50,000 hour lifetimes cited by NEEP do align with the rated lifetimes 
(programmed start, 3 hours per start) of the more efficacious 
substitutes selected. Further, DOE received manufacturer feedback 
during interviews that the lifetime values of the more efficacious 
substitutes were representative of their respective product classes. 
Therefore, in this NOPR analysis, DOE is maintaining the same more 
efficacious substitutes as selected in the preliminary analysis. DOE 
requests comment on the rated lifetimes of the GSFL baselines and more 
efficacious substitutes.
Summary of GSFL Representative Lamps
    DOE received no other comments regarding the selection of more 
efficacious substitutes for GSFLs. The GSFL representative lamps 
analyzed in the NOPR are shown in Table VI.7.

                                                          Table VI.7--GSFL Representative Lamps
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Nominal      Rated       Rated      Initial   Mean light     Life
                                                                        wattage     wattage    efficacy      light      output   ------------
         Product classes                     EL              Lamp    ------------------------------------   output   ------------                 CRI
                                                           diameter                                      ------------                 hr
                                                                           W           W         lm/W         lm          lm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4-foot MBP.......................  EL 1.................          T8          32        32.5        90.0       2,925       2,770      21,000          85
                                   EL 2.................          T8          25        26.6        93.0       2,475       2,350      24,000          85
                                   EL 2.................          T8          32        32.5        95.4       3,100       2,945      24,000          85
                                   EL 2.................          T8          28        28.4        96.0       2,725       2,590      24,000          85
8-foot SP slimline...............  EL 1.................          T8          59        60.1        98.2       5,900       5,490      24,000          85
                                   EL 2.................          T8          59        60.1        99.0       5,950       5,650      24,000          85
                                   EL 2.................          T8          54        54.0       105.6       5,700       5,415      24,000          85
                                   EL 2.................          T8          50        50.0       108.0       5,400       5,075      24,000          85
8-foot RDC HO....................  EL 1.................          T8          86        84.0        95.2       8,000       7,600      18,000          78
                                   EL 2.................          T8          86        84.0        97.6       8,200       7,800      18,000          86
T5 MiniBP SO*....................  EL 1.................          T5          28        27.8        93.5       2,600       2,418      30,000          85
                                   EL 2.................          T5          28        27.8        98.2       2,730       2,594      30,000          85
                                   EL 2.................          T5          26        26.0       100.0       2,600       2,470      30,000          85
                                   EL 2.................          T5          25        25.0       104.0       2,600       2,475      35,000          85
T5 MiniBP HO*....................  EL 1.................          T5          54        53.8        82.7       4,450       4,275      25,000          85
                                   EL 1.................          T5          49        49.0        90.8       4,450       4,140      35,000          85
                                   EL 1.................          T5          47        47.0        91.9       4,320       3,969      30,000          84
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO and HO rated efficacy, initial lumen output, and mean lumen output given at 25 [deg]C.

e. General Service Fluorescent Lamp Systems
    Because fluorescent lamps operate on a ballast in practice, in the 
preliminary analysis, DOE analyzed lamp-and-ballast systems, thereby 
more accurately capturing real-world energy use and light output. In 
the DOE test procedure for GSFLs, and therefore in this rulemaking, 
lamp efficacy is based on the initial lumen output. However, because 
light output decreases over time, in the preliminary analysis DOE 
analyzed more efficacious systems that maintain mean lumen output \29\ 
within 10 percent of the baseline system, when possible. Further, in 
the preliminary analysis, DOE selected replacement systems that do not 
have higher energy consumption than the baseline system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Mean lumen output is a measure of light output midway 
through the rated life of a lamp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE considered two different scenarios in the preliminary analysis: 
(1) A lamp replacement scenario in which the consumer selects a reduced 
wattage replacement lamp that can operate on the installed ballast and 
(2) a lamp-and-ballast replacement scenario in which the consumer 
selects a lamp that has the same or lower wattage compared to the 
baseline lamp and also selects a new ballast with potentially different 
performance characteristics, such as ballast factor \30\ (BF) or 
ballast

[[Page 24100]]

luminous efficiency \31\ (BLE). In the preliminary analysis, for the 
second scenario DOE attempted to select a ballast that would result in 
energy savings and still maintain the mean lumen output within 10 
percent of the baseline. In cases where energy savings were not 
possible without going beyond the 10 percent threshold of the baseline 
mean lumen output, DOE gave priority to energy savings. This resulted 
in the mean lumen output being either 10 percent above or below the 
baseline lumens for certain lamp-and-ballast scenarios.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ BF is defined as the output of a ballast delivered to a 
reference lamp in terms of power or light divided by the output of 
the relevant reference ballast delivered to the same lamp (ANSI 
C82.13-2002). Because BF affects the light output of the system, 
manufacturers design ballasts with a range of ballast factors to 
allow consumers to vary the light output, and thus power consumed, 
of a fluorescent system. See the 2011 Ballast Rule final rule TSD 
Chapter 3. The Ballast Rule materials are available at 
www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2007-BT-STD-0016.
    \31\ BLE is the ratio of the total lamp arc power to ballast 
input power multiplied by the appropriate frequency adjustment 
factor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE received several comments regarding its methodology in 
identifying more efficacious lamp-and-ballast systems, specifically 
regarding selection of ballasts, maintenance of mean lumen output 
within 10 percent of the baseline, and energy saving options not 
explored in the preliminary analysis.
Ballast Selection
    NEMA agreed with the lamp and ballast pairings presented in the 
preliminary analysis. (NEMA, No. 36 at p. 8) However, NEMA also stated 
that GSFL performance is highly dependent on ballast selection and 
pairing. NEMA pointed out that NES of lighting systems will not be 
affected significantly by this proposed rulemaking on GSFL efficacy due 
to the overwhelming influence of ballast selection on final 
performance. (NEMA, No. 36 at p. 1)
    As mentioned, because fluorescent lamps operate on a ballast in 
practice, DOE analyzed lamp-and-ballast systems in the engineering 
analysis. The impacts of these systems on NES were analyzed in the NIA. 
See section VI.I for more information on the NES of the proposed GSFL 
systems.
    The CA IOUs expressed concern regarding some of the replacement 
systems identified, including lamps operating on residential ballasts 
and programmed start ballasts. The CA IOUs questioned why a residential 
ballast with a ballast factor of 0.83 was selected when DOE could have 
chosen a ballast with a lower ballast factor of 0.77 and still stayed 
within five percent of initial lumens. (CA IOUs, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 30 at p. 253-255) The CA IOUs also questioned a 
specific lamp-and-ballast replacement scenario considered in the 
preliminary analysis in which a nominal 32 W lamp with an efficacy of 
95 lm/W, installed with a 0.88 BF ballast, replaced a 32 W lamp at 89.2 
lm/W, also using a 0.88 BF ballast. (See table 8.5.3 of the preliminary 
TSD.) The CA IOUs noted that this retrofit results in a 7 percent 
increase in light output and no reduction in energy consumption. If DOE 
had paired a 0.78 BF ballast with the more efficacious lamp, the 
retrofit would have resulted in a reduction in light output of only 5 
percent, and would achieve some reduction in energy consumption and 
some energy cost savings for the end user. (CA IOUs, No. 32 at pp. 13-
14)
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE considered only commercially 
available ballasts when selecting ballasts to pair with lamps. The CA 
IOUs suggested a ballast with a 0.77 BF for the residential 2-lamp 
instant start replacement scenario and a ballast with a 0.78 BF for the 
2-lamp programmed start scenario, however, DOE found that these 
ballasts do not exist. Because there were no residential 2-lamp instant 
start low BF ballasts or 2-lamp programmed start low BF ballasts 
commercially available that would also maintain mean lumen output 
within 10 percent of the baseline system, DOE was unable to analyze 
ballasts with lower BFs than those selected for these scenarios. DOE 
instead selected the same ballast as the baseline as this was the 
lowest BF ballast commercially available.
Ten Percent Mean Lumen Output Threshold
    NEMA explained that in the past it was common practice to reduce 
light levels by 10 percent or more when retrofitting from a T12 to a T8 
lighting system because older lighting systems were typically designed 
to higher light levels. Over the years, IES light level requirements 
have been reduced, especially in office applications where the use of 
computers reduces the need for high light levels. DOE must analyze the 
future retrofit situation that will occur after 2018 in which 4-foot 
linear fluorescent systems will have been retrofitted to a T8 or better 
fluorescent system already operating at the appropriate lower light 
levels. Retrofits beyond this 2018 time period should be expected to 
maintain the new, lower recommended IES light levels where they are 
already in place. Therefore, unlike T12 to T8 conversions, projecting 
further light level reductions of 6 to 14 percent as is done in DOE's 
analysis cannot be justified against the T8 systems operating in 2018. 
For a fair economic comparison, DOE should seek to match the existing 
light levels within a +/- 5 percent range. (NEMA, No. 36 at p. 8; GE, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 90-91; GE, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 110-112; Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, 
No. 30 at pp. 105-106)
    GE stated that it is not typical to replace lighting systems lamp 
for lamp that are more than 10 percent lower in light output unless the 
space is considered overlit to begin with or the space was repurposed. 
(GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 90-91) For a fair 
comparison between lighting systems, GE recommended that DOE stay as 
close as possible to 10 percent and not to go beyond this threshold as 
some systems do in the analysis presented. (GE, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 119-120)
    EEI agreed that at this time, retrofits are being done from T8 to 
T8 and electronic ballast to electronic ballast and therefore lumen 
depreciation is limited, at most 10 percent versus 20 or 30 percent 
when replacing a T12. EEI noted that this could make a difference in 
design for a new building and total renovations that are meeting 
building codes. (EEI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 109-110) 
EEI recommended analyzing equal to or higher lumen output replacement 
systems to maximize consumer utility in terms of maintaining lumen 
output in retrofit scenarios. (EEI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 
at p. 121) Cooper Lighting added that light level is important in 
accurately and correctly doing a task in a space and the impact of 
light levels on efficiency in the workplace should be given 
consideration. (Cooper, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 110)
    The CA IOUs agreed with DOE's analysis of replacement systems that 
maintained mean lumen output within 10 percent of the mean lumens of 
the baseline system. Based on experience from offering rebate lamps 
through its programs, the CA IOUs had found that nine times out of ten 
after changing the lights in a commercial space, the complaints are 
that it is too bright. The CA IOUs asserted that most spaces were not 
designed exactly to IES standards but give a little extra light 
initially. Additionally, the CA IOUs noted that lumen maintenance is a 
significant issue with fluorescent systems, particularly because the 
replacement of older T12 systems with newer, more efficacious systems 
makes the space seem even brighter after a retrofit. The CA IOUs 
further stated that the scenarios where you increase light output by 5, 
8, 12 percent are not going to work for consumers and reducing light 
output by 2, 4, 6, 8 percent will still seem too bright. (CA IOUs, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 106-108)
    As stated previously, because light output decreases over time, DOE

[[Page 24101]]

analyzed more efficacious systems that maintain mean lumen output 
within 10 percent of the baseline when possible. DOE established the 10 
percent threshold based on feedback from manufacturers that, in 
general, consumers would not notice a change in light output that is up 
to 10 percent. Manufacturers noted during interviews that when a space 
needs to be relamped, lumen depreciation has already typically occurred 
and thus lower light levels of a newly installed lamp would likely not 
be detected. Manufacturers also noted that while application dependent, 
designing to achieve energy savings is common and a decreased lumen 
output as a result is generally accepted as long as it is somewhere in 
the range of 10 percent of the baseline system mean lumen output. DOE 
concluded that selecting lamp-and-ballast system replacements within 10 
percent of the baseline system when possible ensures sufficient light 
levels are maintained and accurately reflects common practices. 
Therefore, in this NOPR analysis, DOE is continuing to utilize the 
criterion of maintaining 10 percent of the mean lumen output when 
possible in developing lamp-and-ballast replacement scenarios. If it 
was not possible to identify a lamp-and-ballast replacement that 
maintained the 10 percent mean lumen output criterion, DOE prioritized 
energy savings and analyzed a lamp-and-ballast system that reduced 
light output by more than 10 percent \32\ but saved energy relative to 
the baseline system. DOE continued to do this in the NOPR analysis 
because feedback during manufacturer interviews confirmed that changes 
in mean lumen output outside 10 percent of the baseline system are 
acceptable in some applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Light output was reduced up to 18 percent in some 
replacement scenarios. The percent reduction in light output was 
based on the ballast factor of the commercially available ballasts 
analyzed. For more information, see chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the preliminary analysis, some lamp-and-ballast replacement 
systems maintained light output within 10 percent of the baseline 
system but did not save energy. DOE analyzed these lamp and ballast 
combinations as the only replacement option because they met the 10 
percent mean lumen output criterion. For the NOPR analysis, DOE 
considered additional scenarios for this situation based on feedback 
from stakeholders and manufacturer interviews. DOE added another 
replacement option in which the consumer could prioritize energy 
savings by selecting a lamp-and-ballast system that reduced lumen 
output by more than 10 percent but also reduced energy consumption. 
Therefore, for certain lamp-and-ballast replacement scenarios, two 
ballast selections may exist: (1) A ballast that maintains system mean 
lumen output within 10 percent of the baseline; and (2) a ballast that 
achieves energy savings but does not maintain system mean lumen output 
within 10 percent of the baseline. DOE added this option only if 
ballasts with the required lower ballast factor were commercially 
available. Thus, it remains possible that certain scenarios do not 
result in energy savings if a lower BF ballast or reduced wattage lamp 
is not available (e.g., 8-foot RDC HO product class). See chapter 5 of 
the NOPR TSD for more information.
    In response to the lamp-and-ballast system selections presented in 
the preliminary analysis, EEI commented that light output was being 
reduced between 8 and 13.8 percent. EEI stated this is important 
because even if it is possible to meet the watts per square 
requirements in new buildings, the lumen output requirements on the 
surface must also be met by putting in more fixtures. Therefore, EEI 
argued that system input power calculations presented in the 
preliminary analysis may show savings that disappear once the space is 
designed to put in more fixtures. (EEI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 
30 at pp. 103-105) Philips noted that putting in more fixtures is not 
going to help because fixtures are mainly in the middle of the room. 
(Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 105-106)
    As noted, for the lamp-and-ballast replacement scenarios, DOE 
attempted to select a ballast that would result in energy savings and 
still maintain the mean lumen output within 10 percent of the baseline 
when possible. DOE determined that maintaining 10 percent of mean lumen 
output allows for changes in lumen output within an acceptable range to 
the consumer. If this was not possible, DOE prioritized energy savings 
and analyzed a lamp-and-ballast system that reduced light output by 
more than 10 percent but saved energy relative to the baseline system. 
DOE did not analyze the installation of additional fixtures due to 
feedback received from stakeholders that spacing adjustments are not 
practical (for a discussion of this conclusion, see section VI.G.9).
Energy Savings Over Light Output
    The CA IOUs and NEEA and NPCC did not agree with DOE's 
consideration of lamp-and-ballast system replacements where the light 
output increases without a reduction in system wattage. (CA IOUs, No. 
32 at pp. 13-14; NEEA and NPCC, No. 34 at p. 2, 4) The CA IOUs stated 
that commercial occupants are sensitive to changes in workplace 
lighting, and react negatively to light increases. Furthermore, 
commercial building operators are very sensitive to operating costs; 
and will choose the retrofit option that results in energy cost savings 
without significantly reducing the light levels unless the space was 
known to be underlit. Therefore, where DOE is presented with a choice 
between a lighting retrofit that would result in an increase of light 
levels between 0-10 percent, with no energy savings, and another that 
would result in a decrease of light levels between 0-10 percent, with 
energy savings, DOE should model the energy saving option as the most 
likely scenario for consumers. (CA IOUs, No. 32 at p. 14)
    The CA IOUs and NEEA and NPCC cited the following available options 
for reducing system wattage without reducing system lumen output by 
more than 10 percent: installing reduced wattage lamps, reducing 
ballast factors, delamping, and installing dimming ballasts. Though 
some reduced wattage T8 lamps currently have some difficulty dimming as 
well as their full wattage counterparts, this is only an issue for 
lamps installed with dimming ballasts. (Although, they noted that this 
may be improving in the future through the use of dimming ballasts 
designed to operate reduced wattage lamps.) The CA IOUs noted that 
reduced wattage lamps, lower ballast factor ballasts, or delamping are 
valid options, when not using a dimming ballast. Further even if a 
dimming ballast is installed, higher efficacy (brighter), full wattage 
lamps can be installed and tuned to the appropriate light level, which 
reduces system wattage. (CA IOUs, No. 32 at pp. 13-14)
    The CA IOUs and NEEA and NPCC noted that using these measures to 
achieve energy savings for the end user is a far more likely scenario 
for a real-world lighting retrofit project. (CA IOUs, No. 32 at pp. 13-
14; NEEA and NPCC, No. 34 at p. 2, 4) NEEA and NPCC added that 
resulting energy cost savings also help pay for the retrofit, and 
retrofits may only infrequently result in increased light levels. (NEEA 
and NPCC, No. 34 at p. 2, 4)
    DOE acknowledges that consumers may prioritize energy savings over 
maintaining light output in some applications. DOE also observes that 
several options exist to reduce system wattage while maintaining lumen 
output. DOE analyzed reduced wattage lamps and low BF ballasts as

[[Page 24102]]

replacement options in the engineering analysis. DOE also analyzed the 
use of dimming ballasts paired with both reduced wattage and full 
wattage lamps (for applicable product classes) to achieve energy 
savings in a lighting controls scenario conducted as a sensitivity in 
the LCC and NIA. See appendix 6A and chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD for 
further information on the dimming analysis.
    In addition to the above mentioned approaches utilized in the 
preliminary analysis, DOE added scenarios in the NOPR to incorporate 
the feedback from stakeholders that some consumers would prioritize 
energy savings over increasing or maintaining light output. As 
discussed previously, for the lamp-and-ballast replacement scenarios 
that resulted only in increased light output, DOE added another 
replacement option for this situation in which the consumer could 
prioritize energy savings by selecting a lamp-and-ballast system that 
reduced lumen output by more than 10 percent but also reduced energy 
consumption. DOE received feedback from manufacturers that maintenance 
of less than 10 percent of lumen output of the baseline system is more 
likely than increasing lumen output when replacing systems in order to 
achieve energy savings. Thus, DOE added the option for a consumer to 
select a lower BF ballast, if commercially available, that results in 
mean lumen output outside 10 percent of the baseline system in order to 
provide an energy-saving option if possible. As in the preliminary 
analysis, DOE did not consider delamping in this NOPR because 
manufacturer feedback confirmed that delamping is not common practice 
when retrofitting existing T8 systems.
Summary
    DOE maintained its overall methodology from the preliminary 
analysis for selecting lamp-and-ballast systems with the addition of 
new replacement options in some scenarios for the NOPR analysis to 
incorporate stakeholder feedback. To develop representative lamp-and-
ballast system pairings, DOE used manufacturer feedback and information 
provided in the 2011 Ballast Rule to determine the most common 
fluorescent lamp ballasts. In the preliminary and NOPR analyses, DOE 
paired the representative ballasts utilized in the 2011 Ballast Rule 
with the representative lamps selected in this analysis to characterize 
the most common lamp-and-ballast combinations present in the market.
    In events where consumers needed to replace both the lamp and the 
ballast, DOE identified a new lamp-and-ballast system by pairing a more 
efficacious lamp with a commercially available ballast that had the 
lowest BF possible that still maintained system mean lumen output 
within 10 percent of the baseline system. When multiple ballast options 
with the same BF existed, DOE selected the most efficient ballast based 
on the BLE metric, as this was considered to be the most likely ballast 
substitute in a lamp-and-ballast replacement scenario designed to 
achieve energy savings. If it was not possible to identify a lamp-and-
ballast replacement that maintained the 10 percent mean lumen output 
criterion, DOE prioritized energy savings and analyzed a lamp-and-
ballast system that reduced light output by more than 10 percent \33\ 
but saved energy relative to the baseline system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Light output was reduced up to 18 percent in some 
replacement scenarios. The percent reduction in light output was 
based on the ballast factor of the commercially available ballasts 
analyzed. For more information, see chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the preliminary analysis, some lamp-and-ballast replacement 
systems maintained light output within 10 percent of the baseline 
system but did not save energy. In the preliminary analysis, DOE 
analyzed these lamp-and-ballast combinations as the only replacement 
option because they met the 10 percent mean lumen output criterion. 
However, in the NOPR analysis, DOE added another replacement option for 
this situation in which the consumer could prioritize energy savings by 
selecting a lamp-and-ballast system that reduced lumen output by more 
than 10 percent but also reduced energy consumption. DOE added this 
option only if ballasts with the required lower BF were commercially 
available. See chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD for more information. DOE 
welcomes comments on its methodology for developing lamp-and-ballast 
systems and as well as the results of these GSFL systems.
f. Maximum Technologically Feasible
    DOE received several comments on the max tech level presented in 
the preliminary analysis for GSFLs. Lutron commented that with the 
exception of the 4-foot MBP class, CSLs presented in the preliminary 
analysis were higher than the max tech levels identified in the 2009 
Lamps Rule. Lutron noted that for the 8-foot SP slimline product class 
the max tech level in the 2009 Lamps Rule was 98 lm/W while the CSL 
level being considered is at 99 lm/W; for the 8-foot RDC HO product 
class the 2009 Lamps Rule max tech was 95 lm/W while the preliminary 
analysis CSL is 97 lm/W; for the T5 MiniBP SO product class the 2009 
Lamps Rule max tech level was 90 lm/W while the preliminary analysis 
CSL is 98.2 lm/W; for the T5 MiniBP HO product class the 2009 Lamps 
Rule max tech level was 76 lm/W and the preliminary analysis CSL is 
86.2 lm/W. (Lutron, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 129-130) 
NEEA and NPCC doubted the data used because CSLs presented were at 
higher efficacy levels than the max tech levels identified in the 2009 
Lamps Rule. (NEEA and NPCC, No. 34 at p. 2, 3) NEMA also commented that 
having one CSL eliminates DOE's ability to analyze standard levels 
other than the baseline and max tech and makes it more likely that max 
tech will become the new standard. (NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, 
No. 30 at p. 350)
    NEMA asked for an explanation of CSL levels higher than the max 
tech identified in the 2009 Lamps Rule for the 8-foot lamps. (NEMA, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 12-13) Lutron stated and NEMA 
concurred that unless there had been major technological breakthrough 
in fluorescent lamps, adopting standards more stringent than the max 
tech levels identified in the 2009 Lamps Rule would not be justified. 
(Lutron, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 129-130; NEMA, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 137) Philips and GE confirmed that 
there had been no recent technology changes in fluorescent lamp 
technology to warrant higher levels being considered than the max tech 
levels identified in the 2009 Lamps Rule. (Philips, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 30 at p. 130; GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at 
p. 130-131) NEMA concluded that because there have been no noteworthy 
technological breakthroughs since the last rulemaking or great changes 
in the market, the maximum-feasible performance levels of the previous 
rule have not changed (NEMA, No. 36 at p. 1)
    GE noted that because the 2009 Lamps Rule was moving from 
relatively modest efficiency levels, the discussion did not center 
around what lm/W are being reported and what is stated in catalogs. 
However, GE noted that in this rulemaking because the levels being 
considered are at very high levels it is important to consider whether 
the lm/W numbers are actually achievable. GE recommended that for max 
tech levels DOE use test data that show exactly what these products are 
capable of and not base levels on marketing claims to avoid situations 
where the established efficacy turns out to be unachievable, resulting 
in the elimination of a product class. (GE, Public Meeting Transcript,

[[Page 24103]]

No. 30 at pp. 144-146) Specifically, GE noted that it was concerned 
that the CSLs presented were based on more aggressive marketing claims 
in catalogs and not on any real change in technology. (GE, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 138-139)
    DOE identified several commercially available lamps performing at 
efficacy levels higher than the max tech levels established in the 2009 
Lamps Rule. Thus, manufacturers appear to be utilizing more advanced 
technologies or to be more efficiently utilizing existing technologies. 
The efficacy values provided in manufacturer product catalogs and 
certification data supplied by manufacturers indicate that these levels 
are achievable. DOE welcomes comment on the max tech levels identified 
in this analysis and more information on the accuracy of catalog and 
certification data.
g. Efficacy Levels
    After identifying more efficacious substitutes for each of the 
baseline lamps, in the preliminary analysis DOE developed CSLs based on 
the consideration of several factors, including: (1) The design options 
associated with the specific lamps being studied (e.g., grades of 
phosphor for GSFLs); (2) the ability of lamps across wattages to comply 
with the standard level of a given product class; \34\ and (3) the max 
tech level. When evaluating CSLs in the preliminary analysis, DOE 
considered only CSLs at which a full wattage version of the lamp type 
was available because reduced wattage lamps have limited utility. DOE 
received several comments on the CSLs considered in the preliminary 
analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ ELs span multiple lamps of different wattages. In selecting 
CSLs, DOE considered whether these multiple lamps can meet the ELs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NEMA recommended revisions to the CSLs presented in the preliminary 
analysis. Specifically, NEMA proposed a level at 89 lm/W for the 4-foot 
MBP product class, 97 lm/W for the 8-foot SP slimline product class, 94 
lm/W for the 8-foot RDC HO product class, 90 lm/W for the 4-foot T5 
MiniBP SO product class, and 80 lm/W for the 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO 
product class. (NEMA, No. 36 at p. 9) Further, in reference to T5 
lamps, NEMA noted that regardless of whether DOE had presented CSLs at 
25 [deg]C or 35 [deg]C, the efficacies of the analyzed products are too 
high to serve as representative products. (NEMA, No. 36 at p. 10)
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE considered two CSLs for the 4-foot 
MBP product class. DOE found two levels of efficacy above the existing 
standard that commercially available lamps were able to achieve. The 
baseline represented a standard 800 series full wattage T8 lamp. CSL 1 
(90.0 lm/W) represented an improved 800 series full wattage T8 lamp in 
which the phosphor mix and/or coating was enhanced to increase 
efficacy. CSL 2 (93.0 lm/W) represented an 800 series full wattage T8 
high lumen lamp able to achieve a higher efficacy with even more 
advanced phosphors. Reduced wattage lamps also met CSL 2. DOE analyzed 
publicly available certification data to determine if any adjustments 
were needed to ensure that proposed levels can be met based on the 
certification data. DOE determined that the representative units and/or 
equivalent lamps complied with the CSLs for the 4-foot MBP product 
class. DOE therefore concluded that no adjustments were necessary in 
the preliminary analysis based on the available certification data.
    In response to the preliminary analysis CSLs, NEMA proposed 
revising CSL 1 to 89 lm/W for the 4-foot MBP product class, which is 
equivalent to the existing standard. In the NOPR analysis, DOE 
continued to identify two levels of efficacy above the baseline. 
Manufacturer-provided information in catalogs indicates that there are 
two distinct product lines available with efficacies higher than the 
baseline products. The baseline level represents a standard 800 series 
full wattage T8 lamp. In the NOPR analysis, DOE maintained EL 1 (90.0 
lm/W) which represents an improved 800 series full wattage T8 lamp. DOE 
also maintained EL 2 (93.0 lm/W) which represents an 800 series high 
lumen output full wattage T8 lamp and the 25 W and 28 W reduced wattage 
lamps. DOE analyzed available certification information and found that 
EL 1 did not need to be adjusted from 90.0 lm/W. DOE adjusted EL 2 from 
the preliminary analysis value of 93.0 lm/W to 92.4 lm/W based on 
additional certification data.
    DOE considered one CSL for the 8-foot SP slimline product class at 
99.0 lm/W in the preliminary analysis. The baseline represented a 
standard 800 series full wattage T8 lamp, and DOE identified one level 
of efficacy above the baseline. CSL 1 represented an improved 800 
series full wattage (59 W) T8 lamp in which the phosphor mix and/or 
coating is enhanced to increase efficacy. Reduced wattage lamps also 
met this CSL. DOE determined through publicly available compliance 
reports that the 54 W representative unit and/or equivalent lamps 
complied with CSL 1. Thus, DOE concluded that no adjustment was 
necessary to CSL 1 in the preliminary analysis.
    NEMA recommended revising CSL 1 to 97 lm/W for the 8-foot SP 
slimline product class, which is equivalent to the existing standard, 
in response to the preliminary analysis. For the NOPR analysis, as 
mentioned previously, DOE selected a new baseline lamp that just 
complies with the existing standard level of 97 lm/W. The baseline 
level represents a less efficient 800 series full wattage T8 lamp. DOE 
then identified two levels of efficacy above this baseline that 
commercially available lamps are able to achieve. Manufacturer-provided 
information in catalogs indicates that there are two distinct product 
lines available with efficacies higher than the baseline product. EL 1 
represents a standard 800 series full wattage T8 lamp. EL 2 represents 
an improved 800 series full wattage T8 lamp in which the phosphor mix 
and/or coating is enhanced to increase efficacy. Reduced wattage lamps 
also meet EL 2. DOE found no adjustments were necessary based on 
certification data and established EL 1 at 98.2 lm/W and EL 2 at 99.0 
lm/W.
    For the 8-foot RDC HO product class, DOE had put forth CSL 1 at 
97.0 lm/W in the preliminary analysis. The baseline represented a 700 
series full wattage (86 W) T8 lamp, and DOE identified one level of 
efficacy above the baseline. CSL 1 represented a shift from 700 series 
to 800 series full wattage T8 lamps. Based on available certification 
data for the 86 W T8 representative unit and/or equivalent lamps at CSL 
1, DOE adjusted CSL 1 from 97.6 lm/W to 97.0 lm/W for 800 series full 
wattage T8 lamps.
    In response to the CSL proposed in the preliminary analysis for the 
8-foot RDC HO product class, NEMA suggested changing CSL 1 to 94 lm/W. 
DOE revised its analysis for the NOPR and modeled a baseline that just 
met the existing standard level of 92 lm/W, as described in section 
VI.D.2.c. DOE then identified two levels of efficacy above the baseline 
level. EL 1 now represents a 700 series full wattage T8 lamp with basic 
coating, gas composition, and phosphor mix. EL 2 represents a shift to 
an 800 series full wattage T8 lamp. DOE again analyzed publicly 
available certification data and determined that EL 1 should be 
adjusted from 95.2 lm/W to 94.0 lm/W for 700 series full wattage T8 
lamps based on available certification data. EL 2 was not adjusted 
based on available certification data and remains 97.6 lm/W. DOE notes 
that this level representing the 800 series design option in the 
preliminary analysis (previously CSL 1) was adjusted to 97.0 lm/W; 
however, based on additional

[[Page 24104]]

certification data, an adjustment is not necessary.
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE had considered one CSL at 98.2 lm/
W for the 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO product class. The baseline represented 
an 800 series full wattage (28 W) T5 lamp with basic coating, gas 
composition, and phosphor mix. CSL 1 represented an improved 800 series 
full wattage T8 lamp in which the phosphor mix and/or coating was 
enhanced to increase efficacy. Reduced wattage lamps also met this 
level. DOE then compared the certification data to the initial efficacy 
level at 25 [deg]C to determine if adjustments were necessary. DOE 
determined through publicly available compliance reports that the 
representative unit and/or equivalent lamps complied with CSL 1. 
Therefore, DOE did not adjust the initial CSL considered for this 
product class.
    NEMA recommended revising CSL 1 to 90 lm/W for the 4-foot T5 MiniBP 
SO product class. DOE updated its analysis for the NOPR and modeled a 
baseline that just met the existing standard level of 86 lm/W, as 
described in section VI.D.2.c. The baseline level represents a less 
efficient full wattage (28 W) lamp. Based on a review of commercially 
available products, DOE then identified two levels of efficacy above 
the baseline level at which lamps were consistently performing. 
Manufacturer-provided information in catalogs indicates that there are 
two distinct product lines available with efficacies higher than the 
baseline product. EL 1 represents an 800 series full wattage T5 lamp 
with basic coating, gas composition, and phosphor mix. EL 2 represents 
an improved 800 series full wattage T8 lamp in which the phosphor mix 
and/or coating is enhanced to increase efficacy. Reduced wattage lamps 
also meet this level. DOE found that no adjustments were necessary for 
EL 1 and therefore established EL 1 at 93.5 lm/W. For EL 2 representing 
improved 800 series full wattage T8 lamps, DOE adjusted EL 2 from 98.2 
lm/W to 97.1 lm/W based on additional certification data.
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE considered one CSL for the 4-foot 
T5 MiniBP HO product class at 86.2 lm/W. The baseline represented an 
800 series full wattage (54 W) T5 lamp with basic coating, gas 
composition, and phosphor mix. CSL 1 represented reduced wattage lamps, 
including 50 W T5 and 47 W T5 lamps, or an improved 800 series full 
wattage T8 lamp in which the phosphor mix and/or coating is enhanced to 
increase efficacy. Because there were no commercially available full 
wattage higher efficacy replacements for the 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO 
baseline lamps, DOE modeled a more efficacious full wattage lamp. DOE 
determined through publicly available compliance reports that the 
commercially available reduced wattage representative units and/or 
equivalent lamps complied with CSL 1. Therefore, DOE did not adjust the 
initial CSL considered for this product class.
    For the T5 MiniBP HO product class, NEMA suggested revising CSL 1 
to 80 lm/W. DOE agrees with NEMA that there is only one level of 
efficacy above the baseline level for this product class; however, 
performance based on commercially available lamps corresponded to 76 
lm/W. DOE revised its analysis for the NOPR and modeled a baseline that 
just met the existing standard level of 76 lm/W, as described in 
section VI.D.2.c. The baseline level represents a less efficient full 
wattage (54 W) lamp. Manufacturer-provided information in catalogs 
indicates that there is one distinct product line available with 
efficacy higher than the baseline product. EL 1 represents an 800 
series full wattage T5 lamp with basic coating, gas composition, and 
phosphor mix. Reduced wattage lamps also meet this level. DOE did not 
adjust this level based on certification data and is therefore 
evaluating EL 1 at 82.7 lm/W.
    NEMA commented that having one CSL eliminates DOE's ability to 
analyze standard levels other than the baseline and max tech and makes 
it more likely that max tech will become the new standard. (NEMA, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at p. 350) EEI also expressed concern 
that besides the 4-foot MBP product class, only one CSL was being 
considered for all other product classes which was also representative 
of the max tech level based on the criteria that full wattage lamps had 
to meet every CSL being considered. EEI further noted that it was not 
aware of any other rulemaking where no other levels were proposed 
between the baseline and max tech. (EEI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 
30 at pp. 124, 135-137)
    As described in the preceding paragraphs, DOE revised its 
engineering analysis for the NOPR analysis. DOE surveyed the market, 
analyzed product catalogs, and took into account feedback from 
manufacturers to develop ELs. Based on this assessment, DOE identified 
varying levels of efficacy that reflected technology changes and met 
the criteria for developing ELs outlined above. In the NOPR, DOE is 
considering two ELs in each product class with the exception of the T5 
MiniBP HO product class.
    DOE also received several comments regarding full wattage lamps 
meeting efficacy levels under consideration. NEMA stated that if the 
efficacy level at CSL 2 for the 4-foot MBP lamp can be achieved only 
with more efficient krypton-filled (i.e., reduced wattage) fluorescent 
lamps, it will come at the cost of reliable dimming that will have an 
impact on energy savings compared to the baseline. Lutron stated that 
the full wattage lamps in both the T8 and T5 categories are the only 
ones for which there are dimming standards in the industry. Lutron 
expressed concern that the CSLs being considered by DOE would eliminate 
full wattage lamps and that would result in a loss of significant 
energy savings, not just the theoretical energy savings associated with 
the lamp efficacy, which may or may not result in any actual energy 
savings in buildings. (Lutron, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 
133-134) NEMA strongly cautioned DOE to bear in mind that reduced 
wattage lamps are often ``energy saver'' models, which lack the robust 
performance of full wattage models. Full functionality for dimming, a 
desirable characteristic, is typically only available in full wattage 
models. (NEMA, No. 36 at p. 11)
    DOE acknowledges that there are limitations with using reduced 
wattage fluorescent lamps. DOE received feedback during manufacturer 
interviews that reduced wattage lamps cannot act as replacements for 
full wattage lamps in all applications, particularly in cold 
temperature applications below 60-65[emsp14][deg]F. Manufacturers also 
noted that striations remain an issue for reduced wattage lamps because 
not all ballasts contain striation control circuitry, and those 
equipped with striation control circuitry do not completely eliminate 
striation. Further, manufacturers identified issues with dimming 
reduced wattage lamps indicating that these lamps dim unreliably in 
certain applications. Manufacturers noted that problems encountered 
with dimming linear fluorescent lamps, including lamp starting, 
striations, and dropout, are exacerbated by the use of krypton in 
reduced wattage lamps (see section VI.C.1 for more information). 
Therefore, DOE has continued to ensure that full wattage lamps can meet 
all ELs under consideration in this NOPR analysis.
    For the NOPR analysis, DOE used updated catalog and certification 
data, which resulted in slightly different ELs than those considered in 
the preliminary analysis. The ELs for the representative product 
classes of GSFLs are presented in Table VI.8. For further information 
on the development of ELs, please refer to chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD. 
DOE welcomes comments on the

[[Page 24105]]

methodology used to develop ELs for GSFLs as well as on the ELs.

                       Table VI.8--Summary of ELs for GSFL Representative Product Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Efficacy level lm/W
                      CCT                                      Lamp type               -------------------------
                                                                                             1            2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

h. Scaling to Other Product Classes
    As noted previously, DOE analyzes the representative product 
classes directly. DOE then scales the levels developed for the 
representative product classes to determine levels for product classes 
not analyzed directly. For GSFLs, the representative product classes 
analyzed were all lamp types with CCTs 4,500 K 
is insufficient to reflect the actual drop in lm/W that occurs. NEMA 
stated it is well known in the industry that as CCT increases above 
4,500 K, the lumen output and consequently the lm/W continues to 
decrease. Actual performance data for the common F32T8 5,000 K tri-
phosphor lamps indicates the decrease in lm/W to be in the 4-6 percent 
range and in the 6-8 percent rage for an F32T8 6,500 K tri-phosphor 
lamp. NEMA noted that this reduction in lm/W at >4,500 K CCT becomes 
more significant for higher targets of lm/W. (NEMA, No. 36 at pp. 12-
13)
    NEMA also noted that the 1 percent reduction from the 4-foot MBP 
product class with W target for the 4-foot MBP 
lamps, the T8 tri-phosphor 6,500 K products were almost eliminated from 
the market. Further, NEMA asserted that when the waiver of standards 
for 700 series lamps is lifted this product may be eliminated because 
manufacturers may not be able to reliably meet current regulations for 
the high CCT products. (NEMA, No. 36 at pp. 12-13)
    GE stated that the 2 percent decrease for the high chromaticity 
lamps is probably accurate. (GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at 
pp. 153-154) NEMA recommended a scaling factor that allows a decrease 
of at least 7 percent to accommodate the average performance of the 
higher CCT's. These highly efficient high CCT families of products have 
been growing in importance and sales in recent years due to results 
from studies (i.e., IESNA TM-24) indicating that lighting that has more 
blue component actually provides for better visual capabilities, 
especially for the aging population. NEMA stated that this has resulted 
in a noticeable shift in the market to >4,500 K products. Any increase 
in the lm/W requirements for the >4,500 K lamps will eliminate some, 
and possibly all, of these higher performing high CCT lamps in the 
remaining classifications. While the prior ruling may have already 
destined the elimination of the 6,500 K tri-phosphor 4-foot T8-T12 
linear classification of GSFLs, there is still the opportunity to 
protect the 5,000 K tri-phosphor family of lamps by not changing the 
lm/W targets for this group. (NEMA, No. 36 at pp. 12-13)
    Based on comments received from stakeholders and feedback in 
manufacturer interviews, DOE reassessed the scaling analysis for the 
higher CCT lamps. DOE examined the differences in efficacies between 
lower and higher CCT lamps in each product class based on performance 
data provided in manufacturer catalogs. Finding substantial variation 
in the percent reduction in efficacy associated with increased CCT 
among product classes, DOE is proposing a separate scaling factor for 
each product class. DOE is proposing to maintain a 2 percent scaling 
factor for the 4-foot MBP product class in order to ensure that any 
proposed level does not allow for more energy use than the current 
minimum standard.\35\ Based on its assessment, DOE is proposing a 3 
percent scaling factor for the 2-foot U-shaped product class, 5 percent 
for the 8-foot SP slimline product class, 2 percent for the 8-foot RDC 
HO product class, 6 percent for the T5 SO product class, and 5 percent 
for the T5 HO product class. DOE also verified the scaling factors 
developed against certification data. Further, DOE confirmed that lamps 
with CCT greater than 4,500 K will meet the scaled levels. See chapter 
5 of the NOPR TSD for more information on CCT scaling. DOE welcomes 
comments on the scaling factors developed to scale GSFL product classes 
from the less than or equal to 4,500 K CCT lamps to the greater than 
4,500 K CCT lamps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Current standards for the 4-foot MBP product classes are 89 
lm/W for CCT W for CCT >4,500 K. Because the 
difference between existing standards is small, the allowable 
scaling factor is restricted to 2 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2-Foot U-Shaped Scaling
    NEMA stated that the scaling factor for 2-foot U-shaped lamps of 2 
percent is too small. Because no technology changes or improvements 
have been made to U-shaped lamps during the past three years, NEMA 
recommended remaining consistent with the 2009 Lamp Rule scaling factor 
and use 6 percent. NEMA added that the efficiency of these lamps cannot 
be significantly, feasibly raised, so the minimum efficiency of these 
products should remain 84 lm/W. (NEMA, No. 36 at p. 12) GE noted there 
are some confounding factors for which DOE needs to account if the 
scaling factor analysis for the 2-foot U-shaped class is

[[Page 24106]]

based on catalog data and even manufacturer to manufacturer data. GE 
stated that efficacy difference was more likely in the 4-6 percent 
range as opposed to what is found in catalog data. (GE, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 30 at p. 154)
    DOE reassessed the scaling analysis for 2-foot U-shaped lamps based 
on comments received. In the preliminary analysis, DOE had based its 
scaling assessment on lamp performance data found in catalogs. However, 
DOE revised its analysis to utilize certification data for the NOPR 
based on feedback received from manufacturers indicating that 
confounding factors exist that are not reflected in catalog data. By 
comparing certification data for 2-foot U-shaped lamps with equivalent 
4-foot MBP lamps, DOE determined an average efficacy reduction of 6 
percent for the 2-foot U-shaped lamps from the 4-foot MBP lamps was 
appropriate. DOE confirmed that the technology impacts of the scaled 
ELs for the 2-foot U-shaped lamps were consistent with those of the 
proposed ELs for the 4-foot MBP product class. See chapter 5 of the 
NOPR TSD for more information on 2-foot U-shaped scaling. DOE welcomes 
comments on the scaling factor developed to scale from the 4-foot MBP 
product class to the 2-foot U-shaped product class.
i. Rare Earth Phosphors
    NEMA restated its support of previous submitted comments of its 
concerns regarding the rare earth phosphor issue. (NEMA, No. 36 at p. 
14) NEMA asked how the analysis accounts for the current shortage of 
rare earth elements and the existing practice of waivers and further 
how these factors impact compliance capability. (NEMA, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 131-132) NEMA recommended the DOE confer with 
Dr. Alan King of the Critical Materials Institute of the AMES 
Laboratories to fully understand and predict the availability of 
critical materials, including rare earth elements. He observed to the 
NEMA Lighting Systems Division recently that once a material becomes 
critical, it tends to stay critical, with fluctuations, but no slacking 
of demand/criticality until the product demand disappears altogether. 
(NEMA, No. 36 at p. 14)
    DOE notes that manufacturers, in their applications for exception 
relief, stated that they expected an improvement in the rare earth 
market, specifically noting that supplies of key rare earth phosphors 
used in fluorescent lamps will become more equal to estimated demand 
beginning in 2014. Manufacturers also stated that the two-year relief 
would provide time for potential development of additional supplies 
outside of China, for progress in technology advancements and 
development of alternative technologies that use lesser amounts of rare 
earth material, and for the expansion of recycling and reclamation 
initiatives.\36\ DOE understands a constrained supply of rare earth 
phosphors may have impacts on the production of higher efficiency 
fluorescent lamps. DOE also acknowledges that supply and demand of rare 
earth phosphors should continue to be considered when evaluating 
amended standards for GSFLs. Thus as in the preliminary analysis, for 
this NOPR analysis DOE is considering a scenario of increased rare 
earth phosphor prices in the LCC and NIA. See appendices 7B and 9B of 
the NOPR TSD for more information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Philips Lighting Company, et al. OHA Case Nos. EXC-12-0001, 
EXC-12-0002, EXC-12-0003 (2012). Accessible here: http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/oha/EE/EXC-12-0001thru03.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Incandescent Reflector Lamp Engineering
    For IRLs, DOE received comments on the engineering analysis 
presented in the preliminary TSD. Stakeholders provided feedback on the 
metric used to measure IRL efficacy, as well as feedback on DOE's 
representative product classes, selection of more efficacious 
substitutes, baseline lamps, max tech level, CSLs, scaling, and 
proposing standards for IRLs. The following sections summarize the 
comments and responses received on these topics, and present the IRL 
engineering methodology for this NOPR analysis.
a. Metric
    Existing IRL standards are based on lamp efficacy measured as the 
lumen output of the lamp per watt supplied to the lamp. Further, the 
scope of coverage for existing IRL standards includes lamps that are 
equal to or greater than 40 W and less than or equal to 205 W. (See 
section V.C for further information on IRL scope.) Noting that wattage 
is a factor in defining the scope of IRLs covered, The CA IOUs 
recommended moving in the direction of lumen-based standards because 
lumens are useful to a consumer, whereas watts are no longer a useful 
metric. For example, the CA IOUs noted that lamp packaging that says 
that the lamp's rated 55 W equals 70 W does not make sense. The CA IOUs 
recommended that in general, DOE should do as much as possible to help 
shift discourse to be lumen-based instead of wattage-based, and 
standards are one way to help do so. Additionally, the CA IOUs stated 
that for a specific product type, manufacturers are accustomed to 
designing to a wattage because that is what consumers are used to 
(e.g., designing to 50 W regardless of the product efficacy), which 
produces a volume of products giving more or less light. However, the 
CA IOUs asserted that efficacy should be improved by reducing wattage 
rather than increasing light output. (CA IOUs, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 45-48)
    EEI, however, noted that the wattage equivalency provided on 
packaging is useful to the consumer. They noted that the standards are 
in lumens per watt, which is a formula that provides a requirement for 
lamps to be more efficient on an efficacy, rather than wattage, basis. 
However, especially for incandescent lamps, packaging stating that the 
72 W halogen lamp is equal to an old 100 W incandescent lamp lets 
consumers know what they are getting, including the associated light 
output. Otherwise, as historically higher watts produce higher lumens, 
consumers would be confused, especially with CFLs and LED lamps. (EEI, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 48-50)
    Energy conservation standards must prescribe either a minimum level 
of energy efficiency or a maximum quantity of energy use, where the 
former is a ratio of the useful output of services to the energy use of 
the product. 42 U.S.C. 6291(5)(6) The existing standard for IRLs is a 
lumens per watt, or lamp efficacy, metric. Setting a standard based on 
lumens alone would not capture the efficiency of the product nor allow 
for a true comparison of efficiency across lamp wattages. By relating 
the input power to the light output, this metric appropriately measures 
the efficiency of the lamp.
    Regarding setting standards that would drive manufacturers to meet 
energy conservation standards by reducing wattage and not increasing 
light output, DOE standards do not aim to favor any one design pathway 
for achieving energy efficiency and saving energy. DOE employs an 
equation that relates lumens to wattage and sets a minimum efficacy 
requirement across all wattages for IRLs. This power law equation 
captures the potential efficacy using a particular design option for 
all wattages. DOE acknowledges that manufacturers may choose to 
increase lumen output rather than decrease wattage to meet the minimum 
efficacy requirement. Therefore, the engineering analysis considers 
energy-saving options. Further, lumen outputs that are not within 10 
percent of the baseline lumens are not considered in the

[[Page 24107]]

analysis. (See chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD for further details on the 
engineering analysis.) The NIA considers all available options for 
consumers in choosing IRLs. (See section VI.J and chapter 12 of the 
NOPR TSD.)
    DOE acknowledges consumer understanding of the relationship between 
watts and lumens could be improved through labeling and marketing of 
lamps. However, this is not within the scope of DOE's authority in this 
rulemaking. Therefore, because the lumens per watt metric is an 
appropriate measure of the energy efficiency of IRLs and DOE considers 
energy savings when developing efficacy levels, DOE is not proposing to 
change this metric for IRLs in this rulemaking.
b. Representative Product Classes
    When a product has multiple product classes, DOE identifies and 
selects certain product classes as representative and analyzes those 
product classes directly. DOE chooses these representative product 
classes primarily due to their high market volumes. For IRLs, in the 
preliminary analysis DOE identified standard spectrum lamps, with 
diameters greater than 2.5 inches, and input voltage less than 125 V as 
the representative product class, shown in gray in Table VI.9. NEMA 
agreed with the representative product classes presented for IRLs. 
(NEMA, No. 36 at p. 7) DOE did not receive any other comments regarding 
representative product classes for IRLs. In this NOPR, DOE is 
maintaining the same IRL representative product classes as presented in 
the preliminary analysis.

             Table VI.9--IRL Representative Product Classes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Diameter (in
                Lamp type                     inches)         Voltage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard spectrum.......................            >2.5           >=125
                                          ..............          * =125
                                          ..............            2.5           >=125
                                          ..............            =125
                                          ..............            W for a 60 W lamp. 
(CA IOUs, No. 32 at p. 2; Joint Comment, No. 35 at p. 2)
    The CA IOUs, NEEA and NPCC, the Joint Comment, and GE also agreed 
that the 60 W HIR lamp with a 3,000-hour lifetime was not a baseline 
lamp because it was using more advanced technology. (CA IOUs, No. 32 at 
pp. 2-3; NEEA and NPCC, No. 34 at pp. 2, 4-

[[Page 24108]]

5; Joint Comment, No. 35 at p. 2) The CA IOUs, ASAP, and NEEA and NPCC 
noted there is a trade-off between lifetime and efficacy in 
incandescent lamp designs and absent other design improvements, an 
increase in lamp life results in a decrease in efficacy, and vice 
versa. (CA IOUs, No. 32 at pp. 2-3; ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, 
No. 30 at p. 159; NEEA and NPCC, No. 34 at pp. 4-5) Because the second 
lamp proposed as a baseline lamp in DOE's analysis has a longer life 
and a higher efficacy, it clearly includes some other advanced design 
features that have allowed for improved performance in both metrics. 
(CA IOUs, No. 32 at pp. 2-3) The Joint Comment added that if the 
lifetime of the second baseline lamp was reduced to 1,500 hours to 
allow for an accurate comparison to the first baseline lamp, its 
efficacy would be even greater than 18.3 lm/W. (Joint Comment, No. 35 
at p. 2) Further, the CA IOUs and NEEA and NPCC pointed out that the 
higher cost of the HIR lamp indicated that it was a more 
technologically advanced product than the halogen lamp. (CA IOUs, No. 
32 at pp. 2-3, NEEA and NPCC, No. 34 at pp. 2, 4-5)
    The CA IOUs also noted that minimum product performance generally 
gravitates towards the minimum standards set for a product and such IRL 
products are on the market. Therefore, the CA IOUs contended it is 
inaccurate to define a baseline product that is higher than the minimum 
standard. (CA IOUs, No. 32 at p. 2) ASAP further added that by 
introducing the 60 W HIR, 3,000-hour lifetime lamp as a baseline, DOE 
took that first, most cost effective improvement and averaged it into 
the baseline. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at p. 161)
    DOE recognizes that the HIR baseline lamp with the longer lifetime 
considered in the preliminary analysis is using more advanced 
technology than the halogen baseline lamp. Therefore, in this NOPR, DOE 
is not proposing to analyze the 60 W HIR lamp with a 3,000-hour 
lifetime as a baseline lamp. DOE is proposing one baseline represented 
by the 60 W halogen lamp with a 1,500-hour lifetime.
    The CA IOUs noted that, historically, many reflector lamps have 
been offered with a minimum lifetime of 1,000 hours, and generally no 
fewer. Therefore, DOE could even more accurately represent the baseline 
by lowering the baseline lifetime to 1,000 hours. (CA IOUs, No. 32 at 
p. 2)
    DOE reviewed product offerings in catalogs, shipment trends, and 
information obtained during manufacturer interviews to identify the 
common characteristics of lamps that meet standards. Based on DOE's 
analysis, the 1,500-hour lamps are much more common than other lower 
lifetime lamps, including 1,000-hour lamps, among the covered IRLs. 
Therefore, DOE is proposing a 1,500-hour lamp as the baseline.
    Stakeholders also commented on whether it was necessary to have 
different lamp lifetimes for different sectors. GE stated that the 
consumer market, which does not necessarily need the long lifetime, is 
looking for a less expensive opening price point. However, the 60 W HIR 
with the 3,000-hour lifetime would be sold to a commercial customer who 
is more concerned about long operating hours and does not want to 
replace lamps frequently. Therefore, the commercial consumer will 
gravitate more towards the higher technology lamp, trying to reduce 
maintenance costs. (GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 159-
161)
    The CA IOUs disagreed that a shorter lifetime lamp was appropriate 
for only the residential sector and a longer lifetime lamp for the 
commercial sector. They stated that products with shorter lifetimes are 
commonly marketed and sold into various market segments, including the 
commercial sector. They provided the examples of Halco Haloxen SPAR 
Series product line and the Satco Xenon Halogen line,\37\ both of which 
are standards-compliant 1,500-hour life lamps specifically marketed for 
use in the commercial sector. According to the CA IOUs, this suggests 
that the shorter lifetime products (1,000-1,500 hours) are appropriate 
to represent the baseline lamp for both the residential and commercial 
sectors. (CA IOUs, No. 32 at p. 2) NEEA and NPCC added that both the 60 
W halogen lamp with a 1,500-hour lifetime and the 60 W HIR lamp with a 
3,000-hour lifetime can be found at typical do-it-yourself (DIY) stores 
and in commercial lamp catalogs. (NEEA and NPCC, No. 34 at p. 5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ More information on these lamps is provided in the written 
comment available on regulations.gov under docket number EERE-2011-
BT-STD-0006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several stakeholders asked for further information about the market 
share breakdown of these lamps by sector. EEI asked about the 
percentage of the IRL market that is residential versus commercial. 
(EEI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 163-164) EEI also asked 
how the baseline characteristics put forth in the preliminary analysis 
compared to those in the marketplace in terms of what is actually being 
sold using 2012 or 2013 data. (EEI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 
at p. 157) Noting that it was difficult to determine where a lamp going 
through distribution channels such as Home Depot or Lowe's ends up, 
NEEA asked how DOE determines which lamps are in the residential sector 
and which are in the commercial sector (e.g., by distribution channel 
or socket). (NEEA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at p. 164) NEMA 
asked if the 2010 LMC contained data on sockets in specific sectors so 
as to determine what percentage of those tend to be the higher 
technology. (NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 165-166)
    ASAP agreed that the market is important but noted that it is 
factored into the downstream analyses. ASAP provided an example that if 
100-percent of commercial shipments are already at this level, then 
this will be reflected in the shipments analysis and it would flow 
through to the LCC and NIA, rather than be built into the baseline. 
(ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 162-163)
    DOE acknowledges that different lamps may be popular in different 
market sectors. The 2010 LMC provides data on the inventories of 
halogen reflector lamps in each sector. However, because there is 
nothing that would limit the use of a covered IRL in a specific sector, 
DOE does not conduct sector-based assessments in the engineering 
analysis. Rather, the LCC and NIA consider lamp use in different market 
sectors. The LCC analysis provides results for each analyzed lamp in 
each relevant sector. The shipments analysis accounts for the number of 
shipments by sector and the popularity of analyzed lamps in each 
sector. The results are subsequently used in the NIA analysis. Please 
see section VI.J for more detail.
Summary of IRL Baseline Lamps
    DOE is proposing the baseline lamp for IRLs specified in Table 
VI.10. For further information, please see chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD. 
DOE requests comments on its selection of baseline lamps for IRLs.

[[Page 24109]]

                                         Table VI.10--IRL Baseline Lamp
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Baseline lamp
                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Wattage      Efficacy     Initial      Lifetime
 Representative product class                                --------------------------    light    ------------
                                Lamp  type     Descriptor                                  output
                                                                   W           lm/W    -------------      hr
                                                                                             lm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Spectrum, Voltage      PAR38       Improved Halogen          60         17.8        1,070        1,500
 2.5 Inches.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. More Efficacious Substitutes
    DOE selects more efficacious replacements for the baseline lamps 
considered within each representative product class. DOE considers only 
design options identified in the screening analysis. In the preliminary 
analysis, DOE considered substitute lamps that saved energy and, where 
possible, had a light output within 10 percent of the baseline lamp's 
light output. In identifying the more efficacious substitutes, DOE 
utilized a database of commercially available lamps. In the preliminary 
analysis, DOE identified a higher efficacy, lower wattage lamp, 
referred to in this analysis as an improved HIR lamp with a lifetime of 
4,400 hours, as a more efficacious substitute for the two baseline 
lamps. DOE received several comments regarding its choice for a more 
efficacious substitute.
    ASAP expressed concern that two dependent variables, lumens per 
watt and lifetime, are changed so that the more efficacious substitute 
is providing not just greater efficacy but also more light, more hours 
of lighting, and greater utility. The product is different and is 
designed to meet some commercial consumers' desire for a long-lived 
product. If the hours were reduced for that product to be equivalent to 
the baseline lamp lifetime, it would have a significantly higher 
efficacy from an engineering perspective. ASAP concluded that lifetime 
is a limiting factor on the efficacies that can be used for the 
selection of more efficacious, commercially available lamps. (ASAP, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at p. 169)
    The CA IOUs provided information on the relationship between 
lifetime and efficacy in incandescent lamps, noting that a lamp's 
efficacy could be improved by increasing current, but if no other 
design options are employed, the lamp will have a shorter lifetime. On 
the other hand, decreasing current can increase lamp lifetime, but if 
no other design changes are made, the resulting product would have a 
reduced efficacy. The CA IOUs also put forth a relationship where life 
= life0 x {lpw/lpw0{time} -7.1 to show that the efficacy of 
a lamp could be improved at the expense of lamp life rather than 
investment or improvement in the lamp design.\38\ (CA IOUs, No. 32 at 
pp. 3-4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ In the equation, ``life0'' is equal to the 
design life at the designed efficacy (lpw0), while 
``life'' is the resultant life when the designed efficacy is altered 
to a new operational efficacy (lpw).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE recognizes that there is an inverse relationship between 
efficacy and lifetime for IRLs. The engineering analysis focuses on 
commercially available products. DOE is aware that to meet higher 
efficacy levels, manufacturers can choose to produce lamps with a 
shorter lifetime than the baseline lamp to achieve higher efficacy. 
Given that manufacturers responded to the July 2012 standards by 
introducing IRLs with shorter lifetimes, DOE understands that this is a 
likely path manufacturers may take in response to higher standards. To 
capture the impacts of the relationship between lifetime and efficacy 
in IRLs, DOE determined how much the lifetime of a lamp with the same 
wattage as the baseline lamp must be shortened to achieve each efficacy 
level under consideration in the NOPR analysis. (See chapter 5 of the 
NOPR TSD for further information.) The impact of these shortened 
lifetime lamps are assessed as sensitivities in the LCC, NIA, and MIA. 
(See respectively, appendix 8B, chapter 12, and appendix 13C of the 
NOPR TSD).
    In the main engineering analysis, DOE did not model IRLs with 
shortened lifetimes at efficacy levels higher than those at which they 
are currently commercially available because DOE believes that lifetime 
is a feature valued by consumers. DOE believes typical lifetimes of 
IRLs regulated by this rulemaking are between 1,500 and 4,400 hours. 
The longest lifetime products are available at EL 1, the highest 
analyzed efficacy level in this NOPR analysis. While manufacturers can 
choose to introduce shorter lifetime products in the future, DOE does 
not require shortening of lamp lifetime to meet any analyzed level.
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE had put forth a representative 
lamp with a 4,400-hour lifetime and improved HIR technology as the more 
efficacious substitute. For the NOPR analysis, after reassessing 
updated catalog and compliance information, DOE identified an 
alternative representative lamp that better reflected the minimum 
efficacy level for lamps with improved HIR technology. This 
representative lamp has a lifetime of 4,200 hours. Because there is a 
range of lifetimes available at a higher efficacy, in addition to the 
4,200-hour representative lamp, DOE is proposing a second 
representative lamp as a more efficacious substitute at EL 1 in this 
NOPR analysis. The 2,500-hour lamp offers a different technology 
pathway to achieve EL 1, namely IR glass coating without the use of 
higher efficiency reflector coatings. Therefore DOE analyzes the 2,500-
hour lamp as a representative lamp at EL 1. DOE requests comment on the 
lifetimes of the IRL baseline and more efficacious substitutes.
Summary of IRL Representative Lamps
    DOE is proposing the representative lamps for IRLs specified in 
Table VI.11. For further information please see chapter 5 of the NOPR 
TSD. DOE requests comments on its selection of representative lamps for 
IRLs.

[[Page 24110]]

                                      Table VI.11--IRL Representative Lamps
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Representative lamps
                                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Wattage   Efficacy *    Initial    Lifetime
  Representative product class                                   ------------------------    light   -----------
                                  Lamp  type       Descriptor                               output
                                                                       W         lm/W    ------------     hr
                                                                                              lm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Spectrum, Voltage 2.5 Inches.
                                 PAR38         Improved HIR.....          55        18.5        1120       4,200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Efficacy values are based on data from DOE's certification database.

e. Maximum Technologically Feasible
    DOE presented one efficacy level (CSL 1) for consideration in the 
preliminary analysis. Therefore, this level was also the max tech level 
identified for IRLs. DOE received several comments on the max tech 
level presented in the preliminary analysis.
    The CA IOUs expressed their belief that DOE had not captured the 
total potential energy savings from IRL standards. They noted that 
according to the 2010 LMC, IRLs represent a sizable end use, an 
estimated 39 TWh of annual energy use in the United States. (CA IOUs, 
No. 32 at pp. 1-2) The CA IOUs cited the case of Natural Resources 
Defense Council v. Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 1391-92 (D.C. Cir. 1985), 
in which the D.C. Circuit Court explained the EPCA provision that 
requires DOE to identify and analyze the ``maximum technology feasible 
level'' to determine whether that level is both cost-effective and 
feasible. The ruling further stated that DOE must explain why a 
standard achieving max tech was rejected. (CA IOUs, No. 32 at p. 4) 
Specifically, CA IOUs made the following assertions regarding the max 
tech for IRLs presented in the preliminary analysis: (1) There are 
commercially available IRLs higher than the max tech; (2) advanced 
technology being used in other lamp types can be transferred to produce 
higher efficacy IRLs; and (3) there are prototype IRLs that demonstrate 
the feasibility of higher efficacy IRLs. (CA IOUs, No. 32 at pp. 4-7)
    The CA IOUs commented that there is a wide array of currently, 
commercially available products that are significantly more efficient, 
by 13-20 percent, than the CSL proposed by DOE. (CA IOUs, No. 32 at p. 
4) In the DOE certification database there is a Philips 70 W PAR38 at 
22 lm/W, which is 13 percent better than CSL 1; a Philips 55 W lamp at 
20.1 lm/W, which is 10 percent better than CSL 1; and a GE lamp at 23 
lm/W, which is 12 percent better. The CA IOUs noted that OSI's best 
products are not yet in DOE's certification database. They also noted 
that smaller manufacturers with products such as one with 25 percent 
higher performance than CSL 1 are not represented in the analysis. (CA 
IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at p. 172) ASAP stated it is 
important that DOE analyze a max tech level chosen from all lamps on 
the market and then examine the impacts of that level on utility. 
(ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 181-182) NEEA and NPCC 
stated products that should be commercially available in 2013 range in 
efficacy from the minimum federal standard to over 30 lm/W, and max 
tech is probably over 35 lm/W, even at lower wattages, far above what 
DOE has acknowledged. (NEEA and NPCC, No. 34 at pp. 2, 5) NEMA, 
however, stated that there have been no noteworthy technological 
breakthroughs since the last rulemaking or great changes in the market. 
Therefore, the maximum-feasible performance levels of the previous rule 
have not changed. (NEMA, No. 36 at p. 1)
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE evaluated the latest catalogs and 
DOE's certification database to identify the most efficacious IRLs to 
develop the max tech level. DOE selected more efficacious replacements 
with a similar reflector shape (PAR38) and lumen output (within 10 
percent) as the baseline lamp. In the engineering analysis, DOE 
considered only replacements that saved energy. Based on DOE's 
analysis, the max tech presented in the preliminary analysis 
represented the highest-efficacy commercially available lamp meeting 
these criteria.
    The CA IOUs noted that over the last few years, a number of 
products have been designed and tested using improved halogen IR 
capsules with new mixes and more layers of materials in the thin-film 
coatings. IRLs have demonstrated efficacies above 30 to 35 lm/W, with 
efficacies of 45 lm/W (with a 1,000-hour lifetime) having also been 
achieved for omni-directional lamps in lab settings.\39\ The CA IOUs 
cited a November 2012 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) study 
\40\ that conducted extensive photometric, electrical, and durability 
testing on a 32 lm/W A-lamp, including extended lifetime measurements 
and testing of the lamp's ability to withstand sudden changes in 
voltage, to assess its performance. All lamps were still functional at 
1,000 hours and 70 percent of the test samples exceeded 2,000 hours. 
The independent study concluded that the high efficacy lamps were ``a 
true 100 watt incandescent-equivalent with respect to all output/
performance values, lifespan.'' The CA IOUs argued that the high 
efficiency halogen IR capsules in those lamps could be inserted into 
reflector lamps as well. (CA IOUs, No. 32 at pp. 5-6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ ETCC presentation, Dec 2010, slide 2. www.etcc-ca.com/pdfs/10_2X_Incandescent_ET_Open_Forum_121207_R1.pptx.
    \40\ EPRI report  1025779; www.epri.com/abstracts/Pages/ProductAbstract.aspx?ProductId=000000000001025779&Mode=download
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CA IOUs further noted that Venture Lighting is offering 2X 
halogen A-lamps ($6.98, 32 lm/W, 1,500 hours) \41\ and 2X halogen MR-16 
lamps ($6.90, 22 lm/W, 6,000 hours) \42\ on the Web site, 
www.2XLightDirect.com. The 2X lamps are deemed to be two times as 
efficient as their typical incandescent counterparts. (CA IOUs, No. 32 
at pp. 5-6) CA IOUs emphasized that the 2X MR-16 is a commercially 
available product using technology that can be used in other lamp form 
factors. The CA IOUs acknowledged, however, that the MR-16 lamp, which 
is not a covered product, cannot be used for a direct comparison with 
the lamps covered under this rulemaking due to different design 
parameters, coatings on the lenses, and low voltage operation. 
Additionally, the CA IOUs stated that the challenges encountered with 
designing a smaller form factor lamp

[[Page 24111]]

such as an MR-16 may be more easily overcome with PAR lamps. (CA IOUs, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 170-173, 179-180) The CA IOUs 
noted that the Web site www.2Xlightdirect.com, where these 2X lamps can 
be found, states that PAR lamps are ``coming soon.'' \43\ (CA IOUs, No. 
32 at pp. 5-6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ www.2xlightdirect.com/product-categories/a-line.
    \42\ www.2xlightdirect.com/product-categories/2x-mr16.
    \43\ www.2xlightdirect.com/product-categories/2x-par.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Philips stated that it is unknown if IRLs utilizing the 2X lamp 
technology are technically viable. Philips provided the example that a 
37 lm/W lamp can be demonstrated, but that it could only last 24 hours. 
(Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 173-174)
    DOE acknowledges that efficacious A-shape and MR-16 lamps are 
currently being offered on the market. However, DOE cannot assume that 
lamp designs and technologies that work for certain lamp shapes (e.g., 
MR-16 and A-shape lamps) and at low voltages will achieve the same 
efficacies in the IRLs that are the subject of this rulemaking. The 
incandescent lamps studied by EPRI and available from Venture Lighting 
(the 2X A-lamps and MR-16s) are not covered IRLs. They do not utilize 
the same reflector shapes and the MR-16s do not operate at the same 
input voltage as the covered IRLs. Therefore, DOE cannot consider these 
lamp types to determine a max tech for IRLs.
    The CA IOUs asserted that covered IRLs exist in prototype form that 
are dramatically more efficient than DOE's proposed CSL. (CA IOUs, No. 
32 at p. 4) The CA IOUs stated that, in 2009, they funded the 
development of a super-efficient PAR lamp achieving 37 lm/W at 57 W 
with a lifetime of 1,500 hours. The CA IOUs provided information about 
the lamp and its testing completed in 2009.\44\ (CA IOUs, No. 32 at p. 
6; CA IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at p. 173)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Appendix A is available at the end of the CA IOUs written 
comment in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the CA IOUs pointed out a presentation from the 
Emerging Technologies Coordinating Council (ETCC) site \45\ that 
includes information about the market potential for advanced IR 
coatings. Several PAR lamps achieving approximately 30 lm/W are 
forecasted to be available by mid-2013, at a price point of $8 to 
$9.\46\ The CA IOUs stated that they are tracking the development of 
these products and intend to obtain samples to submit to DOE. The CA 
IOUs encouraged DOE to reach out to manufacturers of these products 
directly to understand more specifics about product development 
schedules, manufacturing capability, likely cost points, technical 
potential, and to potentially obtain prototypes of these lamps. (CA 
IOUs, No. 32 at p. 6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ ETCC presentation, Dec 2010, slide 5. http://www.etcc-ca.com/pdfs/10_2X_Incandescent_ET_Open_Forum_121207_R1.pptx
    \46\ At the time of the NOPR analysis, these lamps were not 
commercially available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CA IOUs concluded that DOE needs to look at max tech and then 
identify what is cost effective, feasible and can be scaled up for 
production. The CA IOUs noted that this was not adequately addressed in 
the preliminary analysis. Further, the CA IOUs suggested that one of 
the CSLs should be set in line with the max tech level and another 
should be set in line with the maximum commercially available level. 
NEEP agreed with this recommendation. (CA IOUs, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 170-173; CA IOUs, No. 32 at pp. 6-7; NEEP, 
No. 33 at p. 3) The Joint Comment also stated that to properly identify 
the max tech level, DOE should examine those sources referenced in the 
CA IOUs' comments, namely, EPRI, 2Xlightdirect.com, and ETCC. (Joint 
Comment, No. 35 at p. 3)
    NEMA stated that if DOE chooses to consider higher performance 
levels based on any recently introduced technologies, they are 
obligated to conduct actual testing of these lamps for all performance 
parameters, such as reliability, lifetime, dimmability, beam spread, 
light pattern, and any other performance features expected of new/
substitute lamps in this class. (NEMA, No. 36 at p. 11) NEMA also 
cautioned DOE that emerging technology and prototype models do not 
reliably represent the market, only market attempts. NEMA further 
stated that technologies on which to base the future of an entire 
product class must be demonstrated and proven for long-term feasibility 
and market acceptance. (NEMA, No. 36 at p. 11)
    For the NOPR analysis, DOE contacted manufacturers producing high 
efficacy prototype IRLs and conducted independent testing of these 
lamps. The testing indicated that these lamps were more efficacious 
than the max tech level determined by DOE in this analysis.\47\ DOE 
notes that the lamps tested were prototype lamps and were not 
manufactured during commercial scale production runs. However, the 
measured efficacy of the prototype lamps greatly exceeded the efficacy 
of commercially available lamps with similar lumen packages. DOE does 
not, however, have the necessary information to do a cost analysis to 
determine if an efficacy level based on these lamps would be 
economically justified. In appendix 5A of the NOPR TSD, DOE provides an 
assessment of these higher efficacy prototypes (including test data), 
conducts a further examination of the highly efficacious lamps relevant 
to this rulemaking noted by stakeholders in comments, and specifies the 
additional information it would need to consider prototypes in a 
rulemaking analysis. DOE welcomes comments on the max tech level as 
well as any further information on prototype lamps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ While DOE independently verified efficacy values, the 
manufacturer's testing for lifetime was still ongoing at the time of 
the NOPR analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While DOE received several comments stating that the max tech level 
is greater than that analyzed in the preliminary analysis, DOE also 
received comments that the max tech level is not higher than the 
analyzed level. GE stated that it did not believe technology existed 
that would triple the efficiency of these lamps. GE noted that although 
there may be a few more players in the market, the technology itself or 
what can be done with it has not changed in the last three or four 
years. GE asserted that the baseline technology represents the highest 
technology available today that meets many different needs in the 
marketplace. As efficacy requirements increase, even to the CSL 1, 
utility is lost, potentially leading to only one product that works for 
one consumer and one application. GE stated that CSL 1 represents the 
max tech of what is available today that could cover all the different 
market needs. (GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 176-178)
    As discussed previously, based on DOE's analysis of commercially 
available lamps and because it does not have the adequate information 
to conduct a full analysis on any lamp that represents an efficacy 
level higher than EL 1, DOE is proposing 6.2P\0.27\ as EL 1 and the max 
tech level.
Proprietary Technology
    In response to the max tech level presented in the preliminary 
analysis, DOE received several comments regarding the use of 
proprietary technology. NEMA stated that for all IRLs, no further 
elevations in product performance are possible. As support, NEMA quoted 
from the final rule notice of the 2009 Lamps Rule, in which DOE had 
noted that the max tech level was possible with the use of the highest-
efficiency technologically feasible reflector, halogen IR coating, and 
filament design and because this would require the use of proprietary 
technology, DOE could not consider this

[[Page 24112]]

level further in its analyses. 74 FR 34080, 34096 (July 14, 2009). NEMA 
stated that if DOE proposes to raise the CSL above the existing level 
set by the 2009 Lamps Rule, DOE must explain why the proprietary 
technology hurdle no longer exists, and then explain how to achieve 
those higher CSLs. (NEMA, No. 36 at p. 11) Specifically, Philips 
expressed concern that the improved reflector technology option, such 
as a silver reflector coating, was proprietary. (Philips, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at p. 169) GE added that requiring 
proprietary technology could impact competition. (GE, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 169-170)
    EEI expressed similar concerns as NEMA and stated that during the 
2009 Lamps Rule, the Department of Justice was concerned about the 
higher standard levels because certain technologies for HIR lamps were 
proprietary and that because only a few companies made the highest 
efficacy lamp, competition in the industry could be impacted. EEI asked 
whether there were issues with the particular technology used in the 
more efficacious substitute, such that it might be a proprietary 
technology and made only by a very limited number or even one 
manufacturer, which could limit its availability and result in an 
extremely high price point. (EEI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at 
pp. 167-168)
    The CA IOUs noted that they had provided a number of comments to 
that rulemaking's docket about alternate silverized reflector 
technologies, and suggested that manufacturers would be able to utilize 
them to improve efficacy of their lamps. The CA IOUs reported that 
since the 2009 Lamps Rule, several manufacturers have begun making 
lamps with silver reflectors, including, but not limited to, Halco, 
Satco, Ushio, and Osram Sylvania.\48\ Further, the CA IOUs noted that 
the Lawrence Livermore Lab has a patent; GE and DSI likely also have 
patents related to reflector technology. (CA IOUs, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 170-171) Given the wide variety of major PAR 
lamp manufacturers that are utilizing silverized reflectors, the CA 
IOUs encouraged DOE to consider this a viable design option for all IRL 
manufacturers. (CA IOUs, No. 32 at pp. 8-9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ More information on associated products can be found in the 
written comment available on regulations.gov under docket number 
EERE-2011-BT-STD-0006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 2009 Lamps Rule, the highest level analyzed for IRLs was 
based on a commercially available lamp that employed a silver 
reflector, an improved IR coating, and a filament design that resulted 
in a lifetime of 4,200 hours. While DOE had determined that the silver 
reflector was patented technology, DOE research indicated that there 
were alternate pathways to achieve this level, such as filament 
redesign to achieve higher temperature operation (thus reducing the 
lifetime), non-proprietary higher efficiency reflectors, and a higher 
efficiency IR coating. 74 FR 34080, 34133 (July 14, 2009). In 
interviews conducted in the preliminary analysis for this rulemaking, 
manufacturers indicated that there were no specific patent or 
intellectual property barriers to obtaining commercially available IRL 
technologies. Further, in the preliminary analysis, DOE put forth a CSL 
1 that was based on a commercially available improved HIR lamp that 
does not necessarily require a silverized reflector coating to achieve 
its efficacy. Several manufacturers have found means of designing more 
efficacious IRLs that are commercially available, such as through the 
use of IR glass coatings and higher efficiency reflector coatings that 
do not use proprietary technology. In the NOPR analysis, DOE confirmed 
during interviews that proprietary technology is not a barrier to 
achieving the proposed max tech level, which is also EL 1. Therefore, 
in this NOPR analysis, DOE is proposing the same efficacy level put 
forth in the preliminary analysis. DOE has determined that this level 
can be achieved without the use of proprietary technology.
f. Efficacy Levels
    For IRLs, DOE developed a continuous equation that specifies a 
minimum efficacy requirement across wattages and represents the 
potential efficacy a lamp achieves using a particular design option. 
DOE observed an efficacy division among commercially available IRL 
products that corresponded to the design options utilized to increase 
lamp efficacy. Based on this efficacy division, DOE considered one CSL 
in the preliminary analysis. DOE received several comments regarding 
the CSL presented for IRLs in the preliminary analysis.
    The CA IOUs expressed concern that there is only one CSL. The CA 
IOUs stated that DOE is not capturing the huge potential in the IRL 
market for efficacy gains, both for commercially available and non-
commercially available products. The CA IOUs stated that based on 
commercially available IRL products and other known high-performing 
products, DOE should add at least three additional, higher efficacy 
CSLs to its IRL analysis. (CA IOUs, No. 32 at p. 4)
    The Joint Comment agreed with the CA IOUs, stating that DOE should 
add multiple high efficacy CSLs to its analysis; ASAP suggested two or 
three additional levels. (Joint Comment, No. 35 at p. 3; ASAP, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 171-172) NEEP noted that the higher 
efficacies in DOE's certification database for standard levels should 
be included in the analysis at this stage. NEEP suggested DOE consider 
adding at least two additional CSLs to the analysis between CSL 1 and 
the maximum commercially available level. (NEEP, No. 33 at p. 3) NEEA 
and NPCC stated there is more than enough rationale to examine at least 
two or three additional CSLs, if not three or four, including a ``max 
tech'' level, which DOE has not included for this family of products. 
(NEEA and NPCC, No. 34 at pp. 2, 5)
    To demonstrate the feasibility of potential efficacy improvements 
beyond the CSL 1 presented in the preliminary analysis, the CA IOUs 
provided a graph that showed efficacy levels of commercially available 
lamps from four manufacturers based on catalog data, plotted against 
the considered CSL 1 and the standard from the 2009 Lamps Rule. In 
further support, the CA IOUs provided another graph showing efficacy 
levels of over 20 manufacturers from DOE's certification database, also 
plotted against the considered CSL 1 and the standard from the 2009 
Lamps Rule. Both graphs show a number of lamps above the considered CSL 
1. (CA IOUs, No. 32 at pp. 4-5) ASAP asked how old the data DOE used in 
its preliminary analysis was and why the lamps with higher efficacies 
in DOE's database were not captured. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, 
No. 30 at pp. 171-172)
    For the preliminary analysis, DOE conducted a thorough review of 
the latest catalog and certification data provided for covered IRLs. 
Because PAR38 lamps are the most popular products on the market and a 
PAR38 lamp was selected as the baseline, DOE considered only PAR38 
lamps when selecting more efficacious substitutes. Further, DOE 
selected more efficacious substitutes with a lumen output within 10 
percent of the baseline lumens, as this is the amount of change in 
light output deemed acceptable to consumers. (See section VI.D.2.e for 
further information.)
    To ensure energy savings, DOE also chose higher efficacy lamps with 
a lower wattage than the baseline lamp. DOE also did not consider any 
lamp that could not be purchased in the United

[[Page 24113]]

States. Some of the products with the highest efficacies in DOE's 
certification database were not found for sale in the United States.
    Thus, although there are certain lamps with efficacies higher than 
the levels proposed by DOE, DOE did not consider them in the 
preliminary analysis for the reasons stated above. DOE maintained this 
methodology for the NOPR analysis.
    NEMA stated that the CSL 1 presented in the preliminary analysis 
was infeasible given that there have been no technological 
breakthroughs since the 2009 Lamps Rule. (NEMA, No. 36 at pp. 9-11) 
NEMA also commented that having one CSL eliminates DOE's ability to 
analyze standard levels other than the baseline and max tech and makes 
it more likely that max tech will become the new standard. (NEMA, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at p. 350)
    DOE based CSL 1 on commercially available products that achieved 
catalog efficacies above the existing standard. Specifically, the 
representative lamp for CSL 1 was a commercially available 55 W IRL 
with a catalog efficacy of 20 lm/W. Acknowledging that the catalog 
efficacy of a lamp varies from its certified efficacy, DOE also 
reviewed certification data for IRLs. Based on certification data, DOE 
accordingly adjusted CSL 1, resulting in an efficacy level of 
6.2P\0.27\. Because DOE based CSL 1 on a commercially available lamp 
and accounted for variances in efficacies between catalog and 
certification data when establishing CSL 1, DOE believes that CSL 1 is 
technologically feasible and is also the appropriate max tech level.
    The CA IOUs recommended that DOE revisit the slope of the candidate 
standard lines to better reflect the performance of lamps on the 
market. The CA IOUs provided graphs that demonstrated three possible 
additional CSLs that could be used to more effectively evaluate 
potential standards at higher, technically feasible efficacy tiers. The 
CA IOUs adjusted the slopes of the curves to account for higher 
efficacy potential at higher wattage. (CA IOUs, No. 32 at pp. 7-8)
    DOE examined the possibility of changing the exponent of the 
existing equation for IRL standards to better reflect the performance 
of lamps on the market. DOE conducted a best fit analysis and 
determined that the current equation accurately reflects the wattages 
and associated efficacies of commercially available products. Thus, DOE 
retained the current standard equation.
Summary of IRL Efficacy Levels
    For the NOPR analysis, DOE again reviewed the most updated catalog 
and certification data available for covered IRLs. As in the 
preliminary analysis, DOE used the catalog data to determine initial 
efficacy levels and then adjusted the ELs to ensure that commercially 
available IRLs would meet proposed levels based on compliance 
information provided in DOE's certification database. In the 
preliminary analysis, DOE had found there to be certification data for 
only 36 percent of covered IRL products compliant with the July 2012 
standards. For the NOPR analysis, DOE found that updates to DOE's 
certification database resulted in certification data for 51 percent of 
covered IRL products. Using certification data reported for the PAR38 
2,500 hour HIR and 4,200 hour improved HIR representative lamps, DOE 
adjusted EL 1. As mentioned previously, DOE developed a continuous 
equation that specifies a minimum efficacy requirement across wattages 
for IRLs. The proposed EL based on the representative lamps is a curve 
that represents a standard across all wattages.
    Table VI.12 presents the proposed efficacy level for IRLs. See 
chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD for additional information on how the 
engineering analysis was conducted.

   Table VI.12--Efficacy Levels for Standard Spectrum, Voltage 2.5 Inches IRLs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Efficacy
                    Efficacy  level                      requirement lm/
                                                                W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL 1...................................................        6.2P0.27
------------------------------------------------------------------------
P = rated wattage.

g. Scaling to Other Product Classes
    When more than one product class exists for a covered product, DOE 
identifies and selects representative product classes to analyze 
directly. Efficacy levels developed for these representative product 
classes are then scaled to products not analyzed directly. For IRLs, 
DOE analyzed directly standard spectrum lamps greater than 2.5 inches 
in diameter and with input voltages less than 125 V. The efficacy 
levels developed for this representative product class were then scaled 
to product classes not analyzed, using a scaling factor to adjust 
levels for modified spectrum lamps, smaller diameter lamps, and lamps 
with higher input voltages. DOE received several comments specific to 
the scaling factors applied to develop efficacy levels for the product 
classes analyzed directly.
Diameters Less Than or Equal to 2.5 Inches
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE scaled from the CSLs developed for 
the IRLs with diameters greater than 2.5 inches (hereafter ``large 
diameter lamps'') to IRLs with diameters less than or equal to 2.5 
inches (hereafter ``small diameter lamps''). Based on catalog data, DOE 
determined the reduction in efficacy caused by the smaller lamp 
diameter to be approximately 12 percent. DOE also determined that the 
more efficient double-ended HIR burners could not fit into small 
diameter lamps. Therefore, in the preliminary analysis, DOE applied an 
additional 3.5 percent reduction to account for the ability of small 
diameter lamps to utilize only less efficient single-ended HIR burners.
    Asserting that double-ended burners can be utilized in small 
diameter lamps, NEEA and NPCC and the CA IOUs urged DOE not to use an 
additional scaling factor to account for the use of a single-ended 
burner in a small diameter lamp. (CA IOUs, No. 32 at p. 10, NEEA and 
NPCC, No. 34 at p. 6) The CA IOUs noted that by providing a PAR20 lamp 
with a double ended burner at the public meeting, they had demonstrated 
that double-ended burners can be used in small diameter lamps. At the 
preliminary analysis public meeting, the CA IOUs had presented two 
small diameter lamps with double-ended burners. One was a commercially 
available Philips MR-16 lamp, which the CA IOUs acknowledged to be out 
of the scope of this rulemaking, but asserted that the MR-16 burner 
would fit into a covered IRL. The other was a PAR20 lamp covered under 
this rulemaking that was not yet commercially available. (CA IOUs, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 195-197) GE noted that the 
MR16 uses a 12 V filament, which is much shorter than the filament at 
120 V, and NEMA stated that many technical features are not 
transferrable between 12 V and 120 V products. (GE, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 196-197, NEMA, No. 36 at p. 11) The CA IOUs 
acknowledged that the MR16 used a 12 V filament, but noted that the 
PAR20 lamp with a double-ended burner was designed for operation at 120 
V. (CA IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at p. 197) Further, the 
CA IOUs noted that the PAR20 lamp with a double-ended burner achieved 
an efficacy of 16.1 lm/W, which is 12 percent higher than the CSL 
proposed

[[Page 24114]]

by DOE for this lamp type in the preliminary analysis. (CA IOUs, No. 32 
at p. 10)
    ADLT agreed with the CA IOUs, noting that these double-end burners 
have a length of 52 mm and new double-end burners are being introduced 
to the market that are 45 mm in length, which further mitigates 
mechanical fit problems related with smaller reflectors. (ADLT, No. 31 
at pp. 2-3) However, NEMA contended that double-ended burners will not 
fit into existing small diameter PAR20 lamps without extending the lens 
cover. The extension of the lens cover would lessen the utility as the 
product would not fit into all fixtures designed to use PAR20 lamps, 
and therefore could not be considered as an acceptable substitute. 
(NEMA, No. 36 at p. 12) GE agreed that there were difficulties in 
fitting halogen IR burners into small PAR20 envelopes. (GE, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 191-193)
    Regarding the PAR20 lamp with a double-ended burner provided by the 
CA IOUs at the preliminary analysis public meeting, DOE notes that it 
must also consider how the use of a design option affects product 
utility and whether a more efficacious product is an appropriate 
substitute for the existing product. DOE must also consider whether the 
product can be manufactured at a commercial scale by the compliance 
date of any amended standards. Based on feedback given by manufacturers 
in interviews, fitting a double-ended burner into a small diameter lamp 
would require changes to the physical shape of the lamp, specifically 
requiring an extension of the reflector lens. While the modified lamp 
may still meet ANSI standards for a small diameter lamp such as a 
PAR20, it would be larger than any PAR20 lamps sold in the past and 
those currently installed. Because the lamp shape would be different 
from the standard sizes of commercially available small diameter lamps, 
the modified lamp may not fit in existing structures. Past a certain 
wattage threshold, heat dissipation in lamps with a smaller envelope 
using a double-ended burner could also become an issue. Further, 
manufacturers stated that even if the double-ended burner could fit 
into a small diameter lamp, it would be difficult to place the burner/
filament in the optimal position.
    Therefore, in this NOPR analysis DOE continues to apply an 
additional 3.5 percent reduction factor when scaling efficacies of 
large diameter to small diameter lamps to account for the limitation of 
small diameter lamps being able to utilize only single-ended burners.
    The CA IOUs questioned DOE's methodology for determining the 
scaling factor for large diameter to small diameter lamps. The CA IOUs 
stated that it understood DOE compared the efficacies of small diameter 
lamps to larger diameter lamps on the market, and established that 
there was a 12 percent difference. Under the assumption that the 
single-ended burner could not fit in small diameter lamps, DOE then 
modeled the losses of using a single-ended burner. However, the CA IOUs 
did not understand why these losses were added to the original 12 
percent difference which represents the efficacy reduction going from a 
large diameter to small diameter lamp. (CA IOUs, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 194-195)
    ADLT stated that it supported a 12 percent scaling factor based on 
the impact of the less efficient diameter of the reflector because it 
was independent of capsule design. ADLT noted that a typical PAR30 
aluminum-coated reflector with a front lens is approximately 75 percent 
optically efficient while the same type of PAR20 reflector (aluminum 
coated with a front lens) is approximately 66 percent efficient. 
Therefore, ADLT concluded that the 12 percent reduction in efficiency 
from large to small diameter lamps corresponds to DOE's findings when 
comparing catalog efficacy data of each lamp type from several lamp 
manufacturers (all other features remaining approximately the same). 
(ADLT, No. 31 at p. 2)
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE compared the catalog efficacies of 
halogen PAR20 lamps (the most common IRL with a diameter less than or 
equal to 2.5 inches) and their PAR30 or PAR38 counterparts from several 
lamp manufacturers (all other lamp features remaining approximately the 
same). Based on these results, DOE found that the reduction in efficacy 
caused by the smaller lamp diameter was approximately 12 percent for 
IRLs. Because only halogen lamps were used (no HIR lamps were 
included), the 12 percent included the efficacy difference due only to 
lamp diameter because the additional impact of a single-ended versus 
double-ended burner on lamp efficacy is relevant only for HIR lamps. In 
the NOPR analysis, using the same methodology, DOE confirmed that the 
efficacy reduction from a large diameter to a small diameter lamp 
should be 12 percent.
    ADLT stated that the 3.5 percent scaling factor going from double-
ended to single-ended burners was also unnecessary because single-ended 
burners can be highly efficient within small diameter reflectors. They 
cited the example of an MR-16 lamp (2 inch diameter reflector) 
utilizing single-ended IR halogen burner with an 85 percent optical 
efficiency compared to a typical PAR38 (4.75 inch diameter reflector, 
aluminized) with a 78 to 80 percent optical efficiency. Therefore, ADLT 
urged DOE to consider a 12 percent reduction factor, which would equate 
to an efficacy requirement of 5.5P\0.27\ for small lamp diameters. 
(ADLT, No. 31 at pp. 2-3)
    DOE cannot base its analysis on an MR-16 lamp because it is not 
designed to operate at the same voltage as covered IRLs, and MR-16 
lamps are not the subject of this rulemaking; DOE can assess the 
efficiency of a single-ended burner only in a small diameter IRL 
covered under this rulemaking.
    With regards to scaling, NEMA stated that DOE must ensure not only 
that the filaments and halogen burners must be able to be inserted into 
all lamps scaled, but also that the beam characteristics required for 
those lamps, a market-demanded performance characteristic, can be met. 
NEMA suggested that DOE develop demonstration models to verify 
performance; otherwise, scaling is not possible. (NEMA, No. 36 at p. 
12)
    As noted, DOE determined that double-ended burners cannot fit into 
small diameter lamps without changes to the lamp shape that could 
affect lamp characteristics and thereby product utility. Therefore, DOE 
scaled from large diameter lamps with double-ended burners to small 
diameter lamps with single-ended burners. DOE did not create 
demonstration models because the scaling was based on lamp designs in 
commercially available lamps.
Operating Voltages Greater Than or Equal to 125 Volts
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE scaled from IRLs with voltages 
less than 125 V to IRLs with voltages greater than or equal to 125 V. 
DOE developed a scaling factor that would require 130 V lamps tested at 
130 V to use the same technology and possess the same general 
performance characteristics as 120 V lamps tested at 120 V. DOE found 
that while there may be a slight decrease in efficacy, the lifetime of 
a 130 V lamp is doubled when it is operated at 120 V, giving it an 
advantage over 120 V lamps. Using the IESNA Lighting Handbook equations 
that relate lifetime, lumens, and wattage to voltage of incandescent 
lamps, DOE determined that a 15 percent scaling factor was necessary.
    The CA IOUs stated that it can be assumed the primary utility of 
the 130

[[Page 24115]]

V lamps was long life. However, they noted that the utility has not 
been removed from the market, as there are still many other 
commercially available long-life lamps. (CA IOUs, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 66-67) NEMA clarified that the primary 
utility and selling point of the 130 V lamps was their ability to 
withstand voltage spikes. The additional lifetime was just an added 
benefit. (NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 67) EEI agreed 
that in some areas where the line voltage can be higher than 120 V, the 
130 V lamps provided a safeguard against the lamp blowing out. (EEI, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 61-63) NEMA asserted that 
consumers have arguably lost a utility and noted that elimination of a 
market-desired performance characteristic is counter to requirements in 
EPCA. (NEMA, No. 36 at p. 1, 5) Additionally, according to EEI, 
consumers that now have to switch from 130 V to 120 V have to buy more 
lamps. (EEI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 61-63)
    DOE received feedback in manufacturer interviews that in certain 
areas where voltage spikes may occur, a 130 V lamp will last longer 
than a 120 V lamp. DOE remains concerned, however, that the operation 
of 130 V lamps at 120 V has the potential to significantly affect 
energy savings. DOE's research has shown that 130 V lamps are usually 
operated by consumers at 120 V rather than at a higher voltage line. 
This could incentivize manufacturers to design a less efficient and 
less expensive 130 V lamp that would meet standards when tested at 130 
V. Because they would be cheaper, there could be a market migration to 
130 V lamps and due to the lower lumen output when 130 V lamps are 
operated at 120 V, consumers may purchase more 130 V lamps, resulting 
in increased energy consumption.
    EEI noted that when 130 V lamps are operated at 120 V, their 
lifetime is increased by about 2.5 times. (EEI, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 61) GE noted that as 130 V lamps are operated 
on higher voltages, their efficacy decreases. GE stated that this 
relationship was misanalysed in the 2009 Lamps Rule, and as a result, 
the July 2012 standards have eliminated 130 V lamps from the market. 
(GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 60-61)
    DOE's research indicates that operating 130 V lamps at 120 V 
increases lifetime and lowers efficacy compared to operating these 
lamps at 130 V. Therefore, to develop an appropriate scaling factor, 
DOE determined the efficacy of 130 V lamps operated at 120 V if their 
additional lifetime over that of 120 V lamps were instead used to 
increase their efficacy. DOE found this increase in efficacy to be 15 
percent. Therefore in this NOPR analysis, DOE is proposing a scaling 
factor of a 15 percent efficacy increase from an IRL with voltages less 
than 125 V to voltages greater than or equal to 125 V.
Modified Spectrum
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE established CSLs for modified 
spectrum IRLs by scaling from the CSLs developed for the standard 
spectrum product class. DOE determined that a reduction of 15 percent 
from the standard spectrum CSLs would be appropriate for modified 
spectrum IRLs.
    The Joint Comment urged DOE to eliminate the 15 percent allowance 
for modified spectrum IRLs. The Joint Comment noted that a 2009 Ecos 
Consulting study \49\ that found an average light loss of 9 to 11 
percent associated with modified spectrum lenses. The study also 
highlighted the feasibility of modified spectrum IRLs exceeding the 
highest efficacy levels in the 2009 Lamps Rule. Therefore, the Joint 
Comment found that the 15 percent scaling factor should be eliminated, 
as there are high efficacy modified spectrum lamps, or DOE should 
reduce the factor to 10 percent to match the findings of the Ecos 
Consulting study. (Joint Comment, No. 35 at p. 3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ Ecos Consulting (prepared for Pacific Gas & Electric, 
Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Appliance Standards 
Awareness Project), 2009. Optical Losses of Modified Spectrum Lenses 
on Incandescent Reflector Lamps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 2009 Lamps Rule, DOE assessed the efficacy differences 
between standard and modified spectrum IRLs by measuring the efficacies 
of commercially available standard and modified spectrum lamps. 74 FR 
34080 (July 14, 2009). In that analysis, DOE correlated the measured 
color point data of the lamps with lamp light output reduction and lamp 
spectral power distribution. By analyzing the data, DOE established 
that a reduction of 15 percent from the standard spectrum to modified 
spectrum lamps was necessary.
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE confirmed this 15 percent 
reduction by determining the difference between the catalog efficacies 
of the standards-compliant modified spectrum lamps to comparable 
standard spectrum lamps. Using the available data for standards-
compliant modified spectrum lamps on the market, DOE compared the 
efficacies of these two lamps with standard spectrum lamps with the 
same wattage and lifetime by the same manufacturer and confirmed a 15 
percent reduction in efficacy from a modified spectrum lamp to a 
standard spectrum lamp. Therefore, in this NOPR analysis DOE is 
proposing a 15 percent efficacy reduction from a standard spectrum IRL 
to a modified spectrum IRL.
h. Xenon
    DOE identified higher efficiency inert fill gas as a design option 
for improving lamp efficacy of IRLs. Specifically, xenon, due to its 
low thermal conductivity, can greatly increase lamp efficacy and is 
utilized in most covered standards-compliant IRLs. NEMA commented that 
the availability of xenon is decreasing. If standards are set at a 
level requiring the use of xenon, it will increase its use, driving up 
prices and reducing availability, similar to the rare earth phosphor 
shortage issue. (NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 80-81) 
NEMA noted that xenon is becoming increasingly scarce, and its loss is 
an automatic 5-7 percent efficacy reduction in IRLs. The loss of xenon 
will make it impossible to meet CSL 1. NEMA referred DOE to a February 
2013 article in CryoGas International Magazine,\50\ which provides 
additional information on the xenon supply and demand market. These 
estimates show a 2013 increase in demand of 15-20 percent followed by 
steady 10 percent demand growth in outyears, with a potential for 
dramatic spike if emerging demands from technology related to 
satellites, anesthesia and electronics are realized as anticipated. 
NEMA stated that DOE should add an investigation of xenon availability 
trends and pricing to its analysis. (NEMA, No. 36 at p. 3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ CryoGas International Magazine, February 4, 2013 ``Ever 
Changing Rare Gas Market'' Richard Betzendahl.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NEEA and NPCC disagreed, stating that as there is no current 
shortage of xenon fill gas, and a standard requiring it would not 
demand a significant increase in xenon use, then xenon price and supply 
should not be an issue for this rulemaking. (NEEA and NPCC, No. 34 at 
p. 2, 5) The CA IOUs further noted that xenon is already being used as 
the primary fill gas in virtually all IRLs, so a requirement of its use 
would not especially impact any constraints on supply or price 
instability in the market. (CA IOUs, No. 32 at pp. 9-10)
    DOE acknowledges that xenon supply and prices are an important 
factor for the lighting industry, including IRLs. Therefore, in the 
preliminary analysis DOE conducted a market assessment of xenon supply, 
demand, and prices as

[[Page 24116]]

well as an LCC sensitivity to determine the impact of increased end 
user lamp prices due to increases in the price of xenon. DOE updated 
this assessment for the NOPR analysis.
    For the NOPR analysis, DOE examined various industry sources 
relevant to the xenon market including the February 2013 article in 
CryoGas International Magazine cited by NEMA. While, the article did 
forecast increases in xenon demand in 2013 and 2014, it also stated 
that it expected this to flatten out due to penetration of LEDs into 
the market. A 2012 CryoGas International Magazine article noted that 
xenon price increases predicted for 2012 did not occur to the extent 
expected.\51\ DOE understands that fluctuations in xenon supply and 
price are possible and difficult to predict. Based on its research, DOE 
did not find that there was currently a major shortage of xenon. To 
further inform the impact of xenon demand and prices, in the NOPR 
analysis, DOE conducted an LCC sensitivity that determines how high the 
xenon price would have to increase to result in zero LCC savings for 
the consumer at the proposed level. Based on the results of this 
analysis, DOE determined that EL 1 is achievable even with fluctuations 
in xenon price. See appendix 7C of the NOPR TSD for complete details on 
the xenon price sensitivity conducted in the LCC. Additionally, for 
this NOPR analysis, a xenon price sensitivity was also conducted in the 
NIA. Detailed results can be found in chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ Betzendahl, Richard. ``Still Bullish on Rare Gases: A 
CryoGas International Market Report.'' CryoGas International, 
February 2012. (Last accessed October 25, 2013.) www.cryogas-digital.com/cryogas/201202?pg=30#pg30
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

i. Proposed Standard
    DOE received several comments that no standards should be proposed 
for IRLs. NEMA indicated that the CSL 1, which was also the max tech 
level presented in the preliminary analysis should be eliminated. 
(NEMA, No. 36 at p. 1, 9) GE suggested that the existing standard for 
IRLs is appropriate, and DOE does not need to establish a higher 
standard. (GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 176-178) DOE 
has identified that there are achievable efficacy levels higher than 
the existing standard and has developed an EL based on the latest 
catalog and certification information. See section VI.D.3.f for more 
details.
    NEMA, in general, did not believe that any increase in efficacy for 
small diameter, modified spectrum, or greater than 125 V IRLs would be 
warranted. (NEMA, No. 36 at p. 5) NEMA expanded on the 130 V IRL, 
asserting that these lamps appear to have been eliminated by the 2009 
Lamps Rule and arguing against further regulation. (NEMA, No. 36 at p. 
1, 5) Further, NEMA found the lack of 130 V lamps on the market as 
evidence that current standards for these lamps are technically or 
economically infeasible. NEMA noted that there is still difficulty in 
making these IRLs comply with the July 2012 standards. (NEMA, No. 36 at 
p. 5) Therefore, NEMA strongly recommended that for IRLs with voltages 
greater than or equal to 125 V the CSL be ``No New Standard,'' not CSL 
0, which implies there are products to regulate rather than 
acknowledging the inability to further raise efficiency requirements. 
(NEMA, No. 36 at pp. 10-11)
    GE also strongly disagreed with applying another 15 percent 
increase on top of an already unachievable standard for the 130 V IRLs, 
particularly when it was not clear how energy savings could be 
justified and why products that don't meet existing standards would be 
further regulated. (GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 191-
193) EEI asked what percentage of the lighting market the 130 V lamps 
represent and questioned what can be gained by additional analysis if 
the standards adopted by the 2009 Lamps Rule have eliminated 130 V 
lamps from the market. (EEI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 
58-60, 68)
    DOE has not found evidence that more efficacious small diameter, 
modified spectrum, or 130 V IRLs are not technologically feasible or 
practicable to manufacture. DOE research indicates that the basic 
structure, components, and operating requirements of these lamps do not 
prevent the application of design options considered in the engineering 
analysis to achieve the proposed efficacy levels. Therefore, in this 
NOPR analysis, DOE is proposing efficacy levels for these lamp types. 
DOE requests comment on any technological barriers in manufacturing 
more efficacious small diameter, modified spectrum, or 130 V rated 
lamps for commercial production.

E. Product Pricing Determination

    Typically, DOE develops manufacturer selling prices (MSPs) for 
covered products and applies markups to create end-user prices to use 
as inputs to the LCC analysis and NIA. Because GSFLs and IRLs are 
difficult to reverse-engineer (i.e., not easily disassembled), DOE did 
not use this approach to derive end-user prices for the lamps covered 
in this rulemaking. In the preliminary analysis, DOE estimated end-user 
prices for lamps by establishing discounts from manufacturer suggested 
price lists (hereafter ``blue book prices''). DOE revised its 
methodology for the NOPR, as described below, to account for additional 
information that became available after publication of the preliminary 
analysis.
    For this NOPR analysis, DOE gathered publicly available lamp 
pricing data after the compliance date of the July 2012 standards. 
Based on feedback from manufacturer interviews, DOE determined that 
GSFLs and IRLs are sold through three main channels (state procurement, 
large distributors including DIY stores (i.e., Lowe's and Home Depot), 
and Internet retailers). Using these main channels and the pricing 
data, DOE developed three different end-user prices as representative 
of a range of publicly available prices: Low, based on the state 
procurement channel; medium, based on large distributors and DIY 
stores; and high, based on Internet retailers. In the preliminary 
analysis, the medium end-user prices were used in the main results of 
the LCC and NIA analysis while the low and high end-user prices were 
used in sensitivity analyses in the LCC. DOE received several comments 
on this methodology and the resulting end-user prices. NEMA deferred 
comment on product price determination to individual manufacturer 
interviews. (NEMA, No. 36 at p. 13)
    Stakeholders had specific comments regarding the IRL prices. ASAP 
and the CA IOUs found the price estimates for IRL standards case lamps 
provided by DOE to be higher than the typical pricing they found on the 
market. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 200-201; CA 
IOUs, No. 32 at pp. 10-11) The CA IOUs stated that low, medium, and 
high prices were provided for a 55 W IRL at 20 lm/W for CSL 1, however, 
CSL 1 required an efficacy of only 18.3 lm/W for a 55 W lamp. The CA 
IOUs suggested that DOE collect cost information more representative of 
the minimum efficacy needed for each CSL analyzed. The CA IOUs asserted 
high outlier price points should not be given equal weight in DOE's 
analysis; with minimal shopping, consumers will find lower priced 
products readily available. The CA IOUs provided a table showing some 
end-user price information gathered by ASAP and the CA IOUs. The 
information gathered includes price points for some of the higher 
performing IRLs from the major manufacturers collected from seven 
different retail outlets, including both online outlets

[[Page 24117]]

and brick and mortar stores, with the highest price at $16.49 and the 
average price of $13.03. (CA IOUs, No. 32 at pp. 10-11) NEEA and NPCC 
also questioned the high prices, specifically prices greater than $15 
for 50-70 W halogen lamps with an efficacy of 20 lm/W or less. (NEEA 
and NPCC, No. 34 at p. 6)
    In the preliminary analysis, while the representative lamp at CSL 1 
had a 20 lm/W catalog efficacy, its compliance values indicated a lower 
tested efficacy, resulting in an adjustment of CSL 1 to the 6.2P\0.27\ 
coefficient that would result in an efficacy of 18.3 lm/W for a 55 W 
lamp. Therefore, in the preliminary analysis, DOE determined prices of 
a lamp that represented the minimum efficacy at CSL 1. Further, the 
representative lamp prices at CSL 1 for IRLs were determined to be 
$9.29 for the low price, $16.34 for the medium price, and $23.77 for 
the high price in the preliminary analysis. These prices were based on 
publicly available price data, including prices from available state 
procurement contracts and a substantive number of Internet retailers. 
Any lamp prices from only one Internet retailer or one state 
procurement contract were removed from the pricing analysis, as were 
any extremely high prices (i.e., extreme outliers in the price trend 
observed for a lamp). DOE also examined the lamp prices cited by the CA 
IOUs and ASAP by identifying prices for these lamps at generally known 
lighting retailers, such as Home Depot, Lowe's, Grainger, and 
eLightBulbs, and found average prices up to $20. Regarding the CA IOUs' 
comment that consumers will find lower-priced products, DOE conducts 
the high price sensitivity in the LCC in part to address scenarios 
where consumers do not purchase lamps at the lowest price.
    Several stakeholders provided general comments indicating that the 
prices based on Internet retail presented in the preliminary analysis 
were too high. ASAP questioned why the Internet prices were higher than 
the DIY store prices that make up DOE's medium case. ASAP noted that 
because such stores also sell products online, residential consumers 
would find these medium prices on the Internet. Additionally, ASAP 
mentioned that commercial customers would be educated enough to avoid 
the higher Internet prices, making it unlikely for anyone to purchase 
products at the high prices DOE presented. (ASAP, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 204-205) GE, however, noted that DOE found 
the prices online, demonstrating that the channel does exist. GE also 
stated that some retailers, small stores or online sites set their own 
price points and these can be very high. (GE, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 30 at p. 201)
    For this NOPR analysis, DOE updated its pricing database and its 
blue book information and developed updated high, medium, and low 
prices for the IRL representative lamps at CSL 1. These prices were 
slightly lower than those determined in the preliminary analysis 
because of updated price data collected from online retailers and 
updated blue book prices. DOE also received updated blue book prices 
for lamps covered under this rulemaking. DOE's pricing analysis intends 
to capture a full range of available prices. DOE believes that the 
medium prices used in the main results are representative of the 
average price paid by the consumer.
    DOE also received comments regarding using a weighted price in its 
main results. NEEA and ASAP urged DOE to weight the high, medium, and 
low end-user prices rather than using sensitivities. (NEEA, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 202-203; ASAP, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 203-204) NEEA also emphasized the importance 
of weighting the different market prices in rulemakings, such as this 
one, where the nature of the product prohibits the typical markup 
analysis methodology. (NEEA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at p. 
232) While it may be possible for some markets sources to charge more 
for the product, NEEA and NPCC contended that such pricing has nothing 
to do with the cost efficiency and should not impact the analysis. An 
ideal pricing proposal would be one based on sales-weighted average 
pricing. NEEA and NPCC urged DOE to seriously revisit this part of the 
analysis. (NEEA and NPCC, No. 34 at p. 6)
    NEEA cautioned DOE to be careful in determining what fraction of 
the market is paying what price at each channel, and ASAP suggested DOE 
account for the end-user and volume of lamps specific to a channel. 
(NEEA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at p. 232; ASAP, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 202-203) For the state procurement 
channel, NEEA noted that in the lighting market in their service area, 
state contract pricing is available for every government or semi-
government entity, and therefore many lamps are sold at the low price. 
(NEEA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 231-232) ASAP also 
noted that many lamps are being sold through each state procurement 
contract but cautioned that accessibility to these contracts is limited 
and therefore, the low price they offer is available to only a very 
small number of consumers. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at 
pp. 202-203)
    Additionally, ASAP remarked that if a consumer pays the high price, 
they are probably doing so by choice, as the medium price is 
accessible. ASAP likened the scenario to purchasing a book, where large 
online retailers and bookstore chains will have the book significantly 
marked down, but a consumer could choose to pay a high price in order 
to support a small local bookstore. ASAP reasoned that very few lamps 
would be sold at the high price and suggested DOE weight the prices 
accordingly. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 202-203)
    Taking into consideration the above comments, in this NOPR analysis 
DOE developed an end-user price weighted by distribution channel. Using 
manufacturer feedback in interviews, DOE determined an aggregated 
percentage of shipments that go through each of the main channels for 
GSFLs and IRLs. The large distributors and DIY stores channel was 
estimated at 85 percent, the state procurement channel at 10 percent, 
and the Internet retail channel at 5 percent. DOE then applied these 
percentages respectively to the average medium price determined for 
large distributor and DIY stores, the average low price determined for 
state procurement contracts, and the average high price determined for 
Internet retailers. The sum of these weighted prices was used as the 
average consumer price for GSFLs and IRLs in the main LCC analysis and 
NIA. DOE continued to utilize the low prices and high prices in a 
sensitivity analysis in the LCC analysis. See chapter 7 of the NOPR TSD 
for further information on the pricing analysis. DOE welcomes feedback 
on the pricing methodology used in this analysis.

F. Energy Use

    For the energy use analysis, DOE estimated the energy use of lamps 
in the field (i.e., as they are actually used by consumers). The energy 
use analysis provided the basis for other DOE analyses, particularly 
assessments of the energy savings and the savings in consumer operating 
costs that could result from DOE's adoption of amended standard levels.
1. Operating Hours
    To develop annual energy use estimates, DOE multiplied annual usage 
(in hours per year) by the lamp power (in watts) for IRLs and the lamp-
and-ballast system input power (in watts) for GSFLs. DOE characterized 
representative lamp or lamp-and-ballast systems in the engineering 
analysis. To

[[Page 24118]]

characterize the country's average use of lamps for a typical year, DOE 
developed annual operating hour distributions by sector, using data 
published in the 2010 U.S. Lighting Market Characterization report 
(2010 LMC),\52\ the Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey 
(CBECS),\53\ the Manufacturer Energy Consumption Survey (MECS),\54\ and 
the Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS).\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy. Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: 
2010 U.S. Lighting Market Characterization. 2012. Washington, DC. 
http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/2010-lmc-final-jan-2012.pdf.
    \53\ 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. Washington, DC. 
www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/data/2003/index.cfm?view=microdata.
    \54\ U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information 
Administration. Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey, Table 9.1: 
Enclosed Floorspace and Number of Establishment Buildings. 2006. 
Washington, DC. www.eia.gov/consumption/manufacturing/data/2006/xls/Table9_1.xlsl.
    \55\ U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information 
Administration. RECS Public Use Microdata files. 2009. Washington, 
DC. www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2009/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NEMA agreed with the considered operating profiles. (NEMA, No. 36 
at p. 15) GE also stated that the operating hours looked reasonable. 
(GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at p. 212) However, EEI found 
the similarity between the GSFL commercial and industrial operating 
hours to be surprising. (EEI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 
212-213)
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE calculated weighted average 
operating hours using the probability of a building type within each 
sector using the data sources described above. These sources provide 
the most accurate and recent data available on a national scale. DOE's 
approach resulted in similar operating hours for the commercial and 
industrial sectors.
    DOE updated the methodology for determining operating hours in the 
NOPR analysis. The weighted average operating hours are based on the 
probability of a GSFL or IRL within a specific building type, rather 
than based on the probability of the building type. DOE used the 
average lamps per square foot and the percentage of lamps that are 
linear fluorescent or halogen from the 2010 LMC to calculate these 
values. The average operating hours using the revised methodology are 
similar to those found in the preliminary analysis. For further details 
on the operating hours, see chapter 6 of the NOPR TSD.
    NEEA offered data from their residential sector energy use field 
survey of 2,200 lighting fixtures in 1,400 houses. NEEA noted that DOE 
could use the data to verify analyses and findings. NEEA also mentioned 
their commercial sector energy use field survey, but stated that they 
might not have those data in time for NOPR analyses. (NEEA, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 210, 212) DOE examined NEEA's 
Residential Building Stock Assessment reports,\56\ but continued to use 
the data sources described above in its analysis because NEEA's data is 
limited to the northwest region. DOE did not find any recent NEEA 
report regarding energy usage in the commercial sector at the 
publication of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ NEEA's Residential Building Stock Assessment available at 
http://neea.org/resource-center/regional-data-resources/residential-building-stock-assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Lighting Controls
    DOE evaluated the impact of lighting controls on the energy use of 
GSFLs and IRLs. Most lighting controls have one of two impacts: 
Reducing operating wattage or reducing operating hours. DOE refers to 
these two groups of controls as dimmers or light sensors, and occupancy 
sensors, respectively. The calculated operating hours used in the 
reference case already account for the use of occupancy sensors because 
the 2010 LMC operating hour data are based on building surveys and 
metering data. In the preliminary analysis, DOE accounted for the use 
of dimmers or light sensors by modeling GSFLs and IRLs on dimmers and 
developing associated energy use results for both types of covered 
lamps as a sensitivity analysis. See appendix 6A of the NOPR TSD for 
further information.
    Regarding the dimming scenarios, NEMA noted that the dimming 
systems save more energy than the standards considered in this 
rulemaking. NEMA asserted that this furthered their arguments that this 
rulemaking is unnecessary and a ``system approach'' would be more 
advantageous for energy efficiency. NEMA contended that DOE pursues 
diminishing returns through component standards and distracts resources 
from more beneficial efficiency efforts. (NEMA, No. 36 at p. 15) DOE 
did not consider a system approach in this rulemaking because EPCA 
directs DOE to undertake a review of standards for GSFLs and IRLs and 
determine if amended standards for these lamp types would result in 
energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(1) and (3)-(5))
a. General Service Fluorescent Lamp Lighting Controls
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE assessed the impacts of dimmers on 
GSFLs by determining the reduction in system lumen output and system 
input power as a result of using dimming ballasts. Based on product 
research and manufacturer feedback, DOE analyzed dimming scenarios for 
2-lamp 4-foot MBP systems, 4-lamp 4-foot MBP systems, 2-lamp 4-foot T5 
MiniBP SO systems, and 2-lamp 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO systems operating in 
the commercial and industrial sectors. DOE determined that the average 
reduction of system lumen output for GSFLs was 33 percent based on 
research and manufacturer input.
    GE asked for clarification on how DOE was incorporating the 
percentage to which the dimmed lamps were being dimmed. (GE, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 211) DOE incorporated this assumption 
by decreasing the BF of the baseline ballast by 33 percent and 
subsequently calculating the system mean lumen output of the baseline 
lamp-and-ballast system. DOE then assumed that each higher efficacy 
lamp-and-ballast system would be dimmed to equal the mean lumen output 
of the baseline system and adjusted the BF accordingly. DOE calculated 
the percentage each higher efficacy lamp-and-ballast system was dimmed 
by dividing the BF at the dimmed light output by the catalog BF at full 
light output. For more information, see appendix 6A of the NOPR TSD.
    Several commenters supported DOE's analysis of dimming systems for 
GSFLs, noting that dimming systems are growing in popularity and 
provide the potential for significant energy savings. NEMA stated that 
when it encourages high efficacy fluorescent retrofits through one of 
its marketing programs, it always tries to encourage lighting controls. 
Thus, when a retrofit results in increased brightness there is the 
option to dim, which is where the largest amount of savings lies. 
(NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 108-109) Further, 
Lutron stated that it agreed that the 33 percent energy savings from 
dimming systems cited in the preliminary analysis is close to the 
actual savings that can be expected as opposed to the savings estimated 
from higher lamp efficacy. (Lutron, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 
at pp. 73-74)
    Commenters expressed concerns, however, regarding the calculated 
energy consumption of a dimmed lamp-and-ballast system and the 
inclusion of reduced wattage lamps in the dimming

[[Page 24119]]

analysis. Lutron noted that GSFL light output and input power do not 
scale perfectly linearly from zero. Lutron explained that there is an 
offset at the low end that accounts for the required electrode heating, 
typically a few percent of the total maximum rated power. The light 
output and input power scale linearly after this point. (Lutron, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at p. 220) NEMA referenced their white paper 
LSD-345 and added that the need for cathode heat skews efficacy 
calculations. The lower the light output, the more cathode heat power 
increases, lowering the efficacy of the system. The systems are the 
most efficacious at full power, but NEMA clarified that this does not 
mean that they do not save energy when dimmed, only that it is not a 
linear scale. (NEMA, No. 36 at p. 14)
    DOE agrees that GSFL light output and input power do not scale 
linearly from zero for dimming systems. In the preliminary analysis, 
DOE utilized manufacturer-published performance characteristics of the 
dimming systems to develop the relationship between light output and 
input power. DOE plotted the minimum and maximum light output levels 
and associated system input powers published in catalogs, and then fit 
a linear equation to the points. The published system input power 
values at minimum light output reflected the presence of cathode heat 
at minimum light output and thus the linear equations did not originate 
at zero. This approach was maintained in the NOPR analysis. For more 
information, see appendix 6A of the NOPR TSD.
    Regarding reduced wattage lamps, commenters noted that reduced 
wattage lamps, which contain krypton, did not provide the same dimming 
functionality as full wattage lamps. GE observed that if the GSFL 
standard is set at a level requiring a heavier fill gas, namely 
krypton, then the NES would start to decrease. GE and Lutron noted that 
even though controls and dimmers are already becoming required in 
buildings, the krypton eliminates the ability to control and dim the 
lamps, negatively affecting the energy savings. (GE, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 220-221; Lutron, Public Meeting Transcript, 
No. 30 at pp. 73-74) Philips stated that there is no published testing 
of dimming with krypton fill gas and currently no standards for dimming 
ballasts. (Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at p. 222) NEMA 
further emphasized these points, cautioning DOE that reduced wattage 28 
W lamps are less feasible to dim than 32 W lamps. NEMA suggested DOE 
model a 32 W lamp for their dimming analyses. NEMA further stated that 
CSLs should be set to retain the 32 W lamps. (NEMA, No. 36 at p. 14)
    DOE acknowledges that reduced wattage lamps may dim unreliably in 
certain applications. DOE discusses the dimmability of reduced wattage 
lamps in VI.B.1. In the preliminary analysis and this NOPR analysis, 
however, DOE identified several manufacturers that published 
performance data of both 28 W and 25 W 4-foot MBP lamps when paired 
with dimming ballasts. This data indicates that these reduced wattage 
lamp types can be utilized in some dimming applications. For this 
reason, DOE continues to analyze reduced wattage 4-foot MBP lamps in 
its dimming analysis in addition to full wattage 4-foot MBP lamps. 
Regarding T5 lamps, DOE found that catalog information generally did 
not indicate that reduced wattage T5 lamps should be operated on 
dimming ballasts. Therefore, as in the preliminary analysis, DOE does 
not analyze reduced wattage T5 lamps in dimming systems. As noted in 
section VI.D.2.g, DOE has ensured that the full wattage lamps in all 
product classes meet the proposed ELs so that full wattage lamps are 
available in situations where reduced wattage fluorescent lamps are 
unacceptable.
b. Incandescent Reflector Lamp Lighting Controls
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE research indicated that, on 
average, consumers using dimmers reduce lamp wattage by 20 percent, 
corresponding to a lumen reduction of 25 percent and an increase in 
lifetime by a factor of 3.94. DOE analyzed two scenarios in LCC 
sensitivity analyses: (1) The light output of the baseline lamp was 
reduced by 25 percent and more efficient lamps were dimmed to the same 
light output and (2) the characteristics of the lamps analyzed 
represented the distribution of dimmers across the nation. For the 
second scenario, DOE used the 2010 LMC to determine that 29 percent of 
halogen IRLs operate on dimmers or light sensors in the residential 
sector and 5 percent of halogen IRLs operate on dimmers in the 
commercial sector and used these percentages to calculate weighted-
average performance characteristics. DOE received several comments on 
its IRL dimming analysis.
    Lutron stated that they did not have independent data, but the 
estimate of five percent of lamps in the commercial sector operating on 
dimmers seems reasonably accurate. (Lutron, Public Meeting Transcript, 
No. 30 at p. 217) However, Lutron and NEMA disagreed with the value 
used for the lifetime multiplier.
    Lutron commented that the lifetime multiplier given for IRLs 
appears to be based on the standard incandescent formula published in 
the IESNA Lighting Handbook. Lutron stated that the multiplier that 
should be used for halogen PAR lamps, while still between three and 
four, is lower than the multiplier DOE used. (Lutron, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 214-215) NEMA also disagreed with DOE's 
assumption that the lamp life for halogen products follows the 
incandescent curve of ``Life ~ V-13,'' where V is the 
voltage across the filament. Based on NEMA's research, NEMA put forward 
the proper relationship as ``Life ~ V-10,'' which would 
result in a multiplier of 3 rather than 4 for the reduction in light 
output DOE considered. Therefore, NEMA recommended a multiplier of 3, 
instead of the multiplier of 4 suggested in the preliminary TSD. (NEMA, 
No. 36 at p. 15)
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE did not use an equation in the 
IESNA Lighting Handbook to calculate the lifetime multiplier and 
therefore was not employing the incandescent curve referenced by NEMA 
or Lutron. Rather, DOE used Lutron's Energy Savings Calculator, 
available on the Lutron Web site.\57\ The values provided in this 
calculator are based on experiments conducted on halogen lamps, which 
provide the most accurate representation of the lifetime increase that 
occurs as a result of dimming halogen IRLs because they are based on 
halogen technology instead of incandescent technology and use 
experimental data. In this NOPR analysis, DOE has continued to utilize 
Lutron's Energy Savings Calculator to determine the lifetime multiplier 
associated with various levels of dimmed light output.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ www.lutron.com/en-US/Education-Training/Pages/Tools/EnergySavingCalc.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis and Payback Period Analysis

    In the preliminary analysis, DOE conducted LCC and PBP analyses to 
evaluate the economic impacts of potential energy conservation 
standards for GSFLs and IRLs on individual consumers. The LCC is the 
total consumer expense over the life of a product, consisting of 
purchase, installation, and operating costs (operating costs are 
expenses for energy use, maintenance, and repair). To compute the 
operating costs, DOE discounted future operating costs to the time of 
purchase and summed them over the lifetime of the product. The

[[Page 24120]]

PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it takes consumers to 
recover the increased purchase cost (including installation) of a more 
efficient product through lower operating costs. DOE calculates the PBP 
by dividing the change in purchase cost (normally higher) by the change 
in average annual operating cost (normally lower) that results from the 
more efficient standard. DOE used a ``simple'' PBP for this rulemaking, 
which does not take into account other changes in operating expenses 
over time or the time value of money.
    For any given efficacy or energy use level, DOE measures the PBP 
and the change in LCC relative to an estimated base-case product 
efficacy or energy use level. The base-case estimate reflects the 
market without new or amended mandatory energy conservation standards, 
including the market for products that exceed the current energy 
conservation standards.
    Inputs to the calculation of total installed cost include the cost 
of the product--which includes consumer product price and sales taxes--
and installation costs. Inputs to the calculation of operating expenses 
include annual energy consumption, energy prices and price projections, 
repair and maintenance costs, product lifetimes, discount rates, and 
the year in which compliance with proposed standards would be required. 
DOE also incorporated a residual value calculation to account for any 
remaining lifetime of lamps at the end of the analysis period. The 
residual value is an estimate of the product's value to the consumer at 
the end of the LCC analysis period. In addition, this residual value 
recognizes that a lamp may continue 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.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ 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.) February 1996. NIST: Gaithersburg, MD. Available 
at: http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build96/PDF/b96121.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 in 
which compliance with any new standard would be required (2017, in this 
case) are needed.
    To account for uncertainty and variability, DOE created value 
distributions for inputs as appropriate, including operating hours, 
electricity prices, discount rates and sales tax rates, and disposal 
costs. For example, DOE created a probability distribution of annual 
energy consumption in its energy use analysis, based in part on a range 
of annual operating hours. The operating hour distributions capture 
variation across census divisions and large states, building types, and 
lamp or lamp-and-ballast systems for three sectors (commercial, 
industrial, and residential).
    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 spreadsheet model 
generates a Monte Carlo simulation \59\ to perform the analysis by 
incorporating uncertainty and variability considerations. The Monte 
Carlo simulations randomly sample input values from the probability 
distributions and lamp user samples, performing 1,000 iterations per 
simulation run.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ Monte Carlo simulations model uncertainty by utilizing 
probability distributions instead of single values for certain 
inputs and variables.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NEMA commented on the general LCC methodology used in the 
preliminary analysis, stating that it appears the 30-year payback 
period for LCC analysis timeline, about which they had previously 
expressed concern, has been stretched to a 70-year period for this 
rulemaking. NEMA assumed the time period was chosen to justify 
feasibility arguments that have miniscule payback estimates. NEMA 
requested that DOE clarify the 70-year forecasting and related 
analyses, and explain the justification for examining such a long 
period. (NEMA, No. 36 at pp. 3-4)
    The PBP is the amount of time it takes the consumer to recover the 
assumed higher purchase cost of a more-efficacious product through 
lower operating costs. DOE calculates and presents the payback period 
for all LCC scenarios, regardless of the value of the payback period, 
including the long payback periods referenced by NEMA. Payback periods 
are one of the factors that DOE considers when weighing the benefits 
and burdens of TSLs.
    In the NOPR analysis, DOE generally maintained the methodology from 
the preliminary analysis, with a few changes. Table VI.13 summarizes 
the approach and data DOE used to derive inputs to the LCC and PBP 
calculations for the preliminary analysis as well as the changes made 
for this NOPR. The NOPR TSD chapter 8 and its appendices provide 
details on the spreadsheet model and of all the inputs to the LCC and 
PBP analyses. The NOPR TSD appendix 8B provides results of the 
sensitivity analyses conducted using Monte Carlo simulation. The 
subsections that follow discuss the comments regarding each initial 
input and any changes made to them in the NOPR analysis.

  Table VI.13--Summary of Inputs and Key Assumptions in the LCC and PBP
                               Analyses *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Changes for the
           Inputs                Preliminary TSD        proposed rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Product Price......  Applied discounts to  Applied discounts to
                               manufacturer          manufacturer
                               catalog (``blue       catalog (``blue
                               book'') pricing in    book'') pricing in
                               order to represent    order to represent
                               low, medium, and      low, medium, and
                               high prices for all   high prices for all
                               lamp categories.      lamp categories.
                               Used medium prices    Used a weighted
                               in the main           average price in
                               analysis.             the main analysis
                                                     based on the
                                                     percentage of
                                                     shipments that go
                                                     through the
                                                     distribution
                                                     channel having low,
                                                     medium, or high
                                                     prices.

[[Page 24121]]

 
Sales Tax...................  Derived population-   Derived sector-
                               weighted-average      specific average
                               tax values for each   tax values based on
                               census division and   the probability of
                               large state \60\      purchasing a GSFL
                               from data provided    or IRL in each
                               by the Sales Tax      census division and
                               Clearinghouse.        large state from
                                                     data provided by
                                                     the Sales Tax
                                                     Clearinghouse.
Installation Cost...........  Derived costs using   No change.
                               the RS Means
                               Electrical Cost
                               Data and U.S.
                               Bureau of Labor
                               Statistics to
                               obtain average
                               labor times for
                               installation, as
                               well as labor rates
                               for electricians
                               and helpers based
                               on wage rates,
                               benefits, and
                               training costs.
Annual Operating Hours......  Determined operating  Determined operating
                               hours by              hours by
                               associating           associating
                               building-type-        operating hours for
                               specific operating    a GSFL or IRL in a
                               hour data with        specific building
                               regional              type using the
                               distributions of      average lamps per
                               various building      square foot and the
                               types using the       percentage of lamps
                               2010 LMC and EIA's    of each type with
                               2003 CBECS, 2009      regional
                               RECS, and 2006 MECS.  distributions of
                                                     various building
                                                     types using the
                                                     2010 LMC and EIA's
                                                     2003 CBECS, 2009
                                                     RECS, and 2006
                                                     MECS.
Product Energy Consumption    Determined lamp       No change.
 Rate.                         input power for
                               IRLs based on
                               published
                               manufacturer
                               literature.
                               Calculated system
                               input power for
                               GSFLs. Used lamp
                               arc power, catalog
                               BF, number of lamps
                               per system, and
                               tested BLE (when
                               possible) to
                               calculate system
                               input power for
                               each unique lamp-
                               and-ballast
                               combination.
Electricity Prices..........  Electricity: Based    Electricity: Based
                               on EIA's Form 861     on EIA's Form 861
                               data for 2011.        data for 2011
                                                     scaled to 2012 (the
                                                     dollar year of the
                                                     analysis) using AEO
                                                     2013 and the
                                                     consumer price
                                                     index.
                              Variability:          Variability:
                               Weighted average      Weighted average
                               national price for    national price for
                               each sector           each sector and
                               calculated from the   lamp type
                               probability of each   calculated from the
                               building type         probability of a
                               within each census    GSFL or IRL
                               division or large     purchased in each
                               state.                census division or
                                                     large state
Electricity Price             Forecasted using AEO  Forecasted using AEO
 Projections.                  2012.                 2013.
Replacement and Disposal      Commercial and        No change.
 Costs.                        industrial:
                               Included labor and
                               materials costs for
                               lamp replacement,
                               and disposal costs
                               for failed GSFLs.
                              Residential:
                               Included only
                               materials cost for
                               lamps, with no lamp
                               disposal costs.
Product Lifetime............  Ballast lifetime      No change.
                               based on average
                               ballast life of
                               49,054 from 2011
                               Ballast Rule. Lamp
                               lifetime based on
                               published
                               manufacturer
                               literature where
                               available.
Discount Rates..............  Commercial and        No change.
                               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,
                               Damodaran
                               Online,\61\ Office
                               of Management and
                               Budget (OMB)
                               Circular No. A-
                               94,\62\ and state
                               and local bond
                               interest rates \63\.
                              Residential: Derived
                               discount rates
                               using 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
                               data \64\ for 1989,
                               1992, 1995, 1998,
                               2001, 2004, 2007,
                               and 2010.
Analysis Period.............  IRLs and commercial   IRLs and commercial
                               and industrial        and industrial
                               GSFLs: Based on the   GSFLs: No change.
                               baseline lamp life
                               in hours divided by
                               the annual
                               operating hours of
                               that lamp.
                              Residential GSFLs     Residential GSFLs
                               lamp failure: Based   lamp failure: Based
                               on the baseline       on the lifetime of
                               lamp life in hours    the ballast.
                               divided by the
                               annual operating
                               hours of that lamp.

[[Page 24122]]

 
                              Residential GSFLs     Residential GSFLs
                               ballast failure and   ballast failure and
                               new construction/     new construction/
                               renovation: Based     renovation: No
                               on the lifetime of    change.
                               the ballast.
Compliance Date of Standards  2017................  No change.
Lamp Purchase Events........  Assessed three        No change.
                               events: lamp
                               failure, ballast
                               failure (GSFLs
                               only), and new
                               construction/
                               renovation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* References for the data sources mentioned in this table are provided
  in the sections following the table or in chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD.

     
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ The four large states are New York, California, Texas, and 
Florida.
    \61\ Damodaran Online, The Data Page: Historical Returns on 
Stocks, Bonds, and Bills--United States (2013). Available at: http:/
/pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar. (Last accessed September, 2013.)
    \62\ U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Circular No. A-94 
Appendix C (2012). Available at: www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a094/a94_appx-c.
    \63\ Federal Reserve Board, Statistics: Releases and Historical 
Data--Selected Interest Rates--State and Local Bonds (2013). 
Available at: http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/oss/oss2/scfindex.html.
    \64\ The Federal Reserve Board, Survey of Consumer Finances. 
Available at: www.federalreserve.gov/PUBS/oss/oss2/scfindex.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Consumer Product Price
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE used a variety of sources to 
develop consumer product prices, including lamp prices from 
manufacturers' 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. Medium prices were used 
in the main analysis results. In the NOPR analysis, DOE maintained the 
same methodology but calculated a weighted average price based on the 
percentage of shipments going through the low discount (high price), 
medium discount (medium price), and high discount (low price) 
distribution channels. Because fluorescent lamps operate on a ballast 
in practice, DOE analyzed lamp-and-ballast systems in the engineering 
analysis and therefore also determined end-user prices for ballasts. 
DOE utilized the end-user prices from the 2011 Ballast Rule converted 
to 2012$ to develop prices for replacement ballasts.
    On February 22, 2011, DOE published a notice of data availability 
(NODA; 76 FR 9696) stating that DOE may consider whether its regulatory 
analysis would be improved by addressing product price trends. Using 
three decades of historic data on the quantities and values of domestic 
shipments of fluorescent lamps and PAR lamps reported by the U.S. 
Census Bureau in their Current Industrial Reports, DOE examined product 
prices trends, fitting the data to an experience curve, as described in 
chapter 11 of the NOPR TSD. DOE found that the data are well-
represented by the experience curve and consistent with price learning 
theory. Therefore, consistent with the NODA, DOE incorporated price 
trends into this rulemaking. In the LCC analysis, DOE adjusts prices 
for each year using the experience curve.
2. Sales Tax
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE obtained state and local sales tax 
data from the Sales Tax Clearinghouse. The data represented weighted 
averages that included county and city rates. DOE used the data to 
compute population-weighted average tax values for each census division 
and four large states (New York, California, Texas, and Florida).
    EEI asked if DOE had any information on local sales taxes, such as 
city or county taxes, which would be added to the state sales tax. EEI 
noted that without considering the additional local taxes, especially 
in urban areas with commercial buildings, DOE may be missing relevant 
sales tax data. (EEI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 230-231) 
NEEA added that there are some publicly available local tax data by 
county. (NEEA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at p. 231)
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE used the Sales Tax Clearinghouse 
for sales tax data by state. Because the Sales Tax Clearinghouse 
specifies that the aggregate rates are weighted averages that include 
county and city rates, DOE accounts for the levels of taxes described 
in the comments.
    In this NOPR analysis, DOE used updated sales tax data from the 
Sales Tax Clearinghouse.\65\ DOE recognized that a population-weighted 
tax value may not accurately represent the probability of a lamp type 
purchased in each census division and large state. Therefore, in the 
NOPR analysis, DOE calculated a weighted average sales tax based on the 
probability of a GSFL or IRL purchased for a particular building type 
in each census division and large state. DOE used information in the 
2010 LMC, such as the number of lamps per square feet and the 
percentage of lamps within a building that are linear fluorescent or 
halogen. In combination with this information, DOE used CBECS, MECS, 
and RECS respectively, for commercial, industrial, and residential 
building data on building types in each census division and large 
state. Thus, in the preliminary analysis, the sales tax was averaged 
based on the number of people in a region or state, whereas in the 
NOPR, the sales tax is averaged based on how many people purchase a 
GSFL or IRL in a region or state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ Sales Tax Clearinghouse. Aggregate State Tax Rates. (2013). 
Available at: http://thestc.com/STrates.stm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Installation Cost
    The installation cost is the total cost to the consumer to install 
the product, excluding the consumer product price. Installation costs 
include labor, overhead, and any miscellaneous materials and parts. As 
detailed in the preliminary analysis, DOE considered the total 
installed cost of a lamp or lamp-and-ballast system to be the consumer 
product price (including sales taxes) plus the installation cost. For 
the commercial and industrial sectors, DOE assumed consumers must pay 
to install the lamp or lamp-and-ballast system and assumed the 
installation cost was the product of the average labor rate and the 
time needed to install a lamp or lamp and ballast. In the residential 
sector, DOE assumed that consumers must pay for only the installation 
of a lamp-and-ballast system. Therefore, the installation cost assumed 
was the product of the average labor rate and the time needed to 
install the lamp-and-ballast system. DOE assumed that residential 
consumers would install their own replacement lamps and, thus, would 
incur no installation cost when replacing their own lamp.

[[Page 24123]]

    DOE did not receive any comments on the installation cost. DOE 
retained this methodology for determining installation costs in this 
NOPR analysis.
4. Annual Energy Use
    As discussed in section VI.F, DOE estimated the annual energy use 
of representative lamp or lamp-and-ballast systems by multiplying input 
power and sector operating hours. DOE maintained its methodology of 
determining annual energy use inputs in this NOPR analysis.
5. Product Energy Consumption Rate
    As in the preliminary analysis, DOE determined lamp input power for 
IRLs based on published manufacturer literature. For GSFLs, DOE 
calculated the system input power using published manufacturer 
literature and test data. DOE used lamp arc power, catalog BF, number 
of lamps per system, and tested BLE (when possible) to calculate system 
input power for each unique lamp-and-ballast combination. The rated 
system input power was then multiplied by the annual operating hours of 
the system to determine the annual energy consumption. DOE did not 
receive any comments on energy consumption rate calculations. DOE 
retained this methodology for determining energy consumption in this 
NOPR analysis.
6. Electricity Prices
    For the LCC and PBP in the preliminary analysis, DOE derived 
average energy prices for 13 U.S. geographic areas consisting of the 
nine census divisions, with four large states (New York, Florida, 
Texas, and California) treated separately. For census divisions 
containing one of these large states, DOE calculated the regional 
average excluding the data for the large state. The derivation of 
prices was based on data from EIA Form 861, ``Annual Electric Power 
Industry Database.'' DOE calculated a weighted average national 
electricity price for each sector using the probability of each 
building type within each census division or large state. DOE did not 
receive any comments on this approach.
    In the NOPR analysis, DOE calculated weighted average electricity 
prices based on the probability of a GSFL or IRL purchased in each 
census division and large state. The same methodology as noted 
previously for determining average weighted sales tax was used to 
calculate average weighted electricity prices. DOE used data published 
in the 2010 LMC in combination with CBECS, MECS, and RECS to determine 
an average weighted electricity price based on the probability of a 
GSFL or IRL in a particular building type in each census division and 
large state. DOE requests comment on its methodology of determining 
average weighted electricity prices.
7. Electricity Price Projections
    To estimate the trends in energy prices for the preliminary 
analysis, DOE used the price forecasts in AEO 2012. To arrive at prices 
in future years, DOE multiplied current average prices by the forecast 
of annual average price changes in AEO 2012. In this NOPR analysis, DOE 
used the same approach, but updated its energy price forecasts using 
AEO 2013. DOE intends to update its energy price forecasts for the 
final rule based on the latest available AEO. In addition, the 
spreadsheet tools that DOE used to conduct the LCC and PBP analyses 
allow users to select price forecasts from AEO's low-growth, high-
growth, and reference case scenarios to estimate the sensitivity of the 
LCC and PBP to different energy price forecasts. DOE did not receive 
any comments on its methodology for determining electricity price 
projections.
8. Replacement and Disposal Costs
    In its preliminary analysis, DOE addressed lamp replacements 
occurring within the analysis period as part of installed costs for 
considered lamp or lamp-and-ballast system designs. Replacement costs 
in the commercial and industrial sectors included the labor and 
materials costs associated with replacing a lamp at the end of its 
lifetime, discounted to 2011$. For the residential sector, DOE assumed 
that consumers would install their own replacement lamps and incur no 
related labor costs.
    Some consumers recycle failed GSFLs, thus incurring a disposal 
cost. In its research, DOE found average disposal costs of 10 cents per 
linear foot for GSFLs.\66\ A 2004 report by the Association of Lighting 
and Mercury Recyclers noted that approximately 30 percent of lamps used 
by businesses and 2 percent of lamps in the residential sector are 
recycled nationwide.\67\ DOE considered the 30 percent lamp-recycling 
rate to be significant and incorporated GSFL disposal costs into the 
LCC analysis for commercial and industrial consumers. Given the very 
low (2 percent) estimated lamp recycling rate in the residential 
sector, DOE assumed that residential consumers would be less likely to 
voluntarily incur the higher disposal costs. Therefore, DOE excluded 
the disposal costs for lamps or ballasts from the LCC analysis for 
residential GSFLs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ Environmental Health and Safety Online's fluorescent lights 
and lighting disposal and recycling Web page--Recycling Costs. 
Available at www.ehso.com/fluoresc.php. (Last accessed October 11, 
2013.)
    \67\ Association of Lighting and Mercury Recyclers, ``National 
Mercury-Lamp Recycling Rate and Availability of Lamp Recycling 
Services in the U.S.'' Nov. 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE received no comments concerning these assumed recycling rates, 
disposal costs, and their application in the LCC analysis. DOE 
maintained this approach in the NOPR analysis.
9. Lamp Purchase Events
    DOE designed the LCC and PBP analyses for this rulemaking around 
scenarios where consumers need to purchase a lamp. Each of these events 
may give the consumer a different set of lamp or lamp-and-ballast 
designs and, therefore, a different set of LCC savings for a certain 
efficacy level. In the preliminary analysis, DOE evaluated three types 
of events that would prompt a consumer to purchase a lamp. These events 
are described below. DOE requests comments on these lamp purchasing 
events developed for this analysis. Though described primarily in the 
context of GSFLs, lamp purchase events can be applied to IRLs as well. 
However, considering that IRLs are not used with a ballast, the only 
lamp purchase events applicable to IRLs are lamp failure (Event I) and 
new construction and renovation (Event III).
     Lamp Failure (Event I): This event reflects a scenario in 
which a lamp has failed (spot relamping) or is about to fail (group 
relamping). In the base case, identical lamps are installed as 
replacements. In the standards case, the consumer installs a standards 
compliant lamp that is compatible with the existing ballast.
     Ballast Failure (Event II): This is a scenario in which 
the failure of the installed ballast triggers a lamp and ballast 
purchase.
     New Construction and Renovation (Event III): This event 
encompasses all fixture installations where the lighting design will be 
completely new or can be completely changed. During new construction 
and renovation, the spatial layout of fixtures in a building space is 
not constrained to any previous configuration. However, because DOE's 
higher efficacy replacements generally maintain lumen output within 10 
percent of the baseline system, DOE did not assume that spacing was 
changed.
    DOE received comments stating that fixture spacing is adjusted 
during new construction and renovation. NEEA related that during tenant 
improvement in their market, the ceiling is the first

[[Page 24124]]

item to be stripped, and the lighting system is redesigned as part of 
the regular renovation between tenant occupancies. Therefore, NEEA 
contended, brand new ballasts and lamps are installed without regard to 
the previous fixture locations. NEEA added that T8 lamps are the only 
lighting element likely to be preserved in this scenario, and they 
would be used in a new fixture with a new ballast. (NEEA, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 261-262) EEI commented that there are 
minimum foot-candle requirements to light spaces, and scenarios that 
result in lower lumen output from the baseline system will also include 
adjustments to the fixture spacing to maintain those lumens. (EEI, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 257-258)
    NEEA also argued that respacing would occur with a new renovation 
because the space would likely gain a whole new control system with 
daylighting and dimming fixtures not installed previously. Due to a 
different number people in a different office configuration, everything 
would have to be redesigned, making renovation more like new 
construction. (NEEA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at p. 263) 
However, Lutron stated that all the elements added in the described 
renovation were the result of design and technical changes unrelated to 
the lighting regulations. (Lutron, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at 
p. 263) Lutron noted that even if the lighting design of a space was 
completely altered during renovation, there would still be the same 
number of lamps and the same load. (Lutron, Public Meeting Transcript, 
No. 30 at pp. 262-263)
    DOE also received several comments indicating that the respacing of 
fixtures, even in new construction or renovation, is unlikely due to 
ceiling grid constraints. NEMA stated that respacing is not a practical 
assumption for this rulemaking, and would not happen in practice other 
than to existing ready-made dimensions. Spacing is effectively 
constrained by existing practices and ceiling grid construction, and 
not determined by the lighting selected. Further, NEMA clarified that 
spacing is almost always based on the available 1 by 1, 2 by 2, or 2 by 
4 ceiling grids, and that must be factored into the analysis. The 
likelihood of other spacing is near zero. (NEMA, No. 36 at p. 16) GE 
agreed that the standard 2 by 4 ceiling grids make it nearly impossible 
to respace fixtures in response to a change of a few lumens per watt. 
(GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 258-289)
    NEMA also noted that there is an interdependence among the ceiling 
material, the modular wire strings, the fixtures, and the fixtures' 
performance. (NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 259-260) 
Philips added that when adjusting fixture spacing, the hangers for the 
lights will also have to be changed in many scenarios. Given that this 
modification necessitates going into the ceiling, and the prevalence of 
asbestos, it is unlikely the consumer would want to make this 
adjustment. (Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 260-261) 
If consumers were not installing new lamps, GE believed they would more 
likely switch to a ballast with a better ballast factor rather than 
respace fixtures. (GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 258-
259)
    NEMA further remarked that substantial changes in efficacy or lumen 
output are necessary to warrant space changes. (NEMA, No. 36 at p. 16) 
GE agreed that it would be very unlikely for users to respace fixtures 
to accommodate compliant lamps' lumen output. (GE, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 258-289)
    DOE agrees that spacing adjustments are not practical. Ceiling grid 
systems typically come in fixed layouts, and lamp fixtures are sized to 
be compatible with the commonly available grid options. Thus, DOE 
believes that consumers are limited in the spacing of fixtures by the 
ceiling grid and its associated components. DOE also agrees that 
consumers would be more likely to change light output levels by 
adjusting system components such as the ballast factor (i.e., use a 
high BF or low BF ballast) or lamp lumen output levels (e.g., 32 W 4-
foot MBP high lumen lamp) rather than attempting to adjust fixture 
spacing using non-standard ceiling grids. DOE acknowledges that fixture 
spacing adjustments may be done in certain cases as cited by NEEA. 
Based on available information and the other comments discussed above, 
however, such adjustments are not a common practice nationwide. Thus, 
DOE did not include spacing adjustments as part of the LCC analysis.
10. Product Lifetime
a. Lamp Lifetime
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE used manufacturer literature to 
determine lamp lifetimes. DOE also considered the impact of group 
relamping practices on GSFL lifetime in the commercial and industrial 
sectors. In the preliminary analysis, DOE assumed that a lamp subject 
to group relamping operates for 75 percent of its rated lifetime, an 
estimate obtained from the 2011 Ballast Rule. However, DOE received 
information from manufacturers in interviews that consumer behavior has 
changed and group relamping now occurs at 85-90 percent of rated life. 
Therefore, in the NOPR analysis DOE assumes that a lamp subject to 
group relamping operates for 85 percent of its rated lifetime. By 
considering lamp rated lifetimes and the prevalence of group versus 
spot relamping practices, DOE derived an average lifetime for a GSFL. 
This ranged from 94 percent of rated lifetime for 8-foot SP slimline 
lamps to 96 percent of rated lifetime for 4-foot MBP lamps. See chapter 
8 of the NOPR TSD for further details. DOE requests comment on its spot 
and group relamping assumptions, particularly the percent of rated life 
at which group relamping occurs.
    As stated above, DOE is using 15 years as the estimated fixture and 
ballast lifetime in the residential sector for purposes of its 
analyses. In the preliminary analysis, the lifetime of the baseline 
GSFL in the residential sector was calculated by dividing the life in 
hours by the average operating hours of a GSFL in the residential 
sector (648 hours per year), which resulted in a lifetime of 37 years 
for the baseline lamp. Because this lifetime of the baseline lamp was 
longer than the average lifetime of a fixture and ballast, for the lamp 
failure scenario, DOE assumed that residential sector GSFL consumers 
were able to realize the full rated lifetime of their lamps. Therefore, 
at the average operating hours of 648 hours per year, DOE utilized the 
full lifetime of the baseline lamp (37 years) as the analysis period. 
DOE assumed that when a ballast is removed in the middle of the 
analysis period, these consumers preserve their lamps, purchase a new 
ballast of the same type as the initial ballast, and then have the new 
ballast installed with the preserved lamps (incurring a lamp-and-
ballast system installation cost). In contrast, for the ballast failure 
and new construction and renovation events, DOE assumed that the 
ballast or fixture lifetime limits the lifetime of an average lamp in 
the residential sector. Under average operating hours of 648 hours per 
year, DOE assumed that lamp lifetime of the baseline-case and 
standards-case lamps is limited to 9,723 hours or 15 years, due to a 
ballast or fixture failure. See section VI.G.9 and chapter 5 of the 
NOPR TSD for a description of lamp purchase events. DOE requests 
comment on its general approach to determining lamp lifetime for this 
analysis.
    NEMA disagreed with the assumption that lamps will be retained upon 
ballast failure. NEMA stated that the most likely thing that occurs 
when a light fixture in the residential sector fails to

[[Page 24125]]

provide light is that new lamps are purchased. The next step if the 
fixture still does not work is to replace the whole fixture, not just 
the ballast. As a result, NEMA contended that a failed ballast will 
result in the lamps (new and old) being scrapped (or returned) when the 
entire fixture is replaced. (NEMA, No. 36 at p. 16) GE explained that 
when a ballast fails, it can operate in such a way that damages the 
lamp, especially the cathodes. When a lamp goes out, a residential 
consumer will likely assume that the problem is the lamp itself; very 
rarely would a consumer understand that only the ballast needs to be 
replaced and instead replace the entire fixture. (GE, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 235-237)
    DOE evaluated the likely replacement scenarios suggested by 
stakeholders and agrees that it is more likely for a residential 
consumer to replace an entire lamp-and-ballast system rather than only 
the ballast because consumers would not necessarily be aware that only 
the ballast failed. Thus, in the NOPR analysis, DOE no longer assumes 
that consumers retain their lamp when the ballast fails. See Appendix 
8B of the NOPR TSD for more details. DOE requests comment on its 
approach to determining lamp lifetime.
b. Ballast Lifetime
    Chapter 8 of the preliminary analysis detailed DOE's development of 
average ballast lifetimes, which were based on assumptions used in the 
2011 Ballast Rule. For ballasts in the commercial and industrial 
sectors, DOE used an average ballast lifetime of 49,054 hours. 
Consistent with the 2011 Ballast Rule, DOE assumed an average ballast 
lifetime of approximately 15 years in the residential sector. DOE 
received no comments on this approach. In this NOPR analysis DOE 
retained the ballast lifetimes used in the preliminary analysis.
11. Discount Rates
    The calculation of consumer LCC requires the use of an appropriate 
discount rate. DOE used the discount rate to determine the present 
value of lifetime operating expenses. The discount rate used in the LCC 
analysis represents the rate from an individual consumer's 
perspective.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ The consumer discount rate is in contrast to the discount 
rates used in the NIA, which are intended to represent the rate of 
return of capital in the U.S. economy as well as the societal rate 
of return on private consumption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the preliminary analysis, for the residential sector, DOE 
derived discount rates from estimates of the interest or ``finance 
cost'' to purchase residential products. The finance cost of raising 
funds to purchase these products can be interpreted as: (1) The 
financial cost of any debt incurred to purchase products (principally 
interest charges on debt), or (2) the opportunity cost of any equity 
used to purchase products (principally interest earnings on household 
equity). Household equity is represented by holdings in assets such as 
stocks and bonds, as well as the return on homeowner equity. Much of 
the data required, which involves determining the cost of debt and 
equity, comes from the Federal Reserve Board's triennial ``Survey of 
Consumer Finances.'' \69\ For the commercial and industrial sectors, 
DOE derived discount rates from the cost of capital of publicly traded 
firms in the business sectors that purchase lamps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ The Federal Reserve Board. Survey of Consumer Finances 
1989, 1992, 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2010. Federal Reserve 
Board: Washington, DC. Available at: www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/
oss/oss2/scfindex.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EEI pointed out residential consumers have a lower discount rate 
than industrial customers do. EEI noted that if residential consumers 
use any form of credit, the nominal interest rate typically will be 
above 10 percent. Thus, EEI questioned why a well-capitalized 
industrial company would have a higher discount rate than residential 
consumers with varying incomes and credit card interest rates. (EEI, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 228-229)
    The discount rate is the rate at which future expenditures are 
discounted to estimate their present value. The discount rate accounts 
for consumers placing a certain value on spending money now versus in 
the future. For residential consumers, DOE estimated the discount rate 
by looking across all possible debt or asset classes. Thus, the 
residential discount rate is not limited to credit. The residential 
discount rate analysis factors in 12 different methods to finance 
purchases and the rates for these methods vary from 0 to 10.4 percent. 
As DOE estimates the discount rate by looking across all 12 of these 
debt and asset classes, and the discount rate is not limited to credit, 
the average rate is lower than 10 percent. For the commercial and 
industrial consumers, DOE estimated the cost of capital for commercial 
and industrial companies by examining both debt and equity capital, and 
developed an appropriate weighted average of the cost to the company of 
equity and debt financing. After performing these calculations and 
averaging each discount rate across various types of consumers, the 
residential discount rate was calculated to be lower than the 
industrial discount rate. Therefore, DOE believes it is appropriately 
determining discount rates for all types of consumers and has 
maintained this methodology in this NOPR analysis. For further details 
on discount rates, see chapter 8 and appendix 8C of the NOPR TSD.
12. Analysis Period
    The analysis period is the span of time over which the LCC is 
calculated. In the preliminary analysis, DOE used the longest baseline 
lamp life in a product class divided by the annual operating hours of 
that lamp as the analysis period. During Monte Carlo simulations for 
the LCC analysis, DOE selected the analysis period based on the longest 
baseline lamp life divided by the annual operating hours chosen by 
Crystal Ball. For GSFLs in the residential sector, the analysis period 
is based on the useful life of the baseline lamp for a specific event. 
DOE did not receive any comments on this methodology. DOE maintained 
this approach for determining the analysis period in the NOPR analysis. 
DOE requests comment on its LCC analysis period assumptions. In 
particular, DOE requests comment on basing the analysis period on the 
baseline lamp life divided by the annual operating hours of that lamp 
for the IRL and commercial and industrial sector GSFL analyses. DOE 
also requests comment on basing the analysis period on the useful life 
of the baseline lamp for a specific event for residential GSFLs.
13. Compliance Date of Standards
    The compliance date is the date when a covered product is required 
to meet a new or amended standard. DOE expects to publish any amended 
standards for GSFLs and IRLs in 2014. As a result, consistent with 42 
U.S.C. 6295(i)(5), DOE expects the compliance date to be 2017, three 
years after the publication of any final amended standards. DOE 
received no comments on its expected standards compliance date of 2017 
and calculated the LCC for all end users as if each one would purchase 
a new lamp in the year compliance with the standard is required.
14. General Service Fluorescent Lamp Life-Cycle Cost Results in the 
Preliminary Analysis
    NEMA and EEI noted that in the tables presented at the public 
meeting, the results for the GSFL LCC savings included instances of 
``NR.'' (NEMA, No. 36 at pp. 15-16; EEI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 
30 at pp. 245-246) NEMA assumed NR indicated that the

[[Page 24126]]

energy savings were zero or negative and stated that figures should be 
added to the results because missing data points would skew the 
findings. NEMA stated that DOE should factor CSLs' negative impacts 
into the analysis or give reasons why figures should not be included. 
(NEMA, No. 36 at pp. 15-16) EEI attributed the ``NR'' to the baseline 
and CSL 1 lamps having the same nominal and rated wattages. EEI urged 
DOE to show the energy savings for every event, even if they are zero. 
As the event is a possibility under standards, it will be an economic 
cost to the consumer and the results need to be factored into the 
analysis and reported numerically rather than ``NR.'' (EEI, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 245-246)
    In the preliminary analysis for the lamp replacement scenario, DOE 
utilized ``NR'' to indicate that no replacement option existed that 
reduced energy consumption at a given efficacy level because the lamp 
wattage at the higher efficacy level was the same as the baseline and 
the higher efficacy lamp was operated on the same ballast. DOE revised 
its NOPR engineering analysis to consider lamps that do not reduce 
energy consumption. These were incorporated into the NOPR LCC analysis. 
See section VI.D.2.e for further details on lamp-and-ballast systems 
developed in the engineering analysis.
    Regarding the instant start 4-foot MBP results, EEI also noted that 
another lamp at CSL 2 had the same nominal and rated wattage as the 
baseline lamp, but shows positive energy savings. EEI asked for an 
explanation for the reported positive energy savings where EEI would 
not expect there to be any. (EEI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at 
pp. 245-246) For the 4-foot MBP instant start lamps at CSL 2 with the 
same nominal and rated wattage as the baseline lamp, the BF of the 
ballast on which the higher efficacy lamp was operating was lower than 
the BF of the ballast on which the baseline lamp was operating. A lamp-
and-ballast system with a more efficacious, similar wattage lamp and 
lower BF ballast will consume less energy while maintaining similar 
light output compared to the baseline system. DOE considered ballasts 
with varying BFs in the ballast failure event and new construction and 
renovation event.
    Lutron expressed concern that there were positive LCC savings only 
for reduced wattage lamp replacements. Lutron questioned whether DOE 
was taking into account the probable increased use of dimming systems 
in the future, especially in new construction and renovation. As 
reduced wattage lamps are not compatible with dimming, their LCC 
savings would likely be lower than shown, but would be greater if total 
energy use was taken into account. (Lutron, Public Meeting Transcript, 
No. 30 at p. 251) DOE accounts for lighting controls in the LCC in a 
sensitivity analysis. See section VI.F.2 and appendix 8B of the NOPR 
TSD for more details.
    NEEP provided information that some of the ballast failure 
scenarios included in the analysis are very uncommon. For example, DOE 
analyzed T8 programmed start ballasts when the vast majority of 
existing ballasts are instant start. (NEEP, No. 33 at p. 3)
    Although certain ballast scenarios may be less common, DOE's 
research indicates that they are already in use and increasing in 
market share. In the 2011 Ballast Rule,\70\ DOE analyzed programmed 
start ballasts for 4-foot MBP lamps directly due to their increasing 
market share. Programmed start ballasts are typically used in 
applications with frequent switching such as those with occupancy 
sensors. Because lighting controls are becoming more common, as 
discussed in section I.A.1.a, the use of programmed start ballasts is 
expected to increase. Additionally, DOE notes that the start year of 
the analysis is 2017 and, therefore, it was appropriate to include 
programmed start ballasts because of their expected increase in market 
share. DOE continued to include these scenarios in the LCC NOPR 
analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ The final rule amending energy conservation standards for 
fluorescent lamp ballasts published in 2011 with a compliance date 
of November 14, 2014. 76 FR 70548 (Nov. 14, 2011). The full text and 
all related documents of the 2011 Ballast Rule can be found on 
regulations.gov, docket number EERE-2007-BT-STD-0016 at 
www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2007-BT-STD-0016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CA Utilities questioned why DOE had not considered delamping 
scenarios, using high ballast factors such as 1 or 1.15, adding 
reflectors, or other kinds of optimized retrofits. (CA IOUs, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 253-254) The CA IOUs stated that 
there would be scenarios where DOE could use such measures to optimize 
cost-effectiveness. (CA IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at p. 
254) However, EEI reasoned that there are too many other options and 
materials that could be included, and some of them would be 
possibilities for the baseline lamps as well, such as reflectors and 
ballasts with tandem wiring. EEI concluded that if DOE attempts to 
account for all possible scenarios, the analysis may no longer reflect 
what is actually happening with lamp efficacy or the most likely 
retrofit or new construction scenario in the presence of amended 
standards. (EEI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 254-256)
    NEEA noted that delamping is a fairly common scenario, especially 
if DOE considers lighting retrofit as renovation, and NEEA stated they 
may have some data on such scenarios. (NEEA, Public Meeting Transcript, 
No. 30 at pp. 256) GE agreed that delamping is a very typical situation 
when moving from T12 to T8 systems. GE noted, however, that in a T8 to 
T8 analysis, delamping would be much less likely. GE agreed that the 
practice was common in the past, but did not anticipate it being that 
common going forward. (GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 
256-257)
    DOE did not analyze delamping in the preliminary analysis. 
Available information indicates that delamping is not a common retrofit 
for T8 fluorescent systems. DOE received feedback during manufacturer 
interviews that delamping was previously very common with T12 systems 
as these systems were typically designed such that spaces were overlit. 
However, delamping is not common with T8 systems because lumen output 
levels have already been reduced to comply with newer recommended 
lighting levels and building codes. Therefore, DOE maintained its 
assumption and did not considering delamping in the NOPR analysis.
    DOE also received comments regarding rare earth oxide prices and 
their impact on lamp prices and costs to the consumer. NEMA stated that 
to make products conforming to the 2009 Lamps Rule, the most 
efficacious rare earth phosphors are used. This leaves only the amount 
of rare earth phosphors in each lamp as a design option for achieving 
higher efficacy. Additionally, NEMA noted that while the phosphor 
weight is increased linearly, the correlating efficacy gain diminishes. 
NEMA pointed to the estimates for 4-foot T8 lamps, the most common GSFL 
analyzed in this rulemaking. The estimates show that to achieve the 
proposed 1.1 percent increase in efficacy from 89 lm/W (2009 Lamps 
Rule) to 90 lm/W (CSL 1), nearly 10 percent more of the associated rare 
earth oxide supply would be consumed. Further, to reach the CSL 2 level 
of 93 lm/W, more than 40 percent additional rare earth phosphors will 
be needed for GSFLs. NEMA anticipated that the increased demand for 
this critical material will impact rare earth oxide prices and increase 
the costs of GSFLs to U.S. consumers. (NEMA, No. 36 at p. 14)
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE conducted a sensitivity analysis 
in the LCC using low and high rare earth oxide

[[Page 24127]]

prices developed based on historical oxide price data to assess the 
impact on the cost to consumer purchasing a GSFL. Because the rare 
earth oxide prices have stabilized since hitting a peak in 2011, DOE 
conducted a sensitivity analysis using only a forecasted high rare 
earth oxide price in the NOPR analysis. See section VI.I and appendix 
11B for further information on the methodology used to develop rare 
earth oxide prices. DOE also utilized information provided by NEMA on 
how the amount of phosphor varies with efficacy to develop rare earth 
oxide costs attributable to different ELs. The results of this 
sensitivity are presented in appendix 8B of the NOPR TSD. Further, DOE 
also assessed the maximum possible increase in rare earth oxide prices 
that would maintain positive LCC savings for consumers at each EL. See 
appendix 7B of the NOPR TSD for results of this analysis.
15. Incandescent Reflector Lamp Life-Cycle Cost Results in the 
Preliminary Analysis
    A member of Congress commented that the July 2012 standards raised 
consumer prices on IRLs from approximately $4.50 to $8. The member 
anticipated that additional regulations would likely further increase 
the price to $10-12, while the return on investment based on energy 
savings would be 8 to 10 years. In this economic climate, the member 
believed imposing additional regulations on IRL manufacturers would be 
bad public policy. (Barr, No. 25 at p. 2)
    The weighted average lamp prices that DOE calculated for IRLs in 
this NOPR analysis are similar to the prices the member of Congress 
provided. (See chapter 7 of the NOPR TSD for further information.) In 
the LCC analysis, DOE calculates the payback period, which is the 
amount of time it takes the consumer to recover the assumed higher 
purchase cost of a more-efficacious product through lower operating 
costs (i.e., energy savings). DOE considers the calculated payback 
periods, as well as impacts on manufacturers when determining if a TSL 
is economically justified. Please see section VII.C of this NOPR for 
more details on the selection of the proposed TSL.

H. Consumer Subgroup Analysis

    In analyzing the potential impact of new or amended standards on 
consumers, DOE evaluates the impact on identifiable sub-groups of 
consumers (e.g., low-income households) that a national standard may 
disproportionately affect. In the preliminary analysis, DOE stated it 
was considering the following subgroups for analysis: Low-income 
consumers, institutions of religious worship, and institutions serving 
low-income consumers.
    EEI generally agreed with the consumer subgroups considered, but 
noted that how the current RECS data is structured would affect the 
analysis. EEI specifically questioned whether RECS broke out energy 
data specific to the poverty level. (EEI, Public Meeting Transcript, 
No. 30 at pp. 352-353) DOE notes that RECS data specifies whether 
consumers are at or below 100 percent of the poverty line. DOE believes 
this data is appropriate to conduct an LCC analysis on the low-income 
consumer subgroup.
    In the NOPR analysis, DOE evaluated low-income consumers and 
institutions that serve low-income populations (e.g., small nonprofits) 
as subgroups. However, DOE did not evaluate institutions of religious 
worship as a subgroup. In the 2009 Lamps Rule, DOE found that 
institutions of religious worship operate for fewer hours per year than 
any other building type in the commercial sector according to U.S. LMC: 
Volume I \71\ data. DOE's review of the 2010 LMC data indicated that 
the operating hours of institutions of religious worship are comparable 
to other commercial building operating hours. Therefore, because they 
do not have inputs to the LCC that would be different from the main LCC 
analysis, DOE did not analyze them as subgroups. The NOPR TSD chapter 9 
presents the results of the consumer subgroup analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ 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. 
Washington, DC http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/lmc_vol1_final.pdf>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Shipments Analysis

    DOE uses projections of product shipments to calculate the national 
impacts of standards on energy use, NPV, and future manufacturer cash 
flows. DOE develops shipment projections based on historical data and 
an analysis of key market drivers for each product. Historical 
shipments data are used to build up an equipment stock and also to 
calibrate the shipments model. The details of the shipments model are 
described in chapter 11 of the NOPR TSD.
    The shipments model projects shipments of GSFLs and IRLs over a 
thirty-year analysis period for the base case (no standards) and for 
all standards cases. DOE invites comment on this choice of analysis 
period. Separate shipments projections are calculated for the 
residential sector and for the commercial and industrial sectors. The 
shipments model used to estimate GSFL and IRL lamp shipments for this 
rulemaking has four main interacting elements: (1) A lamp demand module 
that estimates the demand for GSFL and IRL lighting for each year of 
the analysis period; (2) a price-learning module, which projects future 
prices based on historic price trends; (3) substitution matrices, which 
specify the product choices available to consumers (lamps as well as 
lamp-and-ballast combinations for fluorescent lamps) depending on 
whether they are renovating lighting systems, installing lighting 
systems in new construction, or simply replacing lamps; and (4) a 
market-share module that assigns shipments to product classes, 
ballasts, and lamp options, based on consumer sensitivities to first 
costs (prices) and operation and maintenance costs.
    The lamp demand module first estimates the lumen demand for GSFL 
and IRL lighting. The lumen demand calculation assumes that sector-
specific lighting capacity (maximum lumen output of installed lamps) 
remains fixed per square foot of floor space over the analysis period. 
Floor space changes over the analysis period according to the EIA's AEO 
2013 projections of residential and commercial floor space; industrial 
floor space is assumed to grow at the same rate as commercial floor 
space. A lamp turnover calculation estimates shipments of lamps in each 
year given the initial stock, the expected lifetimes of the lamps (and 
ballasts for GSFLs), and sector-specific assumptions on operating 
hours. The turnover model attempts to meet the lumen demand as closely 
as possible, subject to the constraint that the areal density of 
lighting fixtures is fixed for existing buildings that are not 
renovated.
    The lamp demand module accounts for the penetration of LED lighting 
into the GSFL and IRL markets. The reference assumption for LED market 
penetration is based on projections developed for DOE's Solid-State 
Lighting (SSL) Program.\72\ The SSL Program projections extend only to 
2030; DOE extrapolated to the end of the shipments forecast period. In 
the preliminary analysis, DOE assumed an upper limit on market 
penetration of 80

[[Page 24128]]

percent for IRLs, 70 percent for commercial GSFLs, and 60 percent for 
residential GSFLs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ Navigant Consulting, Inc. Energy Savings Potential of 
Solid-State Lighting in General Illumination Applications. U.S. DOE 
Solid State Lighting Program, January 2012. Available at http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/ssl_energy-savings-report_jan-2012.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Philips questioned why DOE did not expect LEDs to take over the 
entire market. (Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at p. 270) 
Given that LED technology has been progressing faster than expected, 
DOE has revised its analysis and is now fitting the technology adoption 
curve, allowing an entire market takeover by LEDs. Given the best fit 
to the SSL forecast, DOE estimates that LEDs will achieve close to 100 
percent penetration in both the GSFL and IRL markets by 2046.
    The shipments model accounts for the use of lighting controls, 
including dimming and on-off controls, because controls affect ballast 
and lamp requirements and therefore lifetimes and shipments. The 
reference assumption for lighting system controls for the commercial 
sector is that state building energy code requirements for lighting 
controls remain constant at current levels, as does the ratio of 
voluntary to code-driven demand. Because code provisions are 
implemented only in new construction and building renovations that meet 
certain threshold requirements, code-driven implementation of lighting 
controls grows in slowly over time.
    GE noted that, in the future, an increasing number of fluorescent 
systems will be controlled and dimmed in the commercial sector. GE 
pointed to an increase of controls requirements in commercial building 
codes and suggested that the initial five percent dimming population 
assumed in the analysis increase over the analysis period. (GE, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at p. 217) EEI stated that, given the amount 
of dimmers in office spaces, they expected the percentage of lamps in 
the commercial sector that are on controls to be higher. (EEI, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 216-217) EEI noted that the next 
edition of ASHRAE 90.1-2013, contains more control systems requirements 
for more lighting fixtures. (EEI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at 
p. 218)
    DOE is aware that current building codes will lead to an increase 
in the fraction of lamps coupled to lighting control systems. 
Accordingly, DOE included a projection of growth in the fraction of 
commercial floor space subject to such building codes. The result is 
that the fraction of floor space utilizing various types of controls 
grows from 30 percent today to a projected value of 80 percent in 2046.
    The CA IOUs stated that dimming ballasts will become more common 
with time. Specifically, the CA IOUs noted that California's Title 24 
will require all new commercial buildings, and most lighting 
renovations in existing commercial buildings, to install dimming 
ballasts beginning January 2014. (CA IOUs, No. 32 at pp. 13-14) Lutron 
asked if DOE took California's Title 24 into account. (Lutron, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at p. 218) The CA IOUs noted that Title 24 
would not have been included in the 2010 LMC because the provision was 
passed after the 2010 LMC was published. (CA IOUs, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 218-219)
    DOE is aware that current building energy codes will lead to an 
increase in the fraction of lamps coupled to lighting control systems 
and dimming ballasts. Accordingly, in the shipments analysis and NIA, 
DOE included a projection of growth in the fraction of commercial floor 
space subject to such state codes, including California's Title 24 
requirements, as renovations and new construction trigger compliance 
requirements. As mentioned previously, the result is that the fraction 
of floor space utilizing controls grows from 30 percent today to a 
projected value of 80 percent in 2046. DOE assumed that 26 percent of 
control systems for GSFL applications include dimming ballasts, based 
on data in the 2010 LMC.\73\ Based on assumptions of the fraction of 
each control type that relies on a dimming ballast, DOE projects that 
the market share of dimming ballasts grows from an estimated 8 percent 
at present to an estimated 20 percent in 2046. DOE seeks input on the 
current fraction of GSFL ballast shipments that are dimming ballasts 
and the likely rate of growth of dimming ballasts in the future. The 
details of the analysis on controls and dimming are presented in 
chapter 11 and appendix 11A of the NOPR TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ U.S. Department of Energy--Energy Efficiency & Renewable 
Energy Building Technologies Program. 2010 U.S. Lighting Market 
Characterization. January 2012. Washington, DC. http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/2010-lmc-final-jan-2012.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The price-learning module estimates lamp and ballast prices in each 
year of the analysis period using a standard price-learning model.\74\ 
The model is calibrated using three decades of historic data on the 
volume and value of fluorescent and PAR lamp shipments in the U.S. 
market, from which cumulative shipments and average prices are derived. 
Prices and cumulative shipments are fit to an experience curve. They 
are then augmented in each subsequent year of the analysis based on the 
shipments determined for the prior year by the module that assigns 
shipments to product classes and ELs. The current year's shipments, in 
turn, affect the subsequent year's prices. As shown in chapter 11 of 
the NOPR TSD, because fluorescent and PAR lamps have been on the market 
for decades, cumulative shipments are changing slowly, therefore 
experience curve effects are relatively small--an effect that is 
further constrained by the expected incursion of solid-state lighting 
into the GSFL and IRL markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ For discussion of approaches for incorporating learning in 
regulatory analysis, see Taylor, Margaret, and Sydny K. Fujita. 
Accounting for Technological Change in Regulatory Impact Analyses: 
The Learning Curve Technique. Berkeley: Lawrence Berkeley National 
Laboratory, 2013. LBNL-6195E.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The market-share module apportions the lamp and ballast shipments 
in each year among the different product classes, ballast types, and 
lamp options based on consumer sensitivities to first costs and 
operation and maintenance costs. To determine the prices used as inputs 
to the market-share module, DOE uses the ballast prices, weighted 
average lamp prices, and installation costs developed in the 
engineering and LCC analyses. The operation and maintenance costs are 
based on the power required to operate a particular lamp-and-ballast 
system, the price of electricity, and the annualized cost of lamp 
replacements over the lifetime of that system. To enable a fair 
comparison between systems with different light output, the module 
considers the prices and operating and maintenance costs computed per 
kilolumen of light output. For consumers replacing lamps on existing 
ballasts, only the lamp-related prices and energy costs are considered 
by the market share module. For consumers replacing an entire lamp-and-
ballast system, the full price of the system, as well as the energy and 
annualized relamping costs, are considered. In this case, the 
comparison between different ballast types and product classes is made 
by considering a representative lamp-and-ballast combination.
    The ballast types and lamp options considered in the shipments 
model were determined in the engineering analysis. Whereas the earlier 
analyses considered only lamp-and-ballast combinations that save energy 
relative to the baseline system, the shipments analysis allows 
consumers to choose among all different lamp-and-ballast systems. These 
lamp-and-ballast combinations include full wattage and reduced wattage 
lamps coupled to ballasts with high, normal, or low ballast factors, 
and dimming ballasts. Programmed start and instant start ballasts are 
also considered separately,

[[Page 24129]]

where appropriate. DOE limits or excludes lamp-and-ballast combinations 
that DOE's research indicates would not provide acceptable performance 
or would only do so in limited circumstances. The remaining 
combinations allow for a variety of different energy-saving and non-
energy-saving options relative to the baseline. Details of the 
selection of allowable lamp-and-ballast combinations are given in 
chapter 11 of the NOPR TSD.
    The market-share module allows for the possibility that consumers 
will switch among the different product classes, ballast types, and 
lamp options over time. Substitution matrices were developed to specify 
the product choices available to consumers (lamps as well as lamp-and-
ballast combinations), depending on whether they are renovating 
lighting systems, installing lighting systems in new construction, or 
simply replacing lamps, and depending on the particular lighting 
application. In this way, the module assigns market shares to the 
different product classes, ballast types, and ELs based on historical 
observations of consumer sensitivity to price and to operating and 
maintenance costs.
    The market-share module incorporates a limit on the diffusion of 
new technology into the market using the widely accepted Bass adoption 
model,\75\ the parameters of which are based on historic penetration 
rates of new lighting technologies into the market. It also accounts 
for other observed deviations from purely price- and cost-driven 
behavior using an acceptance factor, which sets an upper limit on the 
market share of certain product classes and lamp options that DOE 
research indicates are acceptable only to a subset of the market. The 
available options depend on the case under consideration; in each of 
the standards cases corresponding to the different TSLs, only those 
lamp options at or above the particular standard level in each product 
class are considered to be available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ Bass, F.M. A New Product Growth Model for Consumer 
Durables. Management. 1969. 15(5): pp. 215-227.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because DOE executes the market-share module for the base case and 
each of the standards cases independently, the shipments analysis 
allows for the possibility that setting a standard on one product class 
could shift market share toward a different product class. The costs 
and benefits accruing to consumers from such market share shifts are 
fully accounted for in the NIA.
    When the shipments model selects lamps for replacement, renovation, 
or new construction, it accepts only lamps or lamp-and-ballast 
combinations that retain lumen capacity within acceptable bounds. DOE 
received a number of comments on what consumers would find acceptable 
in terms of changes in light levels.
    NEMA stated that while, in the past, it was common practice to 
reduce light levels by 10 percent or more when retrofitting from a T12 
to a T8 lighting system, this was because the older lighting systems 
were typically designed to higher light levels. NEMA commented that, 
over the years, light level requirements specified by IESNA have been 
reduced, so future 4-foot linear fluorescent systems will already be 
operating at the appropriate lower light levels, and further light 
level reductions of 6 percent to 14 percent cannot be justified against 
the T8 systems operating in 2018. NEMA stated that DOE should seek to 
match the existing light levels within a plus or minus 5 percent range. 
(NEMA, No. 36 at p. 8)
    The CA IOUs commented that scenarios in which lighting designers 
would specify an increase in light output instead of a reduction in 
system wattage will not be common in the commercial sector because (1) 
commercial occupants are often very sensitive to changes in workplace 
lighting and react negatively to light increases; and (2) commercial 
building operators are very sensitive to operating costs. The CA IOUs 
further stated that commercial building operators will prefer a 
retrofit option that will result in energy cost savings (without 
significantly reducing the light levels) over another option that 
increases light and doesn't save energy (unless the space was known to 
be underlit). The CA IOUs stated that, where DOE has a standards-case 
modeling choice between a lighting retrofit that would result in an 
increase of light levels of between 0 percent and 10 percent with no 
energy cost savings, and another that would result in a decrease of 
light levels of between 0 percent and 10 percent with energy cost 
savings, DOE should model the energy-saving option as the most likely 
scenario for consumers. (CA IOUs, No. 32 at p. 14) NEEA and NPCC 
commented on the modeled lamp or lighting system replacement options in 
which light output levels are increased 10 percent or more instead of 
maintaining light levels with an appropriate reduction in system power 
use. They contended that it is highly unlikely that a lighting retrofit 
or lamp replacement project would be undertaken that would result in a 
light output increase without using the opportunity to save energy 
(which often pays for or helps pay for the retrofit). (NEEA and NPCC, 
No. 34 at pp. 2, 4)
    As discussed previously, based on manufacturer feedback, DOE 
determined that consumers would not notice a change in light output 
that is up to 10 percent, and that some consumers will choose to reduce 
light levels beyond 10 percent to conserve energy. Accordingly, in the 
shipments analysis, DOE assumes that consumers choose between lighting 
systems within 10 percent of current light output by considering the 
trade-off between first cost and operating costs, and not the relative 
light output. In this approach, systems that save energy in a cost-
effective way will tend to be selected over systems that increase light 
output without saving energy. DOE further assumes that the fraction of 
the market that will accept larger reductions in lumen output is fixed 
throughout the analysis period. The size of this market segment was 
estimated from the current market share of reduced wattage lamps that 
reduce light levels by more than 10 percent compared to the baseline 
lamp. The model does now allow cumulative reductions in light levels. 
The model retains national average light levels within 10 percent of 
the average level at the beginning of the analysis period. No potential 
standards considered in this analysis lead to average light levels 
outside of this range.
    The CA IOUs commented that there are a number of tools available to 
lighting designers to reduce system wattage while maintaining 
acceptable light levels. These options include installing lower wattage 
lamps, reducing ballast factors, delamping, or installing dimming 
ballasts. (CA IOUs, No. 32 at pp. 13-14) NEEA and NPCC commented that, 
if a 32 W T8 lamp replacement is undertaken, there are options 
available for maintaining acceptable light output while reducing energy 
use, such as 30 W and 28 W T8s, ballasts with a lower ballast factor, 
and dimming ballasts. (NEEA and NPCC, No. 34 at pp. 2, 4) NEMA 
commented that the energy consumption of GSFL systems is highly 
dependent on ballast selection and pairing, and asserted that NES of 
lighting systems will not be affected significantly by this proposed 
rulemaking on GSFL efficacy due to the overwhelming influence of 
ballast selection on final performance. (NEMA, No. 36 at p. 1)
    DOE is aware of the substantial impact of the ballast and lamp 
choice on the energy consumption of a lamp-and-ballast system. As 
discussed earlier in this section, the shipments analysis explicitly 
models the possibility that

[[Page 24130]]

consumers will choose to reduce their ballast factor during a 
renovation or retrofit or switch to reduced wattage lamps when 
relamping an existing system. In addition, this analysis models the 
growth of dimming ballasts in the market and allows a variety of lamps 
to be coupled to dimming ballasts to achieve a fixed light output. 
Thus, when high-efficacy lamps are coupled to dimming ballasts, the 
overall energy savings are greater than those that are achieved when 
lower-efficacy lamps are coupled to dimming ballasts. DOE assigns 
market share to these lamp-and-ballast pairings using a model based on 
historical consumer sensitivity to price and operating costs. When a 
particular pairing saves energy in a cost-effective manner compared to 
other pairings, its market share is increased compared to less cost-
effective options. Given that the lamp options considered in this 
rulemaking represent a fairly narrow range in lumen output within each 
product class, DOE does not consider delamping to be a likely means of 
saving energy for consumers who are only replacing failed lamps (see 
section VI.D.2.e for more information on delamping). The shipments 
model, however, allows for the possibility that consumers will alter 
the number of lamps per square foot during renovations to maintain 
light levels.
    NEMA commented that reduced wattage lamps have limited utility as a 
substitute for full wattage lamps. NEMA noted that, while standard 
fluorescent lamp technology dims reliably, more efficient krypton-
filled fluorescent lamps do not dim reliably in many applications. 
(NEMA, No. 36 at p.6) The CA IOUs stated that California's Title 24 
requirement for controls in new buildings will result in high efficacy, 
full wattage T8s capable of dimming to custom light levels, ensuring 
higher efficacy lamps yield greater energy savings. (CA IOUs, No. 32 at 
p. 14) The Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnership (NEEP) also noted 
that high efficacy lamps do not impede control capabilities. NEEP 
commented that, while manufacturers had said that adding control 
functionality to a fluorescent fixture was the next frontier of 
efficiency for GSFLs, regional program administrators have not reported 
concerns that high efficacy GSFLs sacrifice dimming capabilities. 
(NEEP, No. 33 at p. 2)
    DOE's research indicates that krypton gas is generally used to 
reduce the wattage of lamps and that full wattage lamps can generally 
be dimmed reliably. DOE notes that full wattage lamp options are 
available for all product classes at all efficacy levelss considered in 
this analysis. Also, as discussed previously, DOE found that dimming 
ballasts for 4-foot MBP lamps are commonly marketed as compatible with 
reduced wattage lamps, which are presumably krypton filled. 
Accordingly, in the shipments analysis and the NIA, DOE allows all full 
wattage lamp options to be coupled to dimming ballasts. DOE also 
allowed reduced wattage options in the 4-foot MBP category to be 
coupled to dimming ballasts, but, because the range of applications for 
this combination is restricted, DOE limits its market share in the 
analysis. DOE welcomes input on the assumption that a limited fraction 
of reduced-wattage 4-foot MBP lamps may be coupled to dimming ballasts.
    NEMA commented on the issue of lamp replacement upon ballast 
failure. NEMA contends that when a residential ballast fails, 
residential GSFL consumers tend to first try to replace the lamp, and 
when that fails they replace the entire fixture, discarding the lamps 
from the old fixture. The effect is to reduce the lamp's usage life 
below its potential and therefore to increase shipments. (NEMA, No. 36 
at p. 16) The shipments model assumes that when a residential ballast 
fails, all associated lamps are assumed to be replaced.
    Rare earth oxides are used in GSFL phosphors to increase their 
efficiency. The shipments model considers the potential impact of 
changes in rare earth oxide prices on fluorescent lamp prices and, 
thereby, on GSFL shipments. Large increases in rare earth oxide prices 
in 2010 and 2011 raised manufacturer concerns that future price 
increases could have adverse impacts on the market. DOE developed 
shipments scenarios in its preliminary analysis to reflect 
uncertainties in the prices of rare earth oxides.
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE assumed that the rare earth 
phosphor content was the same at all considered efficacy levels for 
each lamp type. NEMA stated that there is a relationship between rare 
earth phosphor content and efficiency. Specifically, NEMA indicated 
that to increase the efficacy of 4-foot MBP GSFLs from 89 to 90 lm/W 
would require 10 percent more rare earth phosphor and to reach 93 lm/W 
would require a 40 percent increase in rare earth phosphor. (NEMA, No. 
36 at p. 14) Based on an examination of fluorescent lamp patents, DOE 
agrees with NEMA's comment, and has adjusted its analysis accordingly, 
as described in appendix 11B of the NOPR TSD.
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE's reference case assumed that rare 
earth phosphor prices would remain constant at the October 2012 level, 
but DOE acknowledged the uncertainty about prices and included a 
scenario with much higher prices. NEEP commented that DOE appropriately 
addressed the variability of rare earth phosphor prices in the 
preliminary analysis. (NEEP, No. 33 at pp. 2-3) NEMA commented that 
rare earth phosphors are likely to remain critical (i.e., volatile), 
that prices are more likely to go up than down, and suggested that DOE 
consult Dr. Alex King of the Critical Materials Institute of the Ames 
Laboratory on the subject. (NEMA, No. 36 at p. 14)
    DOE examined the rare earth market and believes that the very large 
reduction in rare earth prices seen since the 2011 peak may represent 
some stabilization of the market, but it still considers future rare 
earth prices significantly uncertain.\76\ DOE therefore considered two 
price scenarios in its shipments modeling for GSFLs, as described in 
appendix 11B of the NOPR TSD. The reference scenario assumes that rare 
earth prices remain fixed at their September 2013 level. The high rare 
earth price scenario assumes an average rare earth price 3.4 times the 
reference level, representing a value that is half way between the low 
pre-2010 baseline price and the 2011 peak price. This scenario 
represents the average price of regular price fluctuations between the 
peak and baseline amounts. The impact of the latter scenario on the 
results is discussed in section 0. DOE invites comment on its 
assumptions about future prices of rare earth elements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ DOE conferred with Dr. King, who indicated that a good 
comparison can be made between rare earths and cobalt, which are 
comparable (within about a factor of ten) in abundance in the 
earth's crust. In 1978, world cobalt supplies were dominated by a 
single source (Zaire). In 2010, rare earth supplies were dominated 
by a single source (China). In 1978, the use of cobalt was growing 
both in existing and emerging technologies. The same is true for 
rare earths today. Following the 1978 crisis, new cobalt mines 
opened, and substitute materials were developed. Markets are 
pursuing the same paths for the rare earths today. DOE examined 
inflation-adjusted cobalt prices from 1970 through 2012 and found 
that cobalt prices did continue to remain volatile, although later 
price fluctuations were less than half of the initial price peak 
seen in 1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Stakeholders also commented on the possibility of future scarcity 
in the supply of xenon gas, which could affect future prices of IRLs. 
NEMA commented that xenon is becoming increasingly scarce and that its 
loss would result in a 5 to 7 percent reduction in IRL efficacy, making 
it impossible to meet CSL 1 of the preliminary analysis (20 lm/W). NEMA 
advised DOE to investigate xenon availability trends and future prices. 
(NEMA, No. 36 at p. 3)

[[Page 24131]]

The CA IOUs commented that xenon is already used as the primary gas 
fill in most IRLs and that future efficacy standards should not be 
affected by potential constraints on xenon supply or xenon price 
fluctuations. (CA IOUs, No. 32 at p. 9) NEEA pointed out that there is 
no current shortage of xenon gas fill and that a new standard would not 
require any significant amount of increased xenon supply. Therefore, 
the supply and price of xenon should not be an issue for the 
rulemaking. (NEEA, No. 34 at p. 2)
    To assess the need for further investigation, DOE conducted a 
sensitivity analysis on the potential impact on the rulemaking of a 
ten-fold increase in xenon prices. The impact of the latter scenario on 
the results is discussed in section 0.. DOE welcomes input on its 
assumptions regarding the future price of xenon gas.

J. National Impact Analysis--National Energy Savings and Net Present 
Value Analysis

    The NIA assesses the NES and the national NPV of total consumer 
costs and savings expected to result from amended standards for GSFLs 
and IRLs at specific efficacy levels. Analyzing impacts of potential 
energy conservation standards for GSFLs and IRLs requires comparing 
projections of U.S. energy consumption with amended energy conservation 
standards against projections of energy consumption without the 
standards (the base case).
    Because the shipments model allows for substitutions across product 
classes, to understand the impact of setting a standard at any given 
level for any given product class, the impact on all other product 
classes must be considered. Therefore, in addition to conducting the 
analysis for the covered products as a whole, DOE evaluated the NPV and 
NES by product class to determine the impact of consumer switching 
between product classes. The NIA was developed in a Microsoft Excel 
spreadsheet,\77\ allowing access to a broad range of scenario 
assumptions for conducting sensitivity analyses on specific input 
values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ Available at www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/24.

          Table VI.14--Inputs for the National Impact Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Input                             Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shipments.........................  Annual shipments from shipments
                                     model.
Compliance date of standard.......  January 1, 2017.
Base case efficiencies............  Estimated by market-share module of
                                     shipments model.
Standards case efficiencies.......  Estimated by market-share module of
                                     shipments model.
Annual energy consumption per unit  Calculated for each efficacy level
                                     and product class based on inputs
                                     from the energy use analysis.
Total installed cost per unit.....  Lamp prices by efficacy level,
                                     ballast prices by ballast type, and
                                     lamp and ballast installation
                                     costs. The weighted average prices
                                     and installation costs developed in
                                     the engineering analysis and LCC
                                     analysis were used.
Electricity expense per unit......  Annual energy use for each product
                                     class is multiplied by the
                                     corresponding average energy price.
Escalation of electricity prices..  AEO 2013 forecasts (to 2040) and
                                     extrapolation beyond 2040.
Electricity site-to-primary energy  A time series conversion factor;
 conversion.                         includes electric generation,
                                     transmission, and distribution
                                     losses.
Discount rates....................  3% and 7% real.
Present year......................  2013.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. National Energy Savings
    The inputs for determining the NES for each product class are: (1) 
Lamp shipments; (2) annual energy consumption per unit; (3) installed 
stocks of lamps (coupled to each analyzed ballast type for GSFLs) in 
each year; and (4) site-to-primary energy and FFC conversion factors. 
The lamp stocks were calculated by the shipments model for each year of 
the analysis period from the prior year's stock, minus retirements, 
plus new shipments, accounting for lamp and ballast lifetimes. DOE 
calculated the national electricity consumption in each year by 
multiplying the number of units of each product class and EL in the 
stock by each unit's power consumption and operating hours. The power 
consumption is determined by the lamp wattage and, for each GSFL, by 
the ballast type to which each lamp is coupled. The operating hours are 
given by taking a weighted average of the distributions developed in 
the LCC analysis. The electricity savings are estimated from the 
difference in national electricity consumption by GSFL between the base 
case (without new standards) and each of the standards cases for lamps 
shipped during the 2017-2046 period.
    NEMA commented that DOE appears to be using a new (arbitrary) 70-
year period in its analysis and requested explanation and justification 
for examining such a long stretch of time. (NEMA, No. 36 at pp. 2-3) In 
the NIA, DOE accounts for the lifetime impacts of the products shipped 
during a 30-year period. In the case of GSFLs and IRLs, most of the 
products are retired from the stock within five years. The lifetime 
distribution used by DOE shows a small number of lamps shipped for use 
in homes at the end of the 30-year shipments analysis period survive 
for much longer. While the energy use of these lamps is insignificant 
to the overall results, the calculation period for the NIA is extended 
to account for them.
    DOE accounted for the impact of lighting system controls on 
lighting energy use as well as on lamp shipments, as discussed in the 
previous section. NEEA noted that as many as a third of commercial 
building control systems do not achieve their design performance and 
thus yield a smaller energy savings than expected. (NEEA, No. 30 at pp. 
317-318) DOE understands that many lighting control systems may not 
achieve the savings for which they were designed. Accordingly, the 
estimated average energy reduction from controls is based on a meta-
analysis of studies on the performance of actual lighting controls 
systems in the field.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ Williams, A., B. Atkinson, K. Garbesi, E. Page, and F. 
Rubinstein (2012). Lighting controls in commercial buildings. Leukos 
8(3): 161-180. www.ies.org/leukos/samples/1_Jan12.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NEMA pointed out that light output and input power do not scale 
linearly for dimming GSFL systems due to the increasing importance of 
cathode heat

[[Page 24132]]

power at reduced light levels. (NEMA, No. 36 at p. 14) DOE recognizes 
the need for cathode heating in dimming ballast systems and has 
included this effect in its energy consumption calculations. In 
particular, the shipments analysis and NIA use power consumption 
assumptions identical to those used in the engineering analysis, which 
account for cathode heating in dimming systems.
    NEMA expressed concern that the highest considered efficacy levels 
would lead to the loss of reliable dimming and would have a negative 
impact on NES. NEMA asserted that, in future years, most of the energy 
savings from fluorescent lighting will be achieved through the 
increased use of lighting controls, not through increasing the efficacy 
of lamps, and that an aggressive standard on lamp efficacy could make 
these savings unachievable. (NEMA, No. 36 at p.6) NEMA further 
suggested that DOE perform and report an analysis of the impacts of the 
loss of dimming savings for efficacy levels that they claimed will 
drive out dimmable lamps in favor of low wattage versions. NEMA 
asserted that this would show a negative impact on the market and 
payback. They contended that increased efficiency and dimmability are 
inversely proportional. (NEMA 36 at p.17)
    As discussed in the previous section, DOE modeled the growth of 
dimming ballasts in the shipments analysis and excluded or limited, as 
appropriate, the coupling of reduced wattage lamps to these ballasts. 
Therefore, the issues discussed in the previous comment are accounted 
for, and the NES and NPV results include any potential loss of dimming 
functionality.
    DOE accounts for the direct rebound effect in its NES analyses. 
Direct rebound reflects the idea that, as appliances become more 
efficient, consumers use more of their service because their operating 
cost is reduced. In the case of lighting, the rebound could be 
manifested in increased hours of use or in increased lighting density 
(fixtures per square foot). Based on information evaluated for the 
preliminary analysis, DOE assumed no rebound for the residential or 
commercial lighting in its reference scenario for the NOPR analysis. 
DOE also conducted a sensitivity analysis on the rebound rate, which is 
presented in chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD. DOE welcomes comment on its 
assumptions and methodology for estimating the rebound effect for the 
products covered in this NOPR, including potential magnitudes of 
rebound effects.
    DOE converted the site electricity consumption and savings to 
primary energy (power sector energy consumption) using annual 
conversion factors derived from the AEO 2013 version of NEMS. 
Cumulative energy savings are the sum of the NES for each year in which 
product shipped during 2017 through 2046 continue to operate.
    In 2011, in response to the recommendations of a committee on 
``Point-of-Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle Measurement Approaches to Energy 
Efficiency Standards'' appointed by the National Academy of Science, 
DOE announced its intention to use FFC measures of energy use and GHG 
and other emissions in the NIA and emissions analysis included in 
future energy conservation standards rulemakings. 76 FR 51281 (August 
18, 2011). While DOE stated in that notice that it intended to use the 
Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation 
(GREET) model to conduct the analysis, it also said it would review 
alternative methods, including the use of EIA's NEMS. After evaluating 
both models and the approaches discussed in the August 18, 2011 notice, 
DOE published a statement of amended policy in the Federal Register in 
which DOE explained its determination that NEMS is a more appropriate 
tool for this specific use. 77 FR 49701 (August 17, 2012). Therefore, 
DOE is using a NEMS-based approach to conduct FFC analyses. The 
approach used for today's NOPR is described in appendix 12C of the NOPR 
TSD.
2. Net Present Value of Consumer Benefit
    The inputs for determining the NPV of the total costs and benefits 
experienced by consumers of the considered product are: (1) Total 
annual installed cost; (2) total annual savings in operating costs; and 
(3) a discount factor to calculate the present value of costs and 
savings. DOE calculated net savings each year as the difference between 
the base case and each standards case in terms of total savings in 
operating costs versus total increases in installed costs. DOE 
calculated savings over the lifetime of products shipped during the 
period starting January 1, 2017 and ending December 31, 2046. DOE 
calculated NPV as the difference between the present value of operating 
cost savings and the present value of total installed costs.
a. Total Annual Installed Cost
    The total installed cost includes both the product price and the 
installation cost. For each product class, DOE utilized weighted 
average prices for each of the lamp and ballast options, as well as 
installation costs, as developed in the engineering and LCC analyses. 
DOE calculated the total installed cost for each lamp-and-ballast 
option and determined annual total installed costs based on the annual 
shipments of lamps and ballasts determined in the shipments model. As 
noted in section VI.I, DOE assumed that GSFL and IRL prices decline 
slowly over the analysis period according to a learning rate developed 
from historical data.
    As discussed in section VI.I, DOE considered two price scenarios in 
its modeling for GSFLs. The reference scenario assumes that rare earth 
prices remain fixed at their September 2013 level. The high rare earth 
price scenario assumes that rare earth prices are 3.4 times higher than 
the reference level, representing a value at the midpoint of the low 
pre-2010 baseline price and the peak 2011 price. The impact of the 
latter scenario on the NPV results is discussed in section 0.
    For IRLs, DOE conducted a sensitivity analysis on the potential 
impact on the rulemaking of a ten-fold increase in xenon prices. The 
impact of the scenario on the results is discussed in section 0.
b. Total Annual Operating Cost Savings
    The per-unit energy savings were derived as described in section 
VI.I. To calculate future electricity prices, DOE applied the projected 
trend in national average commercial and residential electricity prices 
from the AEO 2013 Reference case, which extends to 2040, to the energy 
prices derived in the LCC and payback period analysis. DOE used the 
trend from 2030 to 2040 to extrapolate beyond 2040. In addition, DOE 
analyzed scenarios that used the trends in the AEO 2013 Low Economic 
Growth and High Economic Growth cases. These cases have energy price 
trends that are, respectively, lower and higher in the long term 
compared to the Reference case. These price trends, and the NPV results 
from the associated cases, are described in chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD.
    DOE estimated that annual maintenance costs do not vary with 
efficiency within each product class, so they do not figure into the 
annual operating cost savings for a given standards case. DOE utilized 
the lamp disposal costs developed in the LCC analysis, along with the 
shipments model forecast of the lamp retirements in each year, to 
estimate the annual cost savings related to lamp disposal costs. In 
this part of the analysis, DOE assumes that 30 percent of commercial 
consumers are subject to disposal costs.
    In calculating the NPV, DOE multiplies the net savings in future 
years by a discount factor to determine

[[Page 24133]]

their present value. DOE estimates the NPV using both a 3 percent and a 
7 percent real discount rate, in accordance with guidance provided by 
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to federal agencies on the 
development of regulatory analysis.\79\ The discount rates for the 
determination of NPV are in contrast to the discount rates used in the 
LCC analysis, which are designed to reflect a consumer's perspective. 
The 7 percent real value is an estimate of the average before-tax rate 
of return to private capital in the U.S. economy. The 3 percent real 
value represents the ``social rate of time preference,'' which is the 
rate at which society discounts future consumption flows to their 
present value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ OMB Circular A-4, section E (Sept. 17, 2003). Available at: 
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

K. Manufacturer Impact Analysis

1. Overview
    DOE conducted separate MIAs for GSFLs and IRLs to estimate the 
financial impact of amended energy conservation standards on 
manufacturers of GSFLs and IRLs, respectively. The MIA has both 
quantitative and qualitative aspects. The quantitative part of the MIA 
relies on the GRIM, an industry cash-flow model customized for GSFLs 
and IRLs covered in this rulemaking. The key GRIM inputs are data on 
the industry cost structure, equipment costs, shipments, and 
assumptions about markups and conversion costs. The key MIA output is 
INPV. DOE used the GRIM to calculate cash flows using standard 
accounting principles and to compare changes in INPV between a base 
case and various TSLs (the standards case). The difference in INPV 
between the base and standards cases represents the financial impact of 
amended energy conservation standards on GSFL and IRL manufacturers. 
Different sets of assumptions (scenarios) produce different INPV 
results. The qualitative part of the MIA addresses factors such as 
manufacturing capacity; characteristics of, and impacts on, any 
particular sub-group of manufacturers; and impacts on competition.
    DOE conducted the MIAs for this rulemaking in three phases. In the 
first phase DOE prepared an industry characterization based on the 
market and technology assessment, preliminary manufacturer interviews, 
and publicly available information. In the second phase, DOE estimated 
industry cash flows in the GRIMs using industry financial parameters 
derived in the first phase and the shipment scenarios used in the NIAs. 
In the third phase, DOE conducted interviews with a variety of GSFL and 
IRL manufacturers that account for more than 90 percent of domestic 
GSFL sales and more than 80 percent of domestic IRL sales covered by 
this rulemaking. During these interviews, DOE discussed engineering, 
manufacturing, procurement, and financial topics specific to each 
company and obtained each manufacturer's view of the GSFL and IRL 
industries as a whole. The interviews provided information that DOE 
used to evaluate the impacts of amended standards on manufacturers' 
cash flows, manufacturing capacities, and direct domestic manufacturing 
employment levels. See section VII.B.2.b of this NOPR for the 
discussion on the estimated changes in the number of domestic employees 
involved in manufacturing GSFLs and IRLs covered by standards. See 
section VI.K.4 of this NOPR for a description of the key issues 
manufacturers raised during the interviews.
    During the third phase, DOE also used the results of the industry 
characterization analysis in the first phase and feedback from 
manufacturer interviews to group manufacturers that exhibit similar 
production and cost structure characteristics. DOE identified one 
manufacturer sub-group for a separate impact analysis--small business 
manufacturers--using the small business employee threshold of 1,000 
total employees published by the Small Business Administration (SBA). 
This threshold includes all employees in a business' parent company and 
any other subsidiaries. Based on this classification, DOE identified 21 
GSFL manufacturers that qualify as small businesses and 15 IRL 
manufacturers that qualify as small businesses. The complete MIA is 
presented in chapter 13 of the NOPR TSD, and the analysis required by 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., is presented in 
section VIII.B of this NOPR and chapter 13 of the NOPR TSD.
2. GRIM Analysis and Key Inputs
    DOE uses the GRIM to quantify the changes in cash flows over time 
due to amended energy conservation standards. These changes in cash 
flows result in either a higher or lower INPV for the standards case 
compared to the base case (the case where a standard is not set). The 
GRIM analysis uses a standard annual cash flow analysis that 
incorporates manufacturer costs, markups, shipments, and industry 
financial information as inputs. It then models changes in costs, 
investments, and manufacturer margins that result from amended energy 
conservation standards. The GRIM uses these inputs to calculate a 
series of annual cash flows beginning with the base year of the 
analysis, 2013, and continuing to 2046. DOE computes INPV by summing 
the stream of annual discounted cash flows during the analysis period. 
DOE used a real discount rate of 9.2 percent for both GSFL and IRL 
manufacturers. The discount rate estimates were derived from industry 
corporate annual reports to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC 
10-Ks). During manufacturer interviews GSFL and IRL manufacturers were 
asked to provide feedback on this discount rate. Most manufacturers 
agreed that a discount rate of 9.2 was appropriate to use for both GSFL 
and IRL manufacturers. Many inputs into the GRIM come from the 
engineering analysis, the NIA, manufacturer interviews, and other 
research conducted during the MIA. The major GRIM inputs are described 
in detail in the sections below.
a. Capital and Product Conversion Costs
    DOE expects amended energy conservation standards of GSFLs and IRLs 
to cause manufacturers to incur conversion costs to bring their 
production facilities and product designs into compliance with amended 
standards. For the MIA, DOE classified these conversion costs into two 
major groups: (1) Capital conversion costs and (2) product conversion 
costs. Capital conversion costs are investments in property, plant, and 
equipment necessary to adapt or change existing production facilities 
such that new product designs can be fabricated and assembled. Product 
conversion costs are investments in research, development, testing, 
marketing, certification, and other non-capitalized costs necessary to 
make product designs comply with amended standards.
    Using feedback from manufacturer interviews, DOE conducted both 
top-down and bottom-up analyses to calculate the capital and product 
conversion costs for GSFL and IRL manufacturers. DOE then adjusted 
these conversion costs if there were any discrepancies between the two 
methods to arrive at a final capital and product conversion cost 
estimate for each GSFL and IRL product class at each EL.
    To conduct the top-down analysis, DOE asked manufacturers during 
manufacturer interviews to estimate the total capital and product 
conversion costs they would need to incur to be able to produce each 
GSFL and IRL product class at specific ELs. DOE then summed these 
values provided by manufacturers to arrive at total top-

[[Page 24134]]

down industry conversion costs for GSFLs and IRLs.
    To conduct the bottom-up analysis, DOE used manufacturer input from 
manufacturer interviews regarding the types and dollar amounts of 
discrete capital and product expenditures that would be necessary to 
convert specific production lines for GSFLs or IRLs to each EL. GSFL 
manufacturers identified upgrading and recalibrating production 
automation systems as the primary capital cost that would be necessary 
to meet higher efficacy levels for GSFLs. IRL manufacturers identified 
several potential capital costs that could be required to meet higher 
efficacy levels for IRLs. These include purchasing new burner coating 
machines, increasing the capacity of existing burner machines, 
purchasing reflector coating machines, and purchasing coiling machines, 
as well as other retooling costs. The two main types of product 
conversion costs for GSFLs and IRLs that manufacturers shared with DOE 
during manufacturer interviews were the engineering hours necessary to 
redesign lamps to meet higher efficacy standards and the testing and 
certification costs necessary to comply with higher efficacy standards. 
Once DOE had compiled these capital and product conversion costs, DOE 
then took average values (i.e., average number of hours or average 
dollar amounts) based on the range of responses given by manufacturers 
for each capital and product conversion cost at each ELs.
    The bottom-up conversion costs estimates DOE created were 
consistent with the manufacturer top-down estimates provided, so DOE 
used these cost estimates as the final values for each GSFL and IRL 
product class at each EL in the MIA.
    See chapter 13 of the NOPR TSD for a complete description of DOE's 
assumptions for the capital and product conversion costs.
b. Manufacturer Production Costs
    Manufacturing more efficacious GSFLs or IRLs is typically more 
expensive than manufacturing a baseline product due to the need for 
more costly materials and components. One of the primary drivers behind 
increased material costs is the need for enhanced reflectors and/or 
burner coatings for IRLs or rare earth oxides (REOs) for GSFLs, as well 
as the need for higher volumes of these materials. The higher 
manufacturer production costs (MPCs) for these more efficacious 
products can affect the revenue, gross margin, and lifetime of the 
product, which will then affect total volume of future shipments, and 
the cash flows of GSFL and IRL manufacturers. Typically, DOE develops 
MPCs for the covered products and uses the prices as an input to the 
LCC analysis and NIA. However, because GSFLs and IRLs are difficult to 
reverse-engineer, DOE derived end-user prices for the lamps covered in 
this rulemaking. DOE observed a range of end-user prices paid for GSFLs 
and IRLs depending on the distribution channel through which the lamps 
are purchased. DOE then developed three sets of discounts from the 
manufacturer blue-book prices representing low (state procurement), 
medium (electrical distributors and big box retailers), and high 
(Internet retailers) lamp prices for both GSFLs and IRLs. For more 
information about pricing, see section VI.E of this NOPR.
    To calculate the MSP, the price at which manufacturers sell lamps 
to their customer, DOE calculated the distribution chain markup for the 
GSFL and IRL industries. DOE examined the SEC 10-Ks of publicly traded 
big box retail stores to determine the average retail markup for the 
medium end-user price distribution chain. DOE found the typical retail 
markup for big box stores was 1.52. DOE divided the medium end-user 
price for all GSFLs and IRLs by this value to arrive at MSPs for all 
GSFLs and IRLs. DOE invites comment on its methodology of using a 1.52 
distribution chain markup in combination with the medium end-user price 
to estimate the MSP of all GSFLs and IRLs.
    DOE also examined the SEC 10-Ks of all publicly traded GSFL and IRL 
manufacturers to estimate the average GSFL and IRL manufacturer markup. 
The manufacturer markup represents the markup lamp manufacturers apply 
to their MPCs to arrive at the MSPs. This is different from the 
distribution chain markup, which is the markup retail stores apply to 
the MSP to arrive at the end user price. Based on SEC 10-Ks, DOE found 
the typical manufacturer markup for GSFL and IRL manufacturers on a 
corporate level was 1.58. During manufacturer interviews, DOE asked 
manufacturers if 1.58 was an appropriate markup to use for GSFLs and 
IRLs. Based on manufacturer feedback that the 1.58 manufacturer markup 
was too high for both GSFLs and IRLs and should be lowered, DOE revised 
the manufacturer markup for both GSFLs and IRLs to be 1.52. The 1.52 
figure is the same manufacturer markup used for these products in the 
2009 Lamps Rule.
    For a complete description of the end-user prices, see the product 
price determination in section VI.E of this NOPR.
c. Shipment Scenarios
    INPV, the key GRIM output, depends on industry revenue, which 
depends on the quantity and prices of GSFLs and IRLs shipped in each 
year of the analysis period. Industry revenue calculations require 
forecasts of: (1) Total annual shipment volume of GSFLs and IRLs; (2) 
the distribution of shipments across product classes (because prices 
vary by product class); and, (3) the distribution of shipments across 
efficacy levels (because prices vary with lamp efficacy).
    In the base case shipment analysis, DOE first established a lumen 
capacity demand per square foot for commercial and residential spaces 
serviced by GSFLs and IRLs. While this lumen capacity per square foot 
demand is assumed to remain unchanged over the analysis period, the 
total lumen demand grows proportionally with the growth of new 
commercial and residential floor space, as projected by AEO 2013. DOE 
also expects the lighting demand for GSFLs and IRLs to be eroded by 
increased penetration of LEDs into the market. This LED penetration 
rate for the reference shipment scenario is based on the rate 
forecasted in DOE's Solid-State Lighting Program. (See section VI.I of 
this NOPR for further information.) Overall, while demand for lighting 
is expected to increase for the entire economy as the amount of floor 
space increases, the demand for GSFL and IRL specific lighting is 
projected to decline in the base case due to the increased penetration 
of alternative lighting sources such as LEDs.
    In the standards case for GSFLs, DOE used a consumer choice model 
the shipments analysis and NIA to analyze how consumers would shift 
between GSFL product classes in response to standards (e.g., consumers 
might forgo purchases of 4-foot MBP GSFLs in favor of 4-foot T5 MiniBP 
SO GSFLs in response to a higher 4-foot MBP GSFL standard). GSFL 
consumers were not, however, assumed to increase the purchase of LEDs 
in response to increased GSFL energy conservation standards. As 
discussed in section VI.I of this NOPR, the transition from GSFLs to 
LEDs is accounted for in the base case shipment analysis, and 
additional shifting to LEDs due to GSFL standards was not modeled in 
the standards case shipment analysis or in the NIA.
    In the standards case for IRLs, the change in the number of 
shipments from the base case is mainly due to the increase in IRL 
lifetime at TSL 1 compared to the base case shipment lifetime. IRLs 
that meet the efficacy level specified at TSL 1 have a longer

[[Page 24135]]

lifetime than the baseline IRLs. As a result, there are fewer shipments 
of IRLs at TSL 1 than in the base case over the analysis period, 
because the lamps at TSL1 last longer. The NIA also modeled an 
alternative IRL shipment scenario where the lifetime of IRLs at TSL 1 
is shorter than the base case lifetime. DOE examined the impacts of a 
shortened lifetime scenario on manufacturers' cash flow as a 
sensitivity analysis. The results of the sensitivity analysis are 
presented in appendix 13C of the NOPR TSD. Also, similar to GSFLs, the 
shipments analysis and the NIA for IRLs did not model standards induced 
shifts to alternative lighting technologies, such as LEDs. Therefore, 
the MIA did not examine the revenue from LEDs in the manufacturers' 
cash flows as part of the IRL MIA. While the shipments analysis and the 
NIA recognize that consumers are shifting to alternative lighting 
technologies, which are accounted for in the base case shipments 
projection, the shipments analysis and the NIA did not model an 
accelerated shift to these alternative technologies specifically due to 
increased standards of IRLs.
    For a complete description of the shipments see the shipments 
analysis discussion in section VI.I of this NOPR.
d. Markup Scenarios
    As discussed in the manufacturer production costs section above, 
the MPCs for each of the product classes of GSFLs and IRLs are the 
manufacturers' factory costs for those units. These costs include 
materials, direct labor, depreciation, and overhead, which are 
collectively referred to as the cost of goods sold (COGS). The MSP is 
the price received by GSFL and IRL manufacturers from their customers, 
typically a distributor, regardless of the downstream distribution 
channel through which the lamps are ultimately sold. The MSP is not the 
cost the end-user pays for GSFLs and IRLs because there are typically 
multiple sales along the distribution chain and various markups applied 
to each sale. The MSP equals the MPC multiplied by the manufacturer 
markup. The manufacturer markup covers all the GSFL and IRL 
manufacturer's non-production costs (i.e., selling, general and 
administrative expenses [SG&A], research and development [R&D], and 
interest, etc.) as well as profit. Total industry revenue for GSFL and 
IRL manufacturers equals the MSPs at each EL for each product class 
multiplied by the number of shipments at that EL.
    Modifying these manufacturer markups in the standards case yields a 
different set of impacts on GSFL and IRL manufacturers than in the base 
case. For the MIA, DOE modeled two standards case markup scenarios for 
GSFLs and IRLs to represent the uncertainty regarding the potential 
impacts on prices and profitability for GSFL and IRL manufacturers 
following the implementation of amended energy conservation standards. 
The two scenarios are: (1) A flat, or preservation of gross margin, 
markup scenario and (2) a preservation of operating profit markup 
scenario. Each scenario leads to different manufacturer markup values, 
which, when applied to the inputted MPCs, result in varying revenue and 
cash flow impacts on GSFL and IRL manufacturers.
    The flat, or preservation of gross margin, markup scenario assumes 
that the COGS for each product is marked up by a flat percentage to 
cover SG&A expenses, R&D expenses, interest expenses, and profit. This 
allows manufacturers to preserve the same gross margin percentage in 
the standards case as in the base case. This markup scenario represents 
the upper bound of the GSFL and IRL industries' profitability in the 
standards case because GSFL and IRL manufacturers are able to fully 
pass through additional costs due to standards to their consumers.
    To derive the flat, or preservation of gross margin, markup 
percentages for GSFLs and IRLs, DOE examined the SEC 10-Ks of all 
publicly traded GSFL and IRL manufacturers to estimate the industry 
average gross margin percentage. Manufacturers were then asked about 
the industry gross margin percentage derived from SEC 10-Ks during 
manufacturer interviews. GSFL and IRL manufacturers stated that this 
average industry gross margin was too large and needed to be reduced. 
In response to these comments, DOE used the manufacturer markups from 
the 2009 Lamps Rule for GSFLs and IRLs, which was slightly less than 
the average industry gross margin derived from SEC 10-Ks of GSFL and 
IRL manufacturers.
    DOE included an alternative markup scenario, the preservation of 
operating profit markup, because manufacturers stated they do not 
expect to be able to markup the full cost of production in the 
standards case, given the highly competitive GSFL and IRL lighting 
markets. The preservation of operating profit markup scenario assumes 
that manufacturers are able to maintain only the base case total 
operating profit in absolute dollars in the standards case, despite 
higher product costs and investment. The base case total operating 
profit is derived from marking up the COGS for each product by the flat 
markup described above. In the standards case for the preservation of 
operating profit markup scenario, DOE adjusted the GSFL and IRL 
manufacturer markups in the GRIM at each TSL to yield approximately the 
same earnings before interest and taxes in the standards case in the 
year after the compliance date of the amended GSFL and IRL standards as 
in the base case. Under this scenario, while manufacturers are not able 
to yield additional operating profit from higher production costs and 
the investments that are required to comply with amended GSFL and IRL 
energy conservation standards, they are able to maintain the same 
operating profit in the standards case that was earned in the base 
case.
    The preservation of operating profit markup scenario represents the 
lower bound of industry profitability in the standards case. This is 
because manufacturers are not able to fully pass through the additional 
costs necessitated by GSFL and IRL energy conservation standards, as 
they are able to do in the flat (preservation of gross margin) markup 
scenario. Therefore, manufacturers earn less revenue in the 
preservation of operating profit markup scenario than they do in the 
flat markup scenario.
3. Discussion of Comments
    Interested parties commented on the assumptions and results of the 
preliminary analysis. Comments addressed several topics: the potential 
shift to other lighting technologies in response to GSFL and IRL 
standards, the overall cumulative regulatory burden facing lighting 
manufacturers, the potential decrease in competition due to IRL 
standards, and the potential required use of proprietary technologies 
to achieve higher efficacy levels for IRLs. DOE addresses these 
comments below.
a. Potential Shift to Other Lighting Technologies
    NEMA commented that further investments in GSFL and IRL 
technologies due to energy conservation standards will divert resources 
away from LED technology development. NEMA states that continued 
development of LEDs could lead to much great energy savings potential 
than the lighting technologies included in this rulemaking. NEMA 
recommends that DOE include in the MIA for GSFLs and IRLs the impact 
that such diversion of resources will have on LED technology if the 
lighting industry is required by a potential GSFL and IRL standard to 
make additional investments in GSFL and IRL

[[Page 24136]]

technologies that are already experiencing diminishing returns on 
investment and use. (NEMA, No. 36 at p. 1)
    DOE recognizes the opportunity cost associated with any investment, 
and agrees that manufacturers would need to spend capital to meet any 
proposed GSFL and IRL standards that they would not have to spend in 
the base case. The allocation of company resources among different 
lighting technologies is a complex business decision that each 
individual manufacturer will ultimately have to make. As a result, 
manufacturers must determine the extent to which they will balance 
investment in the GSFL and IRL markets with investment in emerging 
technologies, such as LEDs. The companies will have to weigh tradeoffs 
between deferring investments and deploying additional capital. DOE 
includes the costs on manufacturers of meeting today's proposed 
standards in its analysis.
    NEEP commented that the MIA should account for any potential growth 
in LED sales lighting manufacturers might experience if the GSFL and 
IRL markets are projected to shrink throughout the years of the 
analysis. Instead of only accounting for lost revenues associated with 
a decrease in GSFL and IRL sales, NEEP suggests DOE also factor in the 
benefits those same manufacturers are potential gaining in the growing 
LED markets. (NEEP, No. 33 at p. 3)
    Based on the shipment analysis DOE does not believe GSFL and IRL 
markets will increasingly migrate from traditional GSFL and IRL 
technologies to alternate lighting technologies, such as LEDs, in 
direct response to GSFL and IRL energy conservation standards. While 
DOE recognizes that LEDs are continuing to capture more and more of the 
traditional lighting markets serviced by GSFLs and IRLs, DOE does not 
believe that GSFL and IRL standards will increase this shift to LEDs. 
Therefore, this market shift to LEDs is captured in the base case 
shipment scenario and is not a standards-induced market shift. DOE 
excludes the revenue from LEDs earned by manufacturers who produce 
GSFLs and IRLs in the GRIM since the revenue stream would be present in 
both the base case and the standards case, resulting in no net impact 
on the change in INPV.
b. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
    NEMA, along with some individual manufacturers, commented on the 
cumulative regulatory burden of this rulemaking given there are several 
DOE energy conservation standards that affect the major lighting 
manufacturers of this rulemaking. NEMA stated that DOE does not 
adequately address or quantify the cumulative regulatory burden. NEMA 
urges DOE to adopt a more transparent and open decision-making process 
to better address their continued concerns. (NEMA, No. 30 at pp. 338-
340; NEMA, No. 36 at pp. 18-19) The cumulative regulatory burden is 
explained in greater detail in section VII.B.2.e of this NOPR, and a 
complete description of the cumulative regulatory burden is included in 
chapter 13 of the NOPR TSD. A complete description of the proposal 
selection process is provided in section VII.C of this NOPR.
    GE commented they are concerned about the speed of this amended 
GSFL and IRL energy conservation standard, given that the 2009 Lamps 
Rule was published in 2009 and required compliance in 2012. They 
believe that it is difficult for manufacturers to recover their 
previous investments made in new technologies in only five and a half 
years. This potential loss in investments has a severe and negative 
manufacturer impact when rulemakings covering the same products are so 
close together. (GE, No. 30 at p. 188)
    Philips similarly commented that they had invested millions of 
dollars in incandescent technologies to meet EISA 2007's general 
service lighting requirements, which could become obsolete due to 
amended IRL energy conservation standards. (Philips, No. 30 at p. 187) 
EEI also made similar comments stating that manufacturers who made 
long-term investments to comply with the 2009 Lamps Rule might not have 
had time to recover their investments in five or six years. (EEI, No. 
30 at p. 187) A member of Congress commented that the OSI facility in 
Kentucky recently underwent major retooling to bring the facility into 
compliance with EISA's incandescent lighting requirements. Bringing 
that facility into compliance with even more stringent IRL regulations 
would require an increased capital outlay that is unavailable to the 
company at this time. This could result in a reduction of U.S. 
manufacturing jobs. (Barr, No. 25 at p. 1-2) As part of the cumulative 
regulatory burden analysis in section VII.B.2.e of this NOPR, DOE 
examines the investments manufacturers have made to comply with 
previous rulemakings.
    Philips also commented on the cumulative regulatory burden, asking 
DOE to specify the criteria that determines if the proposed standards 
constitute a cumulative regulatory burden on manufacturers. (Philips, 
No. 30 at pp. 339-340; 347) DOE examines the cumulative regulatory 
burden as one of the potential impacts of potential standard levels 
before ultimately selecting an appropriate proposed standard. This 
examination of the costs and benefits of potential proposed standards 
is addressed in section VII.C of this NOPR.
c. Potential Decrease in Competition
    EEI commented they are concerned that there could be a reduction in 
competition as a result of more stringent GSFL and IRL energy 
conservation standards. EEI stated they are especially concerned about 
any amended standards for IRLs due to the fact that DOJ determined that 
the 2009 Lamps Rule would have anti-competitive impacts on the IRL 
industry. EEI contends that any increase in the efficacy of IRLs due to 
amended standards could potentially increase these anti-competitive 
impacts. (EEI, No. 30 at pp. 335-337)
    NEEA stated there seems to be an increase in the number of brand 
names available in the marketplace for IRLs. (NEEA, No. 30 at pp. 337-
338) In the 2009 Lamps Rule, DOJ had expressed concerns that the 
proposed TSL 4 for IRLs could adversely affect competition noting that 
only two of the three large manufacturers manufacture IRLs that would 
meet the new standard and one of these manufacturers uses proprietary 
technology to do so. However, DOE research showed that all three large 
manufacturers had products that met TSL 4 and access to alternative 
technology pathways to achieve this efficacy that did not require 
propriety technology. Further, based on market research, analysis of 
HIR burner production, and interviews with manufacturers and HIR burner 
suppliers, DOE determined that manufacturers would not face any long-
term capacity constraints. Therefore, DOE concluded that the proposed 
level in the 2009 Lamps rule for IRLs would not result in lessening 
competition. 74 FR 34080, 34160 (July 14, 2009).
    DOE examines the potential decrease in competition from amended 
energy conservation standards in section VII.B.5 of this NOPR. DOE also 
submits a copy of the NOPR to DOJ for review as part of the rulemaking 
process and considers input from DOJ in developing any final standards.
4. Manufacturer Interviews
    DOE conducted additional interviews with manufacturers following 
the preliminary analysis in preparation for the NOPR analysis. In these 
interviews, DOE asked manufacturers to describe their major concerns 
with this GSFL and

[[Page 24137]]

IRL rulemaking. The following section describes the key issues 
identified by GSFL and IRL manufacturers during these interviews.
a. Rare Earth Oxides in General Service Fluorescent Lamps
    Several manufacturers are concerned that increasing the efficacy of 
GSFLs in response to amended energy conservation standards will require 
the use of significantly more REOs in GSFLs. This could expose GSFL 
manufacturers to the risk of another significant increase in the price 
of REOs. Over the past several years the price of REOs used in GSFLs 
has been extremely volatile. In 2011, the price of REOs significantly 
increased but has slowly been coming down over the past couple of 
years. While the current price of many of these REOs has returned to 
much lower levels than the peak prices experienced between 2010 and 
2012, GSFL manufacturers are concerned that the price of REOs could 
return to those peak prices in the future. GSFL manufacturers are also 
concerned an increase in the demand for REOs due to amended energy 
conservation standards could cause the price for these REOs to spike.
    Several GSFL manufacturers also noted that amended energy 
conservation standards for GSFLs could have adverse impacts on the 
domestic production of GSFLs. China is currently the dominant miner and 
producer of REOs worldwide and imposes quotas on the export of raw 
REOs. This drives up the costs for manufacturers of products using REOs 
that manufacture these products outside of China. As a result, 
manufacturers pointed out that amended GSFL standards could make it 
more attractive to manufacture GSFLs in China, rather than 
domestically, because the price of REOs would likely be much lower in 
China. See section VI.D.2.i of this NOPR for further discussion of the 
assessments of rare earth phosphor impacts from amended standards 
undertake in this NOPR analysis.
b. Unknown Impacts of the 2009 Lamps Rule
    Several manufacturers expressed concern that amended energy 
conservation standards for GSFLs and IRLs would be premature given that 
the last round of DOE energy conservation standards for GSFLs and IRLs 
required compliance in July 2012. Manufacturers are still unsure how 
the standards from the 2009 Lamps Rule will ultimately affect their 
future sales and shipments as consumer preferences shift since there 
are a relatively large number of alternative lighting options available 
on the market. Manufacturers noted that they have developed new 
products to meet the 2009 Lamps Rule standards and are still waiting to 
see which consumers purchase which types of lamps.
    Furthermore, manufacturers stated they have already made 
significant capital investments in order to be able to produce the more 
efficacious GSFLs and IRLs required by the 2009 Lamps Rule standards. 
Manufacturers are concerned that any additional increase in the 
efficacy of those products due to amended energy conservation standards 
could potentially strand the substantial capital investments made to 
comply with the 2009 Lamps Rule, as manufacturers have not yet fully 
recouped these capital investments. Manufacturers stated that a five 
year time period between the compliance date of the 2009 Lamps Rule 
(July 2012) and the estimated compliance date of the current GSFL and 
IRL rulemaking (2017) is too short for most manufacturers to recoup 
their capital investments, since manufacturing machinery typically has 
a much longer useful lifetime than five years. See section VII.B.2 of 
this NOPR for an analysis of the investments manufacturers must make to 
comply with standards.
c. Technology Shift
    Several manufacturers contended that regardless of amended energy 
conservation standards, a technological shift away from GSFLs and IRLs 
is already occurring. They pointed out that the market is already 
moving toward LEDs, especially in the commercial sector. Manufacturers 
are concerned that amended standards would force them to divert 
resources away from the R&D of more efficacious lighting products, such 
as LEDs, by forcing manufacturers to spend time and money on GSFLs and 
IRLs, which have diminishing market shares. This increase in the 
efficacy of GSFLs and IRLs would increase the end-user price of GSFLs 
and IRLs which could ultimately drive consumers to purchase other 
lighting technologies, like LEDs. This could result in a further 
stranding of any capital investments made for GSFLs and IRLs. See 
section VI.I of this NOPR for discussion on the LED market penetration 
shipment scenario.
d. Impact on Residential Sector
    Several manufacturers expressed concern that amended energy 
conservation standards for GSFLs and IRLs would not achieve substantial 
energy savings in the residential sector. Residential consumers do not 
have long operating hours and manufacturers are concerned that they 
will give up longer life to get a cheaper lamp. Furthermore, 
manufacturers expressed concern that amended GSFL standards may be 
overly burdensome by forcing some residential consumers of GSFLs to 
switch out their entire lighting system (i.e., ballast and fixture) due 
to replacement lamps being regulated out of production for only minimal 
energy savings. DOE acknowledges that residential consumers could be 
differentially impacted by GSFL and IRL standards compared to 
commercial consumers. DOE analyzed residential and commercial consumers 
separately in the LCC analysis for GSFLs and IRLs. These results are 
presented in section VII.B.1.a of this NOPR.

L. Emissions Analysis

    In the emissions analysis, DOE estimated the reduction in power 
sector emissions of SO2, NOX, CO2, and 
Hg from potential energy conservation standards for GSFLs and IRLs. In 
addition, DOE estimates emissions impacts in production activities 
(extracting, processing, and transporting fuels) that provide the 
energy inputs to power plants. These are referred to as ``upstream'' 
emissions. Together, these emissions account for the FFC.
    DOE conducted the emissions analysis using emissions factors for 
CO2 and other gases derived from data in the EIA's AEO 2013, 
supplemented by data from other sources. DOE developed separate 
emissions factors for power sector emissions and upstream emissions. 
EIA prepares the AEO using NEMS. Each annual version of NEMS 
incorporates the projected impacts of existing air quality regulations 
on emissions. AEO 2013 generally represents current legislation and 
environmental regulations, including recent government actions, for 
which implementing regulations were available as of December 31, 2012. 
The method that DOE used to derive emissions factors is described in 
chapter 14 of the NOPR TSD.
    SO2 emissions from affected electric generating units 
(EGUs) are subject to nationwide and regional emissions cap-and-trade 
programs. Title IV of the Clean Air Act sets an annual emissions cap on 
SO2 for affected EGUs in the 48 contiguous states and the 
District of Columbia (D.C.). SO2 emissions from 28 eastern 
states and D.C. were also limited under the Clean Air Interstate Rule 
(CAIR; 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005)), which created an allowance-based 
trading program that operates along with the Title IV program. CAIR was 
remanded to the U.S. Environmental

[[Page 24138]]

Protection Agency (EPA) by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District 
of Columbia Circuit but it remained in effect. See North Carolina v. 
EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008); North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 
896 (D.C. Cir. 2008). On July 6, 2011 EPA issued a replacement for 
CAIR, the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). 76 FR 48208 (August 
8, 2011). On August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision to 
vacate CSAPR. See EME Homer City Generation, LP v. EPA, No. 11-1302, 
2012 WL 3570721 at *24 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 21, 2012). The court ordered EPA 
to continue administering CAIR. The AEO 2013 emissions factors used for 
today's NOPR assumes that CAIR remains a binding regulation through 
2040.
    The attainment of emissions caps is typically flexible among EGUs 
and is enforced through the use of emissions allowances and tradable 
permits. Under existing EPA regulations, any excess SO2 
emissions allowances resulting from the lower electricity demand caused 
by the adoption of an efficacy standard could be used to permit 
offsetting increases in SO2 emissions by any regulated EGU. 
In past rulemakings, DOE recognized that there was uncertainty about 
the effects of efficiency standards on SO2 emissions covered 
by the existing cap-and-trade system, but it concluded that negligible 
reductions in power sector SO2 emissions would occur as a 
result of standards.
    Beginning in 2015, however, SO2 emissions will fall as a 
result of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) for power plants, 
which were announced by EPA on December 21, 2011. 77 FR 9304 (Feb. 16, 
2012). In the final MATS rule, EPA established a standard for hydrogen 
chloride as a surrogate for acid gas hazardous air pollutants (HAP), 
and also established a standard for SO2 (a non-HAP acid gas) 
as an alternative equivalent surrogate standard for acid gas HAP. The 
same controls are used to reduce HAP and non-HAP acid gas; thus, 
SO2 emissions will be reduced as a result of the control 
technologies installed on coal-fired power plants to comply with the 
MATS requirements for acid gas. AEO 2013 assumes that, to continue 
operating, coal plants must have either flue gas desulfurization or dry 
sorbent injection systems installed by 2015. Both technologies, which 
are used to reduce acid gas emissions, also reduce SO2 
emissions. Under the MATS, NEMS shows a reduction in SO2 
emissions when electricity demand decreases (e.g., as a result of 
energy efficiency standards). Emissions will be far below the cap 
established by CAIR, so it is unlikely that excess SO2 
emissions allowances resulting from the lower electricity demand would 
be needed or used to permit offsetting increases in SO2 
emissions by any regulated EGU. Therefore, DOE believes that efficiency 
standards will reduce SO2 emissions in 2015 and beyond.
    CAIR established a cap on NOX emissions in 28 eastern 
states and the District of Columbia. Energy conservation standards are 
expected to have little effect on NOX emissions in those 
states covered by CAIR because excess NOX emissions 
allowances resulting from the lower electricity demand could be used to 
permit offsetting increases in NOX emissions. However, 
standards would be expected to reduce NOX emissions in the 
states not affected by the caps, so DOE estimated NOX 
emissions reductions from the standards considered in this NOPR for 
these states.
    The MATS limit mercury emissions from power plants, but they do not 
include emissions caps and, as such, DOE's energy conservation 
standards would likely reduce Hg emissions. DOE estimated Hg emissions 
reduction using emissions factors based on AEO 2013, which incorporates 
the MATS.
    In accordance with DOE's FFC Statement of Policy (76 FR 51282 (Aug. 
18, 2011)), the FFC analysis includes impacts on emissions of methane 
(CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), both of which are 
recognized as GHGs. For CH4 and N2O, DOE 
calculated emissions reductions in tons and also in terms of units of 
carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2eq). Gases are converted to 
CO2eq by multiplying the emissions reduction in tons by the 
gas' global warming potential (GWP) over a 100-year time horizon. Based 
on the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change,\80\ DOE used GWP values of 25 for CH4 and 
298 for N2O.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ Forster, P., V. Ramaswamy, P. Artaxo, T. Berntsen, R. 
Betts, D.W. Fahey, J. Haywood, J. Lean, D.C. Lowe, G. Myhre, J. 
Nganga, R. Prinn, G. Raga, M. Schulz and R. Van Dorland. 2007: 
Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing. In 
Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of 
Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. 
Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller, 
Editors. 2007. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom 
and New York, NY, USA. p. 212.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

M. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other Emissions Impacts

    As part of the development of this proposed rule, DOE considered 
the estimated monetary benefits from the reduced emissions of 
CO2 and NOX expected to result from each of the 
TSLs considered. To make this calculation similar to the calculation of 
the NPV of consumer benefit, DOE considered the reduced emissions 
expected to result over the lifetime of product shipped in the forecast 
period for each TSL. This section summarizes the basis for the monetary 
values used for each of these emissions and presents the values 
considered in this rulemaking.
    For today's NOPR, DOE is relying on a set of values for the social 
cost of carbon (SCC) that was developed by an interagency process. A 
summary of the basis for these values is provided below, and a more 
detailed description of the methodologies used is provided in 
appendices to chapter 15 of the NOPR TSD.
1. Social Cost of Carbon
    The SCC is an estimate of the monetized damages associated with an 
incremental increase in carbon emissions in a given year. It is 
intended to include (but is not limited to) changes in net agricultural 
productivity, human health, property damages from increased flood risk, 
and the value of ecosystem services. Estimates of the SCC are provided 
in dollars per metric ton of CO2. A domestic SCC value is 
meant to reflect the value of damages in the United States resulting 
from a unit change in CO2 emissions, while a global SCC 
value is meant to reflect the value of damages worldwide.
    Under section 1(b)(6) of Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory 
Planning and Review,'' 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), agencies must, to 
the extent permitted by law, assess both the costs and the benefits of 
the intended regulation and, recognizing that some costs and benefits 
are difficult to quantify, propose or adopt a regulation only upon a 
reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation 
justify its costs. The purpose of the SCC estimates presented here is 
to allow agencies to incorporate the monetized social benefits of 
reducing CO2 emissions into cost-benefit analyses of 
regulatory actions that have small, or ``marginal,'' impacts on 
cumulative global emissions. The estimates are presented with an 
acknowledgement of the many uncertainties involved and with a clear 
understanding that they should be updated over time to reflect 
increasing knowledge of the science and economics of climate impacts.
    As part of the interagency process that developed the SCC 
estimates, technical experts from numerous agencies met on a regular 
basis to consider public comments, explore the technical literature in 
relevant fields, and discuss

[[Page 24139]]

key model inputs and assumptions. The main objective of this process 
was to develop a range of SCC values using a defensible set of input 
assumptions grounded in the existing scientific and economic 
literatures. In this way, key uncertainties and model differences 
transparently and consistently inform the range of SCC estimates used 
in the rulemaking process.
a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions
    When attempting to assess the incremental economic impacts of 
CO2 emissions, the analyst faces a number of serious 
challenges. A recent report from the National Research Council points 
out that any assessment will suffer from uncertainty, speculation, and 
lack of information about: (1) Future emissions of GHGs; (2) the 
effects of past and future emissions on the climate system; (3) the 
impact of changes in climate on the physical and biological 
environment; and (4) the translation of these environmental impacts 
into economic damages. As a result, any effort to quantify and monetize 
the harms associated with climate change will raise serious questions 
of science, economics, and ethics and should be viewed as provisional.
    Despite the serious limits of both quantification and monetization, 
SCC estimates can be useful in estimating the social benefits of 
reducing CO2 emissions. Most Federal regulatory actions can 
be expected to have marginal impacts on global emissions. For such 
policies, the agency can estimate the benefits from reduced emissions 
in any future year by multiplying the change in emissions in that year 
by the SCC value appropriate for that year. The NPV of the benefits can 
then be calculated by multiplying the future benefits by an appropriate 
discount factor and summing across all affected years. This approach 
assumes that the marginal damages from increased emissions are constant 
for small departures from the baseline emissions path, an approximation 
that is reasonable for policies that have effects on emissions that are 
small relative to cumulative global CO2 emissions. For 
policies that have a large (non-marginal) impact on global cumulative 
emissions, there is a separate question of whether the SCC is an 
appropriate tool for calculating the benefits of reduced emissions. 
This concern is not applicable to this rulemaking, however.
    It is important to emphasize that the interagency process is 
committed to updating these estimates as the science and economic 
understanding of climate change and its impacts on society improves 
over time. In the meantime, the interagency group will continue to 
explore the issues raised by this analysis and consider public comments 
as part of the ongoing interagency process.
b. Social Cost of Carbon Values Used in Past Regulatory Analyses
    Economic analyses for Federal regulations have used a wide range of 
values to estimate the benefits associated with reducing CO2 
emissions. In the final model year 2011 CAFE rule, the U.S. Department 
of Transportation (DOT) used both a ``domestic'' SCC value of $2 per 
metric ton of CO2 and a ``global'' SCC value of $33 per 
metric ton of CO2 for 2007 emission reductions (in 2007$), 
increasing both values at 2.4 percent per year. DOT also included a 
sensitivity analysis at $80 per metric ton of CO2.\81\ A 
2008 regulation proposed by DOT assumed a domestic SCC value of $7 per 
metric ton of CO2 (in 2006$) for 2011 emission reductions 
(with a range of $0 to $14 for sensitivity analysis), also increasing 
at 2.4 percent per year.\82\ A regulation for packaged terminal air 
conditioners and packaged terminal heat pumps finalized by DOE in 
October of 2008 used a domestic SCC range of $0 to $20 per metric ton 
CO2 for 2007 emission reductions (in 2007$). 73 FR 58772, 
58814 (Oct. 7, 2008). In addition, EPA's 2008 Advance Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking on Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under the 
Clean Air Act identified what it described as ``very preliminary'' SCC 
estimates subject to revision. 73 FR 44354 (July 30, 2008). EPA's 
global mean values were $68 and $40 per metric ton CO2 for 
discount rates of approximately 2 percent and 3 percent, respectively 
(in 2006$ for 2007 emissions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ See Average Fuel Economy Standards Passenger Cars and Light 
Trucks Model Year 2011, 74 FR 14196 (March 30, 2009) (Final Rule); 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Corporate Average Fuel Economy 
Standards, Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, Model Years 2011-2015 at 
3-90 (Oct. 2008) (Available at: www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy) (Last 
accessed December 2012).
    \82\ See Average Fuel Economy Standards, Passenger Cars and 
Light Trucks, Model Years 2011-2015, 73 FR 24352 (May 2, 2008) 
(Proposed Rule); Draft Environmental Impact Statement Corporate 
Average Fuel Economy Standards, Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, 
Model Years 2011-2015 at 3-58 (June 2008) (Available at: 
www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy) (Last accessed December 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2009, an interagency process was initiated to offer a 
preliminary assessment of how best to quantify the benefits from 
reducing CO2 emissions. To ensure consistency in how 
benefits are evaluated across agencies, the Administration sought to 
develop a transparent and defensible method, specifically designed for 
the rulemaking process, to quantify avoided climate change damages from 
reduced CO2 emissions. The interagency group did not 
undertake any original analysis. Instead, it combined SCC estimates 
from the existing literature to use as interim values until a more 
comprehensive analysis could be conducted. The outcome of the 
preliminary assessment by the interagency group was a set of five 
interim values: Global SCC estimates for 2007 (in 2006$) of $55, $33, 
$19, $10, and $5 per metric ton of CO2. These interim values 
represented the first sustained interagency effort within the U.S. 
government to develop an SCC for use in regulatory analysis. The 
results of this preliminary effort were presented in several proposed 
and final rules.
c. Current Approach and Key Assumptions
    Since the release of the interim values, the interagency group 
reconvened on a regular basis to generate improved SCC estimates. 
Specifically, the group considered public comments and further explored 
the technical literature in relevant fields. The interagency group 
relied on three integrated assessment models commonly used to estimate 
the SCC: The FUND, DICE, and PAGE models. These models are frequently 
cited in the peer-reviewed literature and were used in the last 
assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Each model 
was given equal weight in the SCC values that were developed.
    Each model takes a slightly different approach to model how changes 
in emissions result in changes in economic damages. A key objective of 
the interagency process was to enable a consistent exploration of the 
three models while respecting the different approaches to quantifying 
damages taken by the key modelers in the field. An extensive review of 
the literature was conducted to select three sets of input parameters 
for these models: Climate sensitivity, socio-economic and emissions 
trajectories, and discount rates. A probability distribution for 
climate sensitivity was specified as an input into all three models. In 
addition, the interagency group used a range of scenarios for the 
socio-economic parameters and a range of values for the discount rate. 
All other model features were left unchanged, relying on the model 
developers' best estimates and judgments.
    In 2010, the interagency group selected four sets of SCC values for 
use

[[Page 24140]]

in regulatory analyses.\83\ Three sets of values are based on the 
average SCC from three integrated assessment models, at discount rates 
of 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent. The fourth set, which 
represents the 95th-percentile SCC estimate across all three models at 
a 3 percent discount rate, is included to represent higher-than-
expected impacts from climate change further out in the tails of the 
SCC distribution. The values grow in real terms over time. 
Additionally, the interagency group determined that a range of values 
from 7 percent to 23 percent should be used to adjust the global SCC to 
calculate domestic effects, although preference is given to 
consideration of the global benefits of reducing CO2 
emissions. Table VI.15 presents the values in the 2010 interagency 
group report, which is reproduced in appendix 15A of the NOPR TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under 
Executive Order 12866. Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of 
Carbon, United States Government, February 2010. www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/for-agencies/Social-Cost-of-Carbon-for-RIA.pdf.

                     Table VI.15--Annual SCC Values From 2010 Interagency Report, 2010-2050
                                      [In 2007 dollars per metric ton CO2]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Discount rate %
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         5               3              2.5              3
                      Year                       ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       95th
                                                      Average         Average         Average       Percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010............................................             4.7            21.4            35.1            64.9
2015............................................             5.7            23.8            38.4            72.8
2020............................................             6.8            26.3            41.7            80.7
2025............................................             8.2            29.6            45.9            90.4
2030............................................             9.7            32.8            50.0           100.0
2035............................................            11.2            36.0            54.2           109.7
2040............................................            12.7            39.2            58.4           119.3
2045............................................            14.2            42.1            61.7           127.8
2050............................................            15.7            44.9            65.0           136.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SCC values used for today's notice were generated using the 
most recent versions of the three integrated assessment models that 
have been published in the peer-reviewed literature.\84\ Table VI.16 
shows the updated sets of SCC estimates from the 2013 interagency 
update in five-year increments from 2010 to 2050. Appendix 15B of the 
NOPR TSD provides the full set of values. The central value that 
emerges is the average SCC across models at 3 percent discount rate. 
However, for purposes of capturing the uncertainties involved in 
regulatory impact analysis, the interagency group emphasizes the 
importance of including all four sets of SCC values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for 
Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866. Interagency 
Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United States Government. 
May 2013; revised November 2013. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/inforeg/technical-update-social-cost-of-carbon-for-regulator-impact-analysis.pdf.

                     Table VI.16--Annual SCC Values From 2013 Interagency Update, 2010-2050
                                      [In 2007 dollars per metric ton CO2]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Discount rate %
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         5               3              2.5              3
                      Year                       ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       95th
                                                      Average         Average         Average       Percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010............................................              11              32              51              89
2015............................................              11              37              57             109
2020............................................              12              43              64             128
2025............................................              14              47              69             143
2030............................................              16              52              75             159
2035............................................              19              56              80             175
2040............................................              21              61              86             191
2045............................................              24              66              92             206
2050............................................              26              71              97             220
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is important to recognize that a number of key uncertainties 
remain, and that current SCC estimates should be treated as provisional 
and revisable since they will evolve with improved scientific and 
economic understanding. The interagency group also recognizes that the 
existing models are imperfect and incomplete. The National Research 
Council report mentioned previously points out that there is tension 
between the goal of producing quantified estimates of the economic 
damages from an incremental ton of carbon and the limits of existing 
efforts to model these effects. There are a number of concerns and 
problems that should be addressed by the research community, including 
research programs housed in many of the federal agencies participating 
in the interagency process to estimate the SCC. The interagency group 
intends to periodically review and reconsider those estimates to 
reflect increasing

[[Page 24141]]

knowledge of the science and economics of climate impacts, as well as 
improvements in modeling.
    In summary, in considering the potential global benefits resulting 
from reduced CO2 emissions resulting from today's rule, DOE 
used the values from the 2013 interagency report, adjusted to 2012$ 
using the Gross Domestic Product price deflator. For each of the four 
SCC cases specified, the values used for emissions in 2015 were $11.8, 
$39.7, $61.2, and $117 per metric ton avoided (values expressed in 
2012$). DOE derived values after 2050 using the relevant growth rates 
for the 2040-2050 period in the interagency update. DOE invites comment 
on the methodology used to estimate the social cost of carbon.
    DOE multiplied the CO2 emissions reduction estimated for 
each year by the SCC value for that year in each of the four cases. To 
calculate a present value of the stream of monetary values, DOE 
discounted the values in each of the four cases using the specific 
discount rate that had been used to obtain the SCC values in each case.
2. Valuation of Other Emissions Reductions
    As noted previously, DOE has taken into account how new or amended 
energy conservation standards would reduce NOX emissions in 
those 22 states not affected by the CAIR. DOE estimated the monetized 
value of NOX emissions reductions resulting from each of the 
TSLs considered for today's NOPR based on estimates found in the 
relevant scientific literature. Estimates of monetary value for 
reducing NOX from stationary sources range from $468 to 
$4,809 per ton in 2012$.\85\ DOE calculated monetary benefits using a 
medium value for NOX emissions of $2,639 per short ton (in 
2012$) and real discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ U.S. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE is evaluating appropriate monetization of avoided 
SO2 and Hg emissions in energy conservation standards 
rulemakings. It has not included monetization in the current analysis.

N. Utility Impact Analysis

    The utility impact analysis estimates several effects on the power 
generation industry that would result from the adoption of new or 
amended energy conservation standards. In the utility impact analysis, 
DOE analyzes the changes in installed electricity capacity and 
generation that would result for each trial standard level. The utility 
impact analysis uses a variant of NEMS,\86\ which is a public domain, 
multi-sectored, partial equilibrium model of the U.S. energy sector. 
DOE uses a variant of this model, referred to as NEMS-BT, to account 
for selected utility impacts of new or amended energy conservation 
standards. DOE's analysis consists of a comparison between model 
results for the most recent AEO Reference Case and for cases in which 
energy use is decremented to reflect the impact of potential standards. 
The energy savings inputs associated with each TSL come from the NIA. 
Chapter 16 of the NOPR TSD describes the utility impact analysis in 
further detail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ For more information on NEMS, refer to the U.S. Department 
of Energy, Energy Information Administration documentation. A useful 
summary is National Energy Modeling System: An Overview 2003, DOE/
EIA-0581 (2003) (March, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NEEP urged DOE to quantify the economic benefits of electricity 
demand reductions for this rulemaking. (NEEP, No. 51 at p. 3)
    For the NOPR, DOE used NEMS-BT, along with EIA data on the capital 
cost of various power plant types, to estimate the reduction in 
national expenditures for electricity generating capacity due to 
potential GSFL-IRL energy efficiency standards. The method used and the 
results are described in chapter 16 of the NOPR TSD.
    DOE is evaluating whether parts of the cost reduction are a 
transfer and, thus, according to guidance provided by OMB to Federal 
agencies, should not be included in the estimates of the benefits and 
costs of a regulation.\87\ Transfer payments are monetary payments from 
one group to another that do not affect total resources available to 
society (i.e., exchanges that neither decrease nor increase total 
welfare). Benefits occur when savings to consumers result from real 
savings to producers, which increase societal benefits. Cost savings 
from reduced or delayed capital expenditure on power plants are a 
benefit, and not a transfer, to the extent that the reduced expenditure 
provides savings to both producers and consumers without affecting 
other groups. There would be a transfer to the extent that the delayed 
construction caused some other group (e.g., product suppliers or 
landowners who might have assets committed to the projects) to realize 
a lower return on those assets. DOE is evaluating these issues to 
determine the extent to which the cost savings from delayed capital 
expenditure on power plants are a benefit to society.\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ OMB Circular A-4 (Sept. 17, 2003), p. 38.
    \88\ Although delayed investment implies a savings in total 
cost, the savings may be less than the savings in capital cost 
because the delay may also cause increases in other costs. For 
example, if the delayed investment was the replacement of an 
existing facility with a larger, more efficient facility, the 
increased cost of operating the old facility during the period of 
delay might offset much of the savings from delayed investment. That 
the project was delayed is evidence that doing so decreased overall 
cost, but it does not indicate that the decrease was equal to the 
entire savings in capital cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

O. Employment Impact Analysis

    Employment impacts from new or amended energy conservation 
standards include direct and indirect impacts. Direct employment 
impacts are any changes in the number of employees of manufacturers of 
the product subject to standards; the MIA addresses those impacts. 
Indirect employment impacts are changes in national employment that 
occur due to the shift in expenditures and capital investment caused by 
the purchase and operation of more efficient product. Indirect 
employment impacts from standards consist of the 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 
product; and (4) the effects of those three factors throughout the 
economy.
    One method for assessing the possible effects on the demand for 
labor of such shifts in economic activity is to compare sector 
employment statistics developed by the Labor Department's Bureau of 
Labor Statistics (BLS). BLS regularly publishes its estimates of the 
number of jobs per million dollars of economic activity in different 
sectors of the economy, as well as the jobs created elsewhere in the 
economy by this same economic activity. Data from BLS indicate that 
expenditures in the utility sector generally create fewer jobs (both 
directly and indirectly) than expenditures in other sectors of the 
economy. There are many reasons for these differences, including wage 
differences and the fact that the utility sector is more capital-
intensive and less labor-intensive than other sectors. Energy 
conservation standards have the effect of reducing consumer utility 
bills. Because reduced consumer expenditures for energy likely lead to 
increased expenditures in other sectors of the economy, the general 
effect of efficiency standards is to shift economic activity from a 
less labor-intensive

[[Page 24142]]

sector (i.e., the utility sector) to more labor-intensive sectors 
(e.g., the retail and service sectors). Based on the BLS data, DOE 
expects that net national employment may increase because of shifts in 
economic activity resulting from amended standards.
    For the standard levels considered in the NOPR, DOE estimated 
indirect national employment impacts using an input/output model of the 
U.S. economy called Impact of Sector Energy Technologies, Version 3.1.1 
(ImSET). ImSET is a special-purpose version of the ``U.S. Benchmark 
National Input-Output'' (I-O) model, which was designed to estimate the 
national employment and income effects of energy-saving technologies. 
The ImSET software includes a computer-based I-O model having 
structural coefficients that characterize economic flows among the 187 
sectors. ImSET's national economic I-O structure is based on a 2002 
U.S. benchmark table, specially aggregated to the 187 sectors most 
relevant to industrial, commercial, and residential building energy 
use. DOE notes that ImSET is not a general equilibrium forecasting 
model, and understands the uncertainties involved in projecting 
employment impacts, especially changes in the later years of the 
analysis. Because ImSET does not incorporate price changes, the 
employment effects predicted by ImSET may over-estimate actual job 
impacts over the long run. For the NOPR, DOE used ImSET only to 
estimate short-term employment impacts. For more details on the 
employment impact analysis, see chapter 17 of the NOPR TSD.

P. Other Comments

    DOE received several comments that address the overall merits of 
adopting amended standards for GSFLs and IRLs.
    NEMA stated that existing voluntary incentives are already shifting 
the market to higher-efficiency products and systems. (NEMA, No. 36 at 
p. 17) Trends in the GSFL and IRL market are accounted for in DOE's 
projection of the base case. The impacts estimated for potential 
standards are above movement toward higher efficiency in the base case.
    NEMA commented that standards are not justified for IRLs. 
Specifically, NEMA stated that the miniscule energy savings estimated 
for IRLs, combined with elimination of their market share by 2025, 
demonstrate why this class should not be further regulated and DOE 
should not adopt a new standard. (NEMA, No. 36 at pp. 2, 17) DOE's 
analysis indicates that the market share of IRLs would decline under 
the proposed standards, but the product would not be eliminated. The 
reasons for DOE's decision to propose standards for IRLs are explained 
in section VII.C of this notice.
    NEMA also stated that, if DOE were to proceed with a higher 
standard for T5 SO lamps, the projected shipments go up (compared with 
the base case). It noted that, as the only competitor for T5 SO is LED, 
increasing the demand for T5 SO takes market share away from LED, a 
technology that is on the rise for reasons of popularity, lifetime, and 
efficiency. It stated that decreasing demand for LED technology in 
favor of an obsoleting technology that relies on critical materials 
(rare earth phosphors) and mercury is not a sound decision. (NEMA, No. 
36 at p. 17) As discussed in chapter 11 of the NOPR TSD, the model 
accounts for the progressive and large incursion of LEDs into the GSFL 
market. The model then apportions the remaining demand for GSFL lamps 
among the product classes. The projected increase in shipments of T5 SO 
lamps relative to the base case is at the expense of 4-foot MBP lamps, 
not LEDs.

VII. Analytical Results

A. Trial Standard Levels

    At the NOPR stage, DOE develops trial standard levels (TSLs) for 
consideration. The GSFL and IRL TSLs are formed by grouping different 
efficacy levels, which are potential standard levels for each product 
class. TSL 5 is composed of the max tech efficacy levels. TSL 4 is 
composed of the efficacy levels that, in combination, yield the maximum 
NPV. TSL 3 is composed of the efficacy levels that yield the maximum 
energy savings without using any of the EL 2 levels. TSL 2 is composed 
of the efficacy levels that would bring all product classes to 
approximately the same level of rare earth phosphor. TSL 1 is composed 
of the levels that represent the least efficacious lamps currently 
available on the U.S. market; currently there are no products in the 
market at the baseline (EL 0) for 8-foot RDC HO lamps or T5 lamps. For 
IRLs, DOE considered one TSL because only one efficacy level was 
analyzed (Table VII.2).
    DOE used data on the representative product classes from the 
engineering and pricing analyses described in section VI.D.2.b for 
GSFLs and section VI.D.3.b for IRLs to evaluate the benefits and 
burdens of each of the GSFL and IRL TSLs. DOE analyzed the benefits and 
burdens by conducting the analyses described in section VI for each 
TSL. Table VII.1 presents the GSFL TSLs analyzed and the corresponding 
efficacy level for each GSFL representative product class. Table VII.2 
presents the IRL TSL analyzed and the corresponding efficacy level for 
the representative IRL product class.

                          Table VII.1--Composition of TSLs for GSFLs by Efficacy Level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   TSL 1 Current    TSL 2 Same    TSL 3 Best non-
  Representative product class      market min    phosphor level       EL 2        TSL 4 Max NPV  TSL 5 Max tech
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 4-foot medium bipin, CCT                    0               0               1               2               2
 2.5 inch diameter; A'' (not applicable) for the baselines. 
Chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD provides a detailed description of the LCC 
and PBP analysis and the results. Appendix 8B of the NOPR TSD 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 AEO 2013 high-economic-growth and low-economic-growth cases.
    The results for each TSL are relative to the energy use 
distribution in the base case (no amended standards), based on energy 
consumption under conditions of actual product use. The rebuttable 
presumption PBP is based on test values under conditions prescribed by 
the DOE test procedure, as required by EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(iii))
General Service Fluorescent Lamps
    Table VII.3 through Table VII.11 present the results for each of 
the five GSFL representative product classes that DOE analyzed. 
Specifically, these were the 4-foot MBP product class, 4-foot MiniBP SO 
product class, 4-foot MiniBP HO product class, 8-foot SP slimline 
product class, and 8-foot RDC HO product class. For GSFLs, results for 
the most common sector for each product class are presented. Chapter 8 
of the NOPR TSD provides the LCC and PBP results for each product class 
in all relevant sectors.

                                Table VII.3--LCC and PBP Results for a 2-Lamp 4-Foot 32 W T8 Medium Bipin Instant Start System Operating in the Commercial Sector
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                             Life-cycle cost              Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Rated                                                                            Percentage of        Mean
                                                                                     lamp                                      Discounted                           consumers that      payback
               Event                        Response            Efficacy level     efficacy      Design option      Installed   operating     LCC        LCC          experience         period
                                                                                     lm/W                              cost       cost       2012$     savings  ----------------------   years
                                                                                                                      2012$       2012$                 2012$                  Net
                                                                                                                                                                  Net cost   benefit
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Event I: Lamp Failure..............  Baseline..............  Baseline...........       89.2  32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF        17.19      116.96     134.33        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                                                                              Inst.
                                     Lamp Replacement......  EL 1...............       90.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF        33.38      116.96     138.62      -4.29        100          0        NER
                                                             EL 2...............       93.0   Inst.                     29.79       98.00     127.98       6.36        0.1       99.9        3.2
                                                             EL 2...............       95.4  26.6 W T8 & 0.88 BF        26.73      116.96     143.88      -9.55        100          0        NER
                                                             EL 2...............       96.0   Inst.                     23.99      105.12     129.29       5.04          0        100        2.8
                                                                                             32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF
                                                                                              Inst.
                                                                                             28.4 W T8 & 0.88 BF
                                                                                              Inst.
Event II: Ballast Failure..........  Baseline..............  Baseline...........       89.2  32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF        59.99      115.47     158.74        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                                                                              Inst.
                                     Lamp & Ballast          EL 1...............       90.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.78 BF        76.18      103.28     150.84       7.90          0        100        0.4
                                      Replacement.           EL 2...............       93.0   Inst.                     72.59       96.70     152.58       6.17        0.1       99.9        3.3
                                                             EL 2...............       95.4  26.6 W T8 & 0.88 BF        69.53      101.06     153.88       4.87        0.1       99.9        3.2
                                                             EL 2...............       96.0   Inst.                     66.79      101.96     152.03       6.72          0        100        2.4
                                                                                             32.5 W T8 & 0.77 BF
                                                                                              Inst.
                                                                                             28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF
                                                                                              Inst.
Event III: New Construction and      Baseline..............  Baseline...........       89.2  32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF        62.78      115.47     160.44        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
 Renovation.                                                                                  Inst.
                                     New Lamp & Ballast      EL 1...............       90.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.78 BF        78.97      103.28     152.53       7.90          0        100        0.4
                                      Purchase.              EL 2...............       93.0   Inst.                     75.39       96.70     154.27       6.17        0.1       99.9        3.3
                                                             EL 2...............       95.4  26.6 W T8 & 0.88 BF        72.33      101.06     155.57       4.87        0.1       99.9        3.2
                                                             EL 2...............       96.0   Inst.                     69.58      101.96     153.72       6.72          0        100        2.4
                                                                                             32.5 W T8 & 0.77 BF
                                                                                              Inst.
                                                                                             28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF
                                                                                              Inst.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 24144]]

                              Table VII.4--LCC and PBP Results for a 2-Lamp 4-Foot 32 W T8 Medium Bipin Programmed Start System Operating in the Commercial Sector
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                             Life-cycle cost              Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Rated                                                                            Percentage of        Mean
                                                                                     lamp                                      Discounted                           consumers that      payback
               Event                        Response            Efficacy level     efficacy      Design option      Installed   operating     LCC        LCC          experience         period
                                                                                     lm/W                              cost       cost       2012$     savings  ----------------------   years
                                                                                                                      2012$       2012$                 2012$                  Net
                                                                                                                                                                  Net cost   benefit
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Event I: Lamp Failure..............  Baseline..............  Baseline...........       89.2  32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF        17.19      178.88     196.22        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                                                                              Prog.
                                     Lamp Replacement......  EL 1...............       90.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF        31.26      178.88     202.33      -6.11      100.0        0.0        NER
                                                             EL 2...............       93.0   Prog.                     29.79      150.18     180.13      16.09        0.0      100.0        3.3
                                                             EL 2...............       95.4  26.6 W T8 & 0.88 BF        26.73      178.88     205.77      -9.55      100.0        0.0        NER
                                                             EL 2...............       96.0   Prog.                     23.99      160.96     185.10      11.12        0.0      100.0        2.8
                                                                                             32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF
                                                                                              Prog.
                                                                                             28.4 W T8 & 0.88 BF
                                                                                              Prog.
Event II: Ballast Failure..........  Baseline..............  Baseline...........       89.2  32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF        61.19      178.88     234.11        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                                                                              Prog.
                                     Lamp & Ballast          EL 1...............       90.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF        75.27      178.88     240.22      -6.11      100.0        0.0        NER
                                      Replacement.           EL 1...............       90.0   Prog.                     75.27      150.40     211.74      22.37        0.0      100.0        0.3
                                                             EL 2...............       93.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.72 BF        73.80      150.18     218.02      16.09        0.0      100.0        3.3
                                                             EL 2...............       95.4   Prog.                     70.74      178.88     243.66      -9.55      100.0        0.0        NER
                                                             EL 2...............       95.4  26.6 W T8 & 0.88 BF        70.74      150.40     215.18      18.93        0.0      100.0        2.5
                                                             EL 2...............       96.0   Prog.                     67.99      160.96     222.99      11.12        0.0      100.0        2.8
                                                                                             32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF
                                                                                              Prog.
                                                                                             32.5 W T8 & 0.72 BF
                                                                                              Prog.
                                                                                             28.4 W T8 & 0.88 BF
                                                                                              Prog.
Event III: New Construction and      Baseline..............  Baseline...........       89.2  32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF        63.98      178.88     236.52        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
 Renovation.                                                                                  Prog.
                                     New Lamp & Ballast      EL 1...............       90.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF        78.06      178.88     242.63      -6.11      100.0        0.0        NER
                                      Purchase.              EL 1...............       90.0   Prog.                     78.06      150.40     214.15      22.37        0.0      100.0        0.3
                                                             EL 2...............       93.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.72 BF        76.59      150.18     220.43      16.09        0.0      100.0        3.3
                                                             EL 2...............       95.4   Prog.                     73.53      178.88     246.06      -9.55      100.0        0.0        NER
                                                             EL 2...............       95.4  26.6 W T8 & 0.88 BF        73.53      150.40     217.59      18.93        0.0      100.0        2.5
                                                             EL 2...............       96.0   Prog.                     70.79      160.96     225.40      11.12        0.0      100.0        2.8
                                                                                             32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF
                                                                                              Prog.
                                                                                             32.5 W T8 & 0.72 BF
                                                                                              Prog.
                                                                                             28.4 W T8 & 0.88 BF
                                                                                              Prog.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                Table VII.5--LCC and PBP Results for a 4-Lamp 4-Foot 32 W T8 Medium Bipin Instant Start System Operating in the Commercial Sector
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                             Life-cycle cost              Life-Cycle Cost Savings
                                                                                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Rated                                                                            Percentage of        Mean
                                                                                     lamp                                      Discounted                           consumers that      payback
               Event                        Response            Efficacy level     efficacy      Design option      Installed   operating     LCC        LCC          experience         period
                                                                                     lm/W                              cost       cost       2012$     Savings  ----------------------   years
                                                                                                                      2012$       2012$                 2012$                  Net
                                                                                                                                                                  Net Cost   Benefit
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Event I: Lamp Failure..............  Baseline..............  Baseline...........       89.2  32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF        27.95      225.79     254.11        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                                                                              Inst.
                                     Lamp Replacement......  EL 1...............       90.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF        55.06      225.79     261.52      -7.41      100.0        0.0        NER
                                                             EL 2...............       93.0   Inst.                     53.17      188.99     242.52      11.58        0.2       99.8        3.3
                                                             EL 2...............       95.4  26.6 W T8 & 0.87 BF        47.05      225.79     273.20     -19.10      100.0        0.0        NER
                                                             EL 2...............       96.0   Inst.                     41.56      202.80     244.72       9.39        0.0      100.0        2.9
                                                                                             32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF
                                                                                              Inst.
                                                                                             28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF
                                                                                              Inst.
Event II: Ballast Failure..........  Baseline..............  Baseline...........       89.2  32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF        86.30      223.94     287.56        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                                                                              Inst.

[[Page 24145]]

 
                                     Lamp & Ballast          EL 1...............       90.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.78 BF       113.40      202.45     273.49      14.07        0.0      100.0        0.5
                                      Replacement.           EL 2...............       93.0   Inst.                    111.51      187.37     276.22      11.35        0.3       99.7        3.3
                                                             EL 2...............       95.4  26.6 W T8 & 0.87 BF       105.39      195.81     278.53       9.03        0.2       99.8        3.3
                                                             EL 2...............       96.0   Inst.                     99.90      201.09     278.32       9.24        0.0      100.0        2.9
                                                                                             32.5 W T8 & 0.74 BF
                                                                                              Inst.
                                                                                             28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF
                                                                                              Inst.
Event III: New Construction and      Baseline..............  Baseline...........       89.2  32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF        89.09      223.94     289.26        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
 Renovation.                                                                                  Inst.
                                     New Lamp & Ballast      EL 1...............       90.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.78 BF       116.20      202.45     275.18      14.07        0.0      100.0        0.5
                                      Purchase.              EL 2...............       93.0   Inst.                    114.31      187.37     277.91      11.35        0.3       99.7        3.3
                                                             EL 2...............       95.4  26.6 W T8 & 0.87 BF       108.19      195.81     280.23       9.03        0.2       99.8        3.3
                                                             EL 2...............       96.0   Inst.                    102.70      201.09     280.02       9.24        0.0      100.0        2.9
                                                                                             32.5 W T8 & 0.74 BF
                                                                                              Inst.
                                                                                             28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF
                                                                                              Inst.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              Table VII.6--LCC and PBP Results for a 4-Lamp 4-Foot 32 W T8 Medium Bipin Programmed Start System Operating in the Commercial Sector
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                             Life-cycle cost              Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Rated                                                                            Percentage of        Mean
                                                                                     lamp                                                                           consumers that      payback
               Event                        Response            Efficacy level     efficacy      Design option      Installed  Discounted                LCC          experience         period
                                                                                     lm/W                              cost     operating  LCC 2012$   savings  ----------------------   years
                                                                                                                      2012$    cost 2012$               2012$                  Net
                                                                                                                                                                  Net cost   benefit
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Event I: Lamp Failure..............  Baseline..............  Baseline...........       89.2  32.5 W T8 & 0.89 BF        27.95      354.89     383.16        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                                                                              Prog.
                                     Lamp Replacement......  EL 1...............       90.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.89 BF        51.55      354.89     393.58     -10.42      100.0        0.0        NER
                                                             EL 2...............       93.0   Prog.                     53.17      297.59     351.07      32.08        0.0      100.0        3.3
                                                             EL 2...............       95.4  26.6 W T8 & 0.89 BF        47.05      354.89     402.25     -19.10      100.0        0.0        NER
                                                             EL 2...............       96.0   Prog.                     41.56      319.10     360.97      22.19        0.0      100.0        2.8
                                                                                             32.5 W T8 & 0.89 BF
                                                                                              Prog.
                                                                                             28.4 W T8 & 0.89 BF
                                                                                              Prog.
Event II: Ballast Failure..........  Baseline..............  Baseline...........       89.2  32.5 W T8 & 0.89 BF        88.14      354.89     434.98        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                                                                              Prog.
                                     Lamp & Ballast          EL 1...............       90.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF       111.73      339.09     429.60       5.38        0.4       99.6        1.0
                                      Replacement.           EL 2...............       93.0   Prog.                    113.36      297.59     402.90      32.08        0.0      100.0        3.3
                                                             EL 2...............       95.4  26.6 W T8 & 0.89 BF       107.24      339.09     438.28      -3.29       81.9       18.1        9.0
                                                             EL 2...............       96.0   Prog.                    101.75      304.62     398.32      36.66        0.0      100.0        2.0
                                                                                             32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF
                                                                                              Prog.
                                                                                             28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF
                                                                                              Prog.
Event III: New Construction and      Baseline..............  Baseline...........       89.2  32.5 W T8 & 0.89 BF        90.94      354.89     437.39        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
 Renovation.                                                                                  Prog.
                                     New Lamp & Ballast      EL 1...............       90.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF       114.53      339.09     432.01       5.38        0.4       99.6        1.0
                                      Purchase.              EL 2...............       93.0   Prog.                    116.15      297.59     405.30      32.08        0.0      100.0        3.3
                                                             EL 2...............       95.4  26.6 W T8 & 0.89 BF       110.03      339.09     440.68      -3.29       81.9       18.1        9.0
                                                             EL 2...............       96.0   Prog.                    104.54      304.62     400.73      36.66        0.0      100.0        2.0
                                                                                             32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF
                                                                                              Prog.
                                                                                             28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF
                                                                                              Prog.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 24146]]

                               Table VII.7--LCC and PBP Results for a 2-Lamp 4-Foot 32 W T8 Medium Bipin Instant Start System Operating in the Residential Sector
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                             Life-cycle cost              Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Rated                                                                            Percentage of        Mean
                                                                                     lamp                                                                           consumers that      payback
               Event                        Response            Efficacy level     efficacy      Design option      Installed  Discounted                LCC          experience         period
                                                                                     lm/W                              cost     operating  LCC 2012$   savings  ----------------------   years
                                                                                                                      2012$    cost 2012$               2012$                  Net
                                                                                                                                                                  Net cost   benefit
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Event I: Lamp Failure..............  Baseline..............  Baseline...........       89.2  32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF        10.48       46.85      57.34        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                                                                              Inst.
                                     Lamp Replacement......  EL 1...............       90.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF        11.58       46.85      58.43      -1.09        100          0        NER
                                                             EL 2...............       93.0   Inst.                     23.09       39.29      62.38      -5.05       94.8        5.2       17.6
                                                             EL 2...............       95.4  26.6 W T8 & 0.87 BF        20.03       46.85      66.88      -9.55        100          0        NER
                                                             EL 2...............       96.0   Inst.                     17.29       42.13      59.41      -2.08       89.8       10.2       15.2
                                                                                             32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF
                                                                                              Inst.
                                                                                             28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF
                                                                                              Inst.
Event II: Ballast Failure..........  Baseline..............  Baseline...........       89.2  32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF        52.71       46.85      99.56        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                                                                              Inst.
                                     Lamp & Ballast          EL 1...............       90.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.83 BF        53.80       44.48      98.28       1.28        1.1       98.9        4.9
                                      Replacement.           EL 2...............       93.0   Inst.                     65.32       39.29     104.61      -5.05       94.8        5.2       17.6
                                                             EL 2...............       95.4  26.6 W T8 & 0.87 BF        62.26       44.48     106.73      -7.17        100          0       42.5
                                                             EL 2...............       96.0   Inst.                     59.51       39.99      99.50       0.06         49         51       10.5
                                                                                             32.5 W T8 & 0.83 BF
                                                                                              Inst.
                                                                                             28.4 W T8 & 0.83 BF
                                                                                              Inst.
Event III: New Construction and      Baseline..............  Baseline...........       89.2  32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF        55.51       46.85     102.36        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
 Renovation.                                                                                  Inst.
                                     New Lamp & Ballast      EL 1...............       90.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.83 BF        56.60       44.48     101.08       1.28        1.1       98.9        4.9
                                      Purchase.              EL 2...............       93.0   Inst.                     68.11       39.29     107.40      -5.05       94.8        5.2       17.6
                                                             EL 2...............       95.4  26.6 W T8 & 0.87 BF        65.05       44.48     109.53      -7.17        100          0       42.5
                                                             EL 2...............       96.0   Inst.                     62.31       39.99     102.30       0.06         49         51       10.5
                                                                                             32.5 W T8 & 0.83 BF
                                                                                              Inst.
                                                                                             28.4 W T8 & 0.83 BF
                                                                                              Inst.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              Table VII.8--LCC and PBP Results for a Two-Lamp 4-Foot 54 W T5 Miniature Bipin High Output System Operating in the Industrial Sector
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                             Life-cycle cost              Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Rated                                                                             Percentage of        Mean
                                                                                    lamp                                                                            consumers that      payback
               Event                        Response           Efficacy level     efficacy       Design option      Installed  Discounted                LCC          experience         period
                                                                                    lm/W                               cost     operating  LCC 2012$   savings  ----------------------   years
                                                                                                                      2012$    cost 2012$               2012$                  Net
                                                                                                                                                                  Net cost   benefit
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Event I: Lamp Failure..............  Baseline..............  Baseline..........       83.6  53.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog.      18.58      181.10     199.85        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                     Lamp Replacement......  EL 1..............       92.9  53.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog.      26.60      181.10     207.87      -8.02      100.0        0.0        NER
                                                             EL 1..............      102.0  49 W T5 & 1 BF Prog...      32.52      165.38     191.12       8.73        0.0      100.0        3.9
                                                             EL 1..............      102.1  47 W T5 & 1 BF Prog...      35.43      158.83     190.02       9.83        0.0      100.0        3.3
Event II: Ballast Failure..........  Baseline..............  Baseline..........       83.6  53.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog.      72.69      181.10     233.62        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                     Lamp & Ballast          EL 1..............       92.9  53.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog.      80.72      181.10     241.65      -8.02      100.0        0.0        NER
                                      Replacement.           EL 1..............      102.0  49 W T5 & 1 BF Prog...      86.64      165.38     224.89       8.73        0.0      100.0        3.9
                                                             EL 1..............      102.1  47 W T5 & 1 BF Prog...      89.55      158.83     223.79       9.83        0.0      100.0        3.3
Event III: New Construction and      Baseline..............  Baseline..........       83.6  53.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog.      75.49      181.10     235.37        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
 Renovation.
                                     New Lamp & Ballast      EL 1..............       92.9  53.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog.      83.51      181.10     243.39      -8.02      100.0        0.0        NER
                                      Purchase.              EL 1..............      102.0  49 W T5 & 1 BF Prog...      89.43      165.38     226.64       8.73        0.0      100.0        3.9
                                                             EL 1..............      102.1  47 W T5 & 1 BF Prog...      92.35      158.83     225.54       9.83        0.0      100.0        3.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 24147]]

                            Table VII.9--LCC and PBP Results for a Two-Lamp 4-Foot 28 W T5 Miniature Bipin Standard Output System Operating in the Commercial Sector
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                             Life-cycle cost              Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Rated                                                                            Percentage of        Mean
                                                                                     lamp                                      Discounted                           consumers that      payback
               Event                        Response            Efficacy level     efficacy      Design option      Installed   operating     LCC        LCC          experience         period
                                                                                     lm/W                              cost       cost       2012$     savings  ----------------------   years
                                                                                                                      2012$       2012$                 2012$                  Net
                                                                                                                                                                  Net cost   benefit
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Event I: Lamp Failure..............  Baseline..............  Baseline...........       94.6  27.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog      15.30      152.84     168.31        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                     Lamp Replacement......  EL 1...............      104.3  27.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog      19.17      152.84     172.18      -3.87      100.0        0.0        NER
                                                             EL 2...............      109.7  27.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog      21.52      152.84     174.54      -6.22      100.0        0.0        NER
                                                             EL 2...............      111.5  26 W T5 & 1 BF Prog..      24.67      143.23     168.07       0.25       57.9       42.1        5.7
                                                             EL 2...............      116.0  25 W T5 & 1 BF Prog..      27.41      137.88     162.64       5.68        0.2       99.8        4.8
Event II: Ballast Failure..........  Baseline..............  Baseline...........       94.6  27.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog      68.19      152.84     205.74        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                     Lamp & Ballast          EL 1...............      104.3  27.8 W T5 & 0.85 BF        72.06      134.13     190.90      14.84        0.0      100.0        1.2
                                      Replacement.           EL 2...............      109.7   Prog.                     74.41      134.13     193.25      12.49        0.0      100.0        2.0
                                                             EL 2...............      111.5  27.8 W T5 & 0.85 BF        77.56      125.79     188.05      17.69        0.0      100.0        2.0
                                                             EL 2...............      116.0   Prog.                     80.30      121.15     183.32      22.42        0.0      100.0        2.2
                                                                                             26 W T5 & 0.85 BF
                                                                                              Prog.
                                                                                             25 W T5 & 0.85 BF
                                                                                              Prog.
Event III: New Construction and      Baseline..............  Baseline...........       94.6  27.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog      70.99      152.84     207.72        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
 Renovation.
                                     New Lamp & Ballast      EL 1...............      104.3  27.8 W T5 & 0.85 BF        74.86      134.13     192.88      14.84        0.0      100.0        1.2
                                      Purchase.              EL 2...............      109.7   Prog.                     77.21      134.13     195.23      12.49        0.0      100.0        2.0
                                                             EL 2...............      111.5  27.8 W T5 & 0.85 BF        80.35      125.79     190.03      17.69        0.0      100.0        2.0
                                                             EL 2...............      116.0   Prog.                     83.10      121.15     185.30      22.42        0.0      100.0        2.2
                                                                                             26 W T5 & 0.85 BF
                                                                                              Prog.
                                                                                             25 W T5 & 0.85 BF
                                                                                              Prog.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                  Table VII.10--LCC and PBP Results for a Two-Lamp 8-Foot 59 W T8 Single Pin Slimline System Operating in the Commercial Sector
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                             Life-cycle cost              Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Rated                                                                            Percentage of        Mean
                                                                                     lamp                                      Discounted                           consumers that      payback
               Event                        Response            Efficacy level     efficacy      Design option      Installed   operating     LCC        LCC          experience         period
                                                                                     lm/W                              cost       cost       2012$     savings  ----------------------   years
                                                                                                                      2012$       2012$                 2012$                  Net
                                                                                                                                                                  Net cost   benefit
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Event I: Lamp Failure..............  Baseline..............  Baseline...........       96.5  60.1 W T8 & 0.87 BF        26.72      219.51     246.59        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                                                                              Inst.
                                     Lamp Replacement......  EL 1...............       98.2  60.1 W T8 & 0.87 BF        29.40      219.51     249.27      -2.68      100.0        0.0        NER
                                                             EL 2...............       99.0   Inst.                     34.52      219.51     254.39      -7.80      100.0        0.0        NER
                                                             EL 2...............      105.6  60.1 W T8 & 0.87 BF        43.51      208.16     252.02      -5.43       96.1        3.9        7.1
                                                             EL 2...............      108.0   Inst.                     50.87      193.01     244.23       2.36       44.6       55.4        4.3
                                                                                             54 W T8 & 0.87 BF
                                                                                              Inst.
                                                                                             50 W T8 & 0.87 BF
                                                                                              Inst.
Event II: Ballast Failure..........  Baseline..............  Baseline...........       96.5  60.1 W T8 & 0.87 BF       102.46      216.15     288.57        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                                                                              Inst.
                                     Lamp & Ballast          EL 1...............       98.2  60.1 W T8 & 0.77 BF       105.14      193.01     268.11      20.46        0.0      100.0        0.6
                                      Replacement.           EL 2...............       99.0   Inst.                    110.25      193.01     273.23      15.34        0.0      100.0        1.6
                                                             EL 2...............      105.6  60.1 W T8 & 0.77 BF       119.24      183.01     272.22      16.35        0.0      100.0        2.4
                                                             EL 2...............      108.0   Inst.                    126.60      189.96     286.53       2.05       47.6       52.4        4.4
                                                                                             54 W T8 & 0.77 BF
                                                                                              Inst.
                                                                                             50 W T8 & 0.87 BF
                                                                                              Inst.

[[Page 24148]]

 
Event III: New Construction and      Baseline..............  Baseline...........       96.5  60.1 W T8 & 0.87 BF       105.25      216.15     290.24        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
 Renovation.                                                                                  Inst.
                                     New Lamp & Ballast      EL 1...............       98.2  60.1 W T8 & 0.77 BF       107.93      193.01     269.78      20.46        0.0      100.0        0.6
                                      Purchase.              EL 2...............       99.0   Inst.                    113.05      193.01     274.90      15.34        0.0      100.0        1.6
                                                             EL 2...............      105.6  60.1 W T8 & 0.77 BF       122.04      183.01     273.89      16.35        0.0      100.0        2.4
                                                             EL 2...............      108.0   Inst.                    129.40      189.96     288.20       2.05       47.6       52.4        4.4
                                                                                             54 W T8 & 0.77 BF
                                                                                              Inst.
                                                                                             50 W T8 & 0.87 BF
                                                                                              Inst.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              Table VII.11--LCC and PBP Results for a Two-Lamp 8-Foot 86 W T8 Recessed Double Contact HO System Operating in the Industrial Sector
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                             Life-cycle cost              Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Rated                                                                            Percentage of        Mean
                                                                                     lamp                                                                           consumers that      payback
               Event                        Response            Efficacy level     efficacy      Design option      Installed  Discounted                LCC          experience         period
                                                                                     lm/W                              cost     operating  LCC 2012$   savings  ----------------------   years
                                                                                                                      2012$    cost 2012$               2012$                  Net
                                                                                                                                                                  Net cost   benefit
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Event I: Lamp Failure..............  Baseline..............  Baseline...........       92.0  84 W T8 & 0.81 BF          24.45      171.55     196.38        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                                                                              Inst.
                                     Lamp Replacement......  EL 1...............       95.2  84 W T8 & 0.81 BF          34.01      171.55     205.94      -9.56      100.0        0.0        NER
                                                             EL 2...............       97.6   Inst.                     41.22      171.55     213.15     -16.77      100.0        0.0        NER
                                                                                             84 W T8 & 0.81 BF
                                                                                              Inst.
Event II: Ballast Failure..........  Baseline..............  Baseline...........       92.0  84 W T8 & 0.81 BF         100.34      171.55     233.59        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                                                                              Inst.
                                     Lamp & Ballast          EL 1...............       95.2  84 W T8 & 0.81 BF         109.90      171.55     243.15      -9.56      100.0        0.0        NER
                                      Replacement.           EL 2...............       97.6   Inst.                    117.11      171.55     250.36     -16.77      100.0        0.0        NER
                                                                                             84 W T8 & 0.81 BF
                                                                                              Inst.
Event III: New Construction and      Baseline..............  Baseline...........       92.0  84 W T8 & 0.81 BF         103.14      171.55     234.96        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
 Renovation.                                                                                  Inst.
                                     New Lamp & Ballast      EL 1...............       95.2  84 W T8 & 0.81 BF         112.70      171.55     244.52      -9.56      100.0        0.0        NER
                                      Purchase.              EL 2...............       97.6   Inst.                    119.91      171.55     251.73     -16.77      100.0        0.0        NER
                                                                                             84 W T8 & 0.81 BF
                                                                                              Inst.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Incandescent Reflector Lamps
    Table VII.12 through Table VII.15 present the commercial and 
residential sector LCC results for the IRL representative product 
class, the standard spectrum IRLs with diameters greater than 2.5 
inches, input voltages less than 125 V.

[[Page 24149]]

                                  Table VII.12--LCC and PBP Results for a 55 W PAR38 2,500 Hour HIR EL 1 Representative Lamp Operating in the Commercial Sector
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                             Life-cycle cost              Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Rated                                                                            Percentage of        Mean
                                                                                     lamp                                                                           consumers that      payback
               Event                        Response            Efficacy level     efficacy       Lamp option       Installed  Discounted                LCC          experience         period
                                                                                     lm/W                              cost     operating  LCC 2012$   savings  ----------------------   years
                                                                                                                      2012$    cost 2012$               2012$                  Net
                                                                                                                                                                  Net cost   benefit
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Event I: Lamp Failure; or Event      Baseline..............  Baseline...........       17.8  60W, 1500hrs,              10.52        9.06      19.58        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
 III: New Construction and                                                                    Improved Halogen.
 Renovation.
                                     Lamp Replacement or     EL 1...............       18.5  55W, 2500hrs, HIR....      13.07        8.30      16.14       3.44        0.0      100.0        3.2
                                      New Lamp Purchase.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 Table VII.13--LCC and PBP Results for a 55 W PAR38 2,500 Hour HIR EL 1 Representative Lamp Operating in the Residential Sector
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                             Life-cycle cost              Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Rated                                                                            Percentage of        Mean
                                                                                     lamp                                                                           consumers that      payback
               Event                        Response            Efficacy level     efficacy       Lamp option       Installed  Discounted                LCC          experience         period
                                                                                     lm/W                              cost     operating  LCC 2012$   savings  ----------------------   years
                                                                                                                      2012$    cost 2012$               2012$                  Net
                                                                                                                                                                  Net cost   benefit
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Event I: Lamp Failure; or Event      Baseline..............  Baseline...........       17.8  60W, 1500hrs,               9.40       10.36      19.75        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
 III: New Construction and                                                                    Improved Halogen.
 Renovation.
                                     Lamp Replacement or     EL 1...............       18.5  55W, 2500hrs, HIR....      11.94        9.49      17.10       2.65        0.0      100.0        5.4
                                      New Lamp Purchase.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             Table VII.14--LCC and PBP Results for a 55 W PAR38 4,200 Hour Improved HIR EL 1 Representative Lamp Operating in the Commercial Sector
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                             Life-cycle cost              Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Rated                                                                            Percentage of        Mean
                                                                                     lamp                                      Discounted                           consumers that      payback
               Event                        Response            Efficacy level     efficacy       Lamp option       Installed   operating     LCC        LCC          experience         period
                                                                                     lm/W                              cost       cost       2012$     savings  ----------------------   years
                                                                                                                      2012$       2012$                 2012$                  Net
                                                                                                                                                                  Net cost   benefit
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Event I: Lamp Failure; or Event      Baseline..............  Baseline...........       17.8  60W, 1500hrs,              10.52        9.06      19.58        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
 III: New Construction and                                                                    Improved Halogen.
 Renovation.
                                     Lamp Replacement or     EL 1...............       18.5  55W, 4200hrs,              14.94        8.30      13.64       5.94          0        100        5.6
                                      New Lamp Purchase.                                      Improved HIR.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 24150]]

                             Table VII.15--LCC and PBP Results for a 55 W PAR38 4,200 Hour Improved HIR EL 1 Representative Lamp Operating in the Residential Sector
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                             Life-cycle cost              Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Rated                                                                            Percentage of        Mean
                                                                                     lamp                                      Discounted                           consumers that      payback
               Event                        Response            Efficacy level     efficacy       Lamp option       Installed   operating     LCC        LCC          experience         period
                                                                                     lm/W                              cost       cost       2012$     savings  ----------------------   years
                                                                                                                      2012$       2012$                 2012$                  Net
                                                                                                                                                                  Net cost   benefit
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Event I: Lamp Failure; or Event      Baseline..............  Baseline...........       17.8  60W, 1500hrs,               9.40       10.36      19.75        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
 III: New Construction and                                                                    Improved Halogen.
 Renovation.
                                     Lamp Replacement or     EL 1...............       18.5  55W, 4200hrs,              13.81        9.49      15.26       4.49          0        100        9.4
                                      New Lamp Purchase.                                      Improved HIR.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
    Certain consumer subgroups may be disproportionately affected by 
standards. Using the LCC spreadsheet model, DOE determined the impact 
of the TSLs on the following consumer subgroups: low-income consumers 
and institutions that serve low-income populations.
    To reflect conditions faced by the identified subgroups, DOE 
adjusted particular inputs to the LCC model. For low-income consumers, 
DOE only used RECS data for consumers living below the poverty line. 
For institutions serving low-income populations, DOE assumed that the 
majority of these institutions are small nonprofits, and used a higher 
discount rate of 9.6 percent (versus 5.1 percent for the main 
commercial sector analysis). DOE found the differences between the LCC 
and PBP results for the subgroups analyzed and the primary LCC and PBP 
analysis to be minimal. See chapter 9 of the NOPR TSD further details 
of the consumer subgroup analysis.
General Service Fluorescent Lamps
    Table VII.16 through Table VII.24 below show the LCC impacts and 
payback periods for the identified subgroups for GSFLs. Entries of 
``NER'' indicate standard levels that do not reduce operating costs.

   Table VII.16--LCC and PBP Subgroup Results for Institutions Serving Low Income Populations for a 2-Lamp 4-Foot 32 W T8 Medium Bipin Instant Start System Operating in the Commercial Sector
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                             Life-cycle cost              Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Rated                                                                            Percentage of        Mean
                                                                                     lamp                                      Discounted                           consumers that      payback
               Event                        Response            Efficacy level     efficacy      Design option      Installed   operating     LCC        LCC          experience         period
                                                                                     lm/W                              cost       cost       2012$     savings  ----------------------   years
                                                                                                                      2012$       2012$                 2012$                  Net
                                                                                                                                                                  Net cost   benefit
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Event I: Lamp Failure..............  Baseline..............  Baseline...........       89.2  32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF        17.19      102.28     119.60        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                                                                              Inst.
                                     Lamp Replacement......  EL 1...............       90.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF        31.03      102.28     124.21      -4.61        100          0        NER
                                                             EL 2...............       93.0   Inst.                     29.79       85.69     115.63       3.97        4.2       95.8        3.2
                                                             EL 2...............       95.4  26.6 W T8 & 0.88 BF        26.73      102.28     129.15      -9.55        100          0        NER
                                                             EL 2...............       96.0   Inst.                     23.99       91.92     116.05       3.56          0        100        2.8
                                                                                             32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF
                                                                                              Inst.
                                                                                             28.4 W T8 & 0.88 BF
                                                                                              Inst.
Event II: Ballast Failure..........  Baseline..............  Baseline...........       89.2  32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF        59.99      100.97     147.99        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                                                                              Inst.
                                     Lamp & Ballast          EL 1...............       90.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.78 BF        73.83       90.31     141.93       6.05          0        100        0.4
                                      Replacement.           EL 2...............       93.0   Inst.                     72.59       84.55     144.18       3.81        6.6       93.4        3.3
                                                             EL 2...............       95.4  26.6 W T8 & 0.88 BF        69.53       88.37     144.93       3.06        3.6       96.4        3.2
                                                             EL 2...............       96.0   Inst.                     66.79       89.15     142.97       5.02          0        100        2.4
                                                                                             32.5 W T8 & 0.77 BF
                                                                                              Inst.
                                                                                             28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF
                                                                                              Inst.
Event III: New Construction and      Baseline..............  Baseline...........       89.2  32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF        62.78      100.97     149.93        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
 Renovation.                                                                                  Inst.

[[Page 24151]]

 
                                     New Lamp & Ballast      EL 1...............       90.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.78 BF        76.62       90.31     143.87       6.05          0        100        0.4
                                      Purchase.              EL 2...............       93.0   Inst.                     75.39       84.55     146.12       3.81        6.6       93.4        3.3
                                                             EL 2...............       95.4  26.6 W T8 & 0.88 BF        72.33       88.37     146.87       3.06        3.6       96.4        3.2
                                                             EL 2...............       96.0   Inst.                     69.58       89.15     144.91       5.02          0        100        2.4
                                                                                             32.5 W T8 & 0.77 BF
                                                                                              Inst.
                                                                                             28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF
                                                                                              Inst.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Table VII.17--LCC and PBP Subgroup Results for Institutions Serving Low Income Populations for a 2-Lamp 4-Foot 32 W T8 Medium Bipin Programmed Start System Operating in the Commercial Sector
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                             Life-cycle cost              Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Rated                                                                            Percentage of        Mean
                                                                                     lamp                                                                           consumers that      payback
               Event                        Response            Efficacy level     efficacy      Design option      Installed  Discounted                LCC          experience         period
                                                                                     lm/W                              cost     operating  LCC 2012$   savings  ----------------------   years
                                                                                                                      2012$    cost 2012$               2012$                  Net
                                                                                                                                                                  Net cost   benefit
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Event I: Lamp Failure..............  Baseline..............  Baseline...........       89.2  32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF        17.19      146.45     163.74        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                                                                              Prog.
                                     Lamp Replacement......  EL 1...............       90.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF        27.94      146.45     169.05      -5.31      100.0        0.0        NER
                                                                                              Prog.
                                                             EL 2...............       93.0  26.6 W T8 & 0.88 BF        29.79      122.95     152.85      10.89        0.0      100.0        3.3
                                                                                              Prog.
                                                             EL 2...............       95.4  32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF        26.73      146.45     173.29      -9.55      100.0        0.0        NER
                                                                                              Prog.
                                                             EL 2...............       96.0  28.4 W T8 & 0.88 BF        23.99      131.77     155.87       7.87        0.0      100.0        2.8
                                                                                              Prog.
Event II: Ballast Failure..........  Baseline..............  Baseline...........       89.2  32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF        61.19      146.45     203.56        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                                                                              Prog.
                                     Lamp & Ballast          EL 1...............       90.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF        71.94      146.45     208.87      -5.31      100.0        0.0        NER
                                      Replacement.                                            Prog.
                                                             EL 1...............       90.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.72 BF        71.94      123.13     185.56      18.01        0.0      100.0        0.3
                                                                                              Prog.
                                                             EL 2...............       93.0  26.6 W T8 & 0.88 BF        73.80      122.95     192.68      10.89        0.0      100.0        3.3
                                                                                              Prog.
                                                             EL 2...............       95.4  32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF        70.74      146.45     213.11      -9.55      100.0        0.0        NER
                                                                                              Prog.
                                                             EL 2...............       95.4  32.5 W T8 & 0.72 BF        70.74      123.13     189.80      13.77        0.0      100.0        2.5
                                                                                              Prog.
                                                             EL 2...............       96.0  28.4 W T8 & 0.88 BF        67.99      131.77     195.69       7.87        0.0      100.0        2.8
                                                                                              Prog.
Event III: New Construction and      Baseline..............  Baseline...........       89.2  32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF        63.98      146.45     206.09        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
 Renovation.                                                                                  Prog.
                                     New Lamp & Ballast      EL 1...............       90.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF        74.73      146.45     211.40      -5.31      100.0        0.0        NER
                                      Purchase.                                               Prog.
                                                             EL 1...............       90.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.72 BF        74.73      123.13     188.09      18.01        0.0      100.0        0.3
                                                                                              Prog.
                                                             EL 2...............       93.0  26.6 W T8 & 0.88 BF        76.59      122.95     195.21      10.89        0.0      100.0        3.3
                                                                                              Prog.
                                                             EL 2...............       95.4  32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF        73.53      146.45     215.64      -9.55      100.0        0.0        NER
                                                                                              Prog.
                                                             EL 2...............       95.4  32.5 W T8 & 0.72 BF        73.53      123.13     192.33      13.77        0.0      100.0        2.5
                                                                                              Prog.
                                                             EL 2...............       96.0  28.4 W T8 & 0.88 BF        70.79      131.77     198.22       7.87        0.0      100.0        2.8
                                                                                              Prog.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 24152]]

   Table VII.18--LCC and PBP Subgroup Results for Institutions Serving Low Income Populations for a 4-Lamp 4-Foot 32 W T8 Medium Bipin Instant Start System Operating in the Commercial Sector
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                             Life-cycle cost              Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Rated                                                                            Percentage of        Mean
                                                                                     lamp                                                                           consumers that      payback
               Event                        Response            Efficacy level     efficacy      Design option      Installed  Discounted                LCC          experience         period
                                                                                     lm/W                              cost     operating  LCC 2012$   savings  ----------------------   years
                                                                                                                      2012$    cost 2012$               2012$                  Net
                                                                                                                                                                  Net cost   benefit
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Event I: Lamp Failure..............  Baseline..............  Baseline...........       89.2  32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF        27.95      197.44     225.67        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                                                                              Inst.
                                     Lamp Replacement......  EL 1...............       90.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF        51.18      197.44     233.62      -7.95      100.0        0.0        NER
                                                                                              Inst.
                                                             EL 2...............       93.0  26.6 W T8 & 0.87 BF        53.17      165.26     218.70       6.96        8.8       91.2        3.3
                                                                                              Inst.
                                                             EL 3...............       95.4  32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF        47.05      197.44     244.76     -19.10      100.0        0.0        NER
                                                                                              Inst.
                                                             EL 2...............       96.0  28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF        41.56      177.33     219.17       6.50        0.1       99.9        2.9
                                                                                              Inst.
Event II: Ballast Failure..........  Baseline..............  Baseline...........       89.2  32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF        86.30      195.81     264.52        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                                                                              Inst.
                                     Lamp & Ballast          EL 1...............       90.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.78 BF       109.52      177.03     253.68      10.84        0.0      100.0        0.5
                                      Replacement.                                            Inst.
                                                             EL 2...............       93.0  26.6 W T8 & 0.87 BF       111.51      163.84     257.76       6.76        9.4       90.6        3.3
                                                                                              Inst.
                                                             EL 2...............       95.4  32.5 W T8 & 0.74 BF       105.39      171.22     259.02       5.50        7.9       92.1        3.3
                                                                                              Inst.
                                                             EL 2...............       96.0  28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF        99.90      175.84     258.15       6.37        0.2       99.8        2.9
                                                                                              Inst.
Event III: New Construction and      Baseline..............  Baseline...........       89.2  32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF        89.09      195.81     266.46        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
 Renovation.                                                                                  Inst.
                                     New Lamp & Ballast      EL 1...............       90.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.78 BF       112.32      177.03     255.62      10.84        0.0      100.0        0.5
                                      Purchase.                                               Inst.
                                                             EL 2...............       93.0  26.6 W T8 & 0.87 BF       114.31      163.84     259.70       6.76        9.4       90.6        3.3
                                                                                              Inst.
                                                             EL 2...............       95.4  32.5 W T8 & 0.74 BF       108.19      171.22     260.96       5.50        7.9       92.1        3.3
                                                                                              Inst.
                                                             EL 2...............       96.0  28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF       102.70      175.84     260.09       6.37        0.2       99.8        2.9
                                                                                              Inst.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Table VII.19--LCC and PBP Subgroup Results for Institutions Serving Low Income Populations for a 4-Lamp 4-Foot 32 W T8 Medium Bipin Programmed Start System Operating in the Commercial Sector
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                             Life-cycle cost              Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Rated                                                                            Percentage of        Mean
                                                                                     lamp                                                                           consumers that      payback
               Event                        Response            Efficacy level     efficacy      Design option      Installed  Discounted                LCC          experience         period
                                                                                     lm/W                              cost     operating  LCC 2012$   savings  ----------------------   years
                                                                                                                      2012$    cost 2012$               2012$                  Net
                                                                                                                                                                  Net cost   benefit
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Event I: Lamp Failure..............  Baseline..............  Baseline...........       89.2  32.5 W T8 & 0.89 BF        27.95      290.55     318.71        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                                                                              Prog.
                                     Lamp Replacement......  EL 1...............       90.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.89 BF        46.06      290.55     327.82      -9.11      100.0        0.0        NER
                                                                                              Prog.
                                                             EL 2...............       93.0  26.6 W T8 & 0.89 BF        53.17      243.64     297.02      21.70        0.0      100.0        3.3
                                                                                              Prog.
                                                             EL 2...............       95.4  32.5 W T8 & 0.89 BF        47.05      290.55     337.81     -19.10      100.0        0.0        NER
                                                                                              Prog.
                                                             EL 2...............       96.0  28.4 W T8 & 0.89 BF        41.56      261.25     303.02      15.70        0.0      100.0        2.8
                                                                                              Prog.
Event II: Ballast Failure..........  Baseline..............  Baseline...........       89.2  32.5 W T8 & 0.89 BF        88.14      290.55     373.19        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                                                                              Prog.
                                     Lamp & Ballast          EL 1...............       90.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF       106.25      277.61     369.36       3.83        4.6       95.4        1.0
                                      Replacement.                                            Prog.
                                                             EL 2...............       93.0  26.6 W T8 & 0.89 BF       113.36      243.64     351.49      21.70        0.0      100.0        3.3
                                                                                              Prog.
                                                             EL 2...............       95.4  32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF       107.24      277.61     379.35      -6.16       96.0        4.0        9.0
                                                                                              Prog.
                                                             EL 2...............       96.0  28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF       101.75      249.39     345.64      27.55        0.0      100.0        2.0
                                                                                              Prog.
Event III: New Construction and      Baseline..............  Baseline...........       89.2  32.5 W T8 & 0.89 BF        90.94      290.55     375.72        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
 Renovation.                                                                                  Prog.

[[Page 24153]]

 
                                     New Lamp & Ballast      EL 1...............       90.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF       109.04      277.61     371.89       3.83        4.6       95.4        1.0
                                      Purchase.                                               Prog.
                                                             EL 2...............       93.0  26.6 W T8 & 0.89 BF       116.15      243.64     354.02      21.70        0.0      100.0        3.3
                                                                                              Prog.
                                                             EL 2...............       95.4  32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF       110.03      277.61     381.88      -6.16       96.0        4.0        9.0
                                                                                              Prog.
                                                             EL 2...............       96.0  28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF       104.54      249.39     348.17      27.55        0.0      100.0        2.0
                                                                                              Prog.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              Table VII.20--LCC and PBP Subgroup Results for Low-Income Consumers for a 2-Lamp 4-Foot 32 W T8 Medium Bipin Instant Start System Operating in the Residential Sector
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                             Life-cycle cost              Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Rated                                                                            Percentage of        Mean
                                                                                     lamp                                                                           consumers that      payback
               Event                        Response            Efficacy level     efficacy      Design option      Installed  Discounted                LCC          experience         period
                                                                                     lm/W                              cost     operating  LCC 2012$   savings  ----------------------   years
                                                                                                                      2012$    cost 2012$               2012$                  Net
                                                                                                                                                                  Net cost   benefit
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Event I: Lamp Failure..............  Baseline..............  Baseline...........       89.2  32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF        10.49       46.83      57.32        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                                                                              Inst.
                                     Lamp Replacement......  EL 1...............       90.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF        11.59       46.83      58.42      -1.09        100          0        NER
                                                                                              Inst.
                                                             EL 2...............       93.0  26.6 W T8 & 0.87 BF        23.11       39.27      62.38      -5.06       94.9        5.1       17.6
                                                                                              Inst.
                                                             EL 2...............       95.4  32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF        20.05       46.83      66.88      -9.56        100          0        NER
                                                                                              Inst.
                                                             EL 2...............       96.0  28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF        17.30       42.11      59.41      -2.09       90.3        9.7       15.2
                                                                                              Inst.
Event II: Ballast Failure..........  Baseline..............  Baseline...........       89.2  32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF        52.73       46.83      99.56        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                                                                              Inst.
                                     Lamp & Ballast          EL 1...............       90.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.83 BF        53.82       44.45      98.28       1.28        1.1       98.9        4.9
                                      Replacement.                                            Inst.
                                                             EL 2...............       93.0  26.6 W T8 & 0.87 BF        65.35       39.27     104.62      -5.06       94.9        5.1       17.6
                                                                                              Inst.
                                                             EL 2...............       95.4  32.5 W T8 & 0.83 BF        62.29       44.45     106.74      -7.18        100          0       42.5
                                                                                              Inst.
                                                             EL 2...............       96.0  28.4 W T8 & 0.83 BF        59.54       39.97      99.51       0.05       49.9       50.1       10.5
                                                                                              Inst.
Event III: New Construction and      Baseline..............  Baseline...........       89.2  32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF        55.53       46.83     102.35        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
 Renovation.                                                                                  Inst.
                                     New Lamp & Ballast      EL 1...............       90.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.83 BF        56.62       44.45     101.07       1.28        1.1       98.9        4.9
                                      Purchase.                                               Inst.
                                                             EL 2...............       93.0  26.6 W T8 & 0.87 BF        68.14       39.27     107.41      -5.06       94.9        5.1       17.6
                                                                                              Inst.
                                                             EL 2...............       95.4  32.5 W T8 & 0.83 BF        65.08       44.45     109.54      -7.18        100          0       42.5
                                                                                              Inst.
                                                             EL 2...............       96.0  28.4 W T8 & 0.83 BF        62.33       39.97     102.30       0.05       49.9       50.1       10.5
                                                                                              Inst.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 24154]]

 Table VII.21--LCC and PBP Subgroup Results for Institutions Serving Low Income Populations for a Two-Lamp 4-Foot 54 W T5 Miniature Bipin High Output System Operating in the Commercial Sector
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                             Life-cycle cost              Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Rated                                                                            Percentage of        Mean
                                                                                     lamp                                                                           consumers that      payback
               Event                        Response            Efficacy level     efficacy      Design option      Installed  Discounted                LCC          experience         period
                                                                                     lm/W                              cost     operating  LCC 2012$   savings  ----------------------   years
                                                                                                                      2012$    cost 2012$               2012$                  Net
                                                                                                                                                                  Net cost   benefit
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Event I: Lamp Failure..............  Baseline..............  Baseline...........       83.6  53.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog      18.57      219.84     238.55        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                     Lamp Replacement......  EL 1...............       92.9  53.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog      26.59      219.84     246.57      -8.02      100.0        0.0        NER
                                                             EL 1...............      102.0  49 W T5 & 1 BF Prog..      32.51      200.77     227.96      10.60        0.0      100.0        3.2
                                                             EL 1...............      102.1  47 W T5 & 1 BF Prog..      35.42      192.81     224.90      13.65        0.0      100.0        2.7
Event II: Ballast Failure..........  Baseline..............  Baseline...........       83.6  53.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog      72.68      219.84     276.70        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                     Lamp & Ballast          EL 1...............       92.9  53.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog      80.70      219.84     284.72      -8.02      100.0        0.0        NER
                                      Replacement.
                                                             EL 1...............      102.0  49 W T5 & 1 BF Prog..      86.62      200.77     266.11      10.60        0.0      100.0        3.2
                                                             EL 1...............      102.1  47 W T5 & 1 BF Prog..      89.53      192.81     263.05      13.65        0.0      100.0        2.7
Event III: New Construction and      Baseline..............  Baseline...........       83.6  53.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog      75.47      219.84     278.68        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
 Renovation.
                                     New Lamp & Ballast      EL 1...............       92.9  53.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog      83.49      219.84     286.69      -8.02      100.0        0.0        NER
                                      Purchase.
                                                             EL 1...............      102.0  49 W T5 & 1 BF Prog..      89.41      200.77     268.08      10.60        0.0      100.0        3.2
                                                             EL 1...............      102.1  47 W T5 & 1 BF Prog..      92.32      192.81     265.03      13.65        0.0      100.0        2.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Table VII.22--LCC and PBP Subgroup Results for Institutions Serving Low Income Populations for a Two-Lamp 4-Foot 28 W T5 Miniature Bipin Standard Output System Operating in the Commercial
                                                                                             Sector
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                             Life-cycle cost              Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Rated                                                                            Percentage of        Mean
                                                                                     lamp                                                                           consumers that      payback
               Event                        Response            Efficacy level     efficacy      Design option      Installed  Discounted                LCC          experience         period
                                                                                     lm/W                              cost     operating  LCC 2012$   savings  ----------------------   years
                                                                                                                      2012$    cost 2012$               2012$                  Net
                                                                                                                                                                  Net cost   benefit
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Event I: Lamp Failure..............  Baseline..............  Baseline...........       94.6  27.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog      15.30      130.31     145.74        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                     Lamp Replacement......  EL 1...............      104.3  27.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog      19.17      130.31     149.61      -3.87      100.0        0.0        NER
                                                             EL 2...............      109.7  27.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog      21.52      130.31     151.96      -6.22      100.0        0.0        NER
                                                             EL 2...............      111.5  26 W T5 & 1 BF Prog..      24.67      122.12     146.91      -1.17       75.3       24.7        5.7
                                                             EL 2...............      116.0  25 W T5 & 1 BF Prog..      27.41      117.56     142.99       2.75       11.4       88.6        4.8
Event II: Ballast Failure..........  Baseline..............  Baseline...........       94.6  27.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog      68.19      130.31     187.13        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                     Lamp & Ballast          EL 1...............      104.3  27.8 W T5 & 0.85 BF        72.06      114.36     175.05      12.08        0.0      100.0        1.2
                                      Replacement.                                            Prog.
                                                             EL 2...............      109.7  27.8 W T5 & 0.85 BF        74.41      114.36     177.40       9.73        0.0      100.0        2.0
                                                                                              Prog.
                                                             EL 2...............      111.5  26 W T5 & 0.85 BF          77.56      107.25     173.43      13.70        0.0      100.0        2.0
                                                                                              Prog.
                                                             EL 2...............      116.0  25 W T5 & 0.85 BF          80.30      103.29     170.11      17.02        0.0      100.0        2.2
                                                                                              Prog.
Event III: New Construction and      Baseline..............  Baseline...........       94.6  27.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog      70.99      130.31     189.32        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
 Renovation.
                                     New Lamp & Ballast      EL 1...............      104.3  27.8 W T5 & 0.85 BF        74.86      114.36     177.23      12.08        0.0      100.0        1.2
                                      Purchase.                                               Prog.
                                                             EL 2...............      109.7  27.8 W T5 & 0.85 BF        77.21      114.36     179.59       9.73        0.0      100.0        2.0
                                                                                              Prog.
                                                             EL 2...............      111.5  26 W T5 & 0.85 BF          80.35      107.25     175.62      13.70        0.0      100.0        2.0
                                                                                              Prog.

[[Page 24155]]

 
                                                             EL 2...............      116.0  25 W T5 & 0.85 BF          83.10      103.29     172.30      17.02        0.0      100.0        2.2
                                                                                              Prog.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Table VII.23--LCC and PBP Subgroup Results for Institutions Serving Low Income Populations for a Two-Lamp 8-Foot 59 W T8 Single Pin Slimline System Operating in the Commercial Sector
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                             Life-cycle cost              Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Rated                                                                            Percentage of        Mean
                                                                                     lamp                                                                           consumers that      payback
               Event                        Response            Efficacy level     efficacy      Design option      Installed  Discounted                LCC          experience         period
                                                                                     lm/W                              cost     operating  LCC 2012$   savings  ----------------------   years
                                                                                                                      2012$    cost 2012$               2012$                  Net
                                                                                                                                                                  Net cost   benefit
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Event I: Lamp Failure..............  Baseline..............  Baseline...........       96.5  60.1 W T8 & 0.87 BF        26.72      192.30     219.30        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                                                                              Inst.
                                     Lamp Replacement......  EL 1...............       98.2  60.1 W T8 & 0.87 BF        29.40      192.30     221.98      -2.68      100.0        0.0        NER
                                                                                              Inst.
                                                             EL 2...............       99.0  60.1 W T8 & 0.87 BF        34.52      192.30     227.10      -7.80      100.0        0.0        NER
                                                                                              Inst.
                                                             EL 2...............      105.6  54 W T8 & 0.87 BF          43.51      182.36     226.14      -6.84       99.6        0.4        7.1
                                                                                              Inst.
                                                             EL 2...............      108.0  50 W T8 & 0.87 BF          50.87      169.08     220.23      -0.92       67.7       32.3        4.3
                                                                                              Inst.
Event II: Ballast Failure..........  Baseline..............  Baseline...........       96.5  60.1 W T8 & 0.87 BF       102.46      189.36     268.51        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                                                                              Inst.
                                     Lamp & Ballast          EL 1...............       98.2  60.1 W T8 & 0.77 BF       105.14      169.09     250.92      17.59        0.0      100.0        0.6
                                      Replacement.                                            Inst.
                                                             EL 2...............       99.0  60.1 W T8 & 0.77 BF       110.25      169.09     256.04      12.47        0.0      100.0        1.6
                                                                                              Inst.
                                                             EL 2...............      105.6  54 W T8 & 0.77 BF         119.24      160.33     256.27      12.24        0.0      100.0        2.4
                                                                                              Inst.
                                                             EL 2...............      108.0  50 W T8 & 0.87 BF         126.60      166.42     269.71      -1.20       68.7       31.3        4.4
                                                                                              Inst.
Event III: New Construction and      Baseline..............  Baseline...........       96.5  60.1 W T8 & 0.87 BF       105.25      189.36     270.44        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
 Renovation.                                                                                  Inst.
                                     New Lamp & Ballast      EL 1...............       98.2  60.1 W T8 & 0.77 BF       107.93      169.09     252.84      17.59        0.0      100.0        0.6
                                      Purchase.                                               Inst.
                                                             EL 2...............       99.0  60.1 W T8 & 0.77 BF       113.05      169.09     257.96      12.47        0.0      100.0        1.6
                                                                                              Inst.
                                                             EL 2...............      105.6  54 W T8 & 0.77 BF         122.04      160.33     258.19      12.24        0.0      100.0        2.4
                                                                                              Inst.
                                                             EL 2...............      108.0  50 W T8 & 0.87 BF         129.40      166.42     271.64      -1.20       68.7       31.3        4.4
                                                                                              Inst.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Table VII.24--LCC and PBP Subgroup Results for Institutions Serving Low Income Populations for a Two-Lamp 8-Foot 86 W T8 Recessed Double Contact HO System Operating in the Commercial Sector
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                             Life-cycle cost              Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Rated                                                                            Percentage of        Mean
                                                                                     lamp                                                                           consumers that      payback
               Event                        Response            Efficacy level     efficacy      Design option      Installed  Discounted                LCC          experience         period
                                                                                     lm/W                              cost     operating  LCC 2012$   savings  ----------------------   years
                                                                                                                      2012$    cost 2012$               2012$                  Net
                                                                                                                                                                  Net cost   benefit
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Event I: Lamp Failure..............  Baseline..............  Baseline...........       92.0  84 W T8 & 0.81 BF          24.45      214.21     238.99        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                                                                              Inst.
                                     Lamp Replacement......  EL 1...............       95.2  84 W T8 & 0.81 BF          34.00      214.21     248.54      -9.56      100.0        0.0        NER
                                                                                              Inst.
                                                             EL 2...............       97.6  84 W T8 & 0.81 BF          41.21      214.21     255.75     -16.76      100.0        0.0        NER
                                                                                              Inst.
Event II: Ballast Failure..........  Baseline..............  Baseline...........       92.0  84 W T8 & 0.81 BF         100.33      214.21     280.62        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                                                                              Inst.

[[Page 24156]]

 
                                     Lamp & Ballast          EL 1...............       95.2  84 W T8 & 0.81 BF         109.89      214.21     290.18      -9.56      100.0        0.0        NER
                                      Replacement.                                            Inst.
                                                             EL 2...............       97.6  84 W T8 & 0.81 BF         117.09      214.21     297.38     -16.76      100.0        0.0        NER
                                                                                              Inst.
Event III: New Construction and      Baseline..............  Baseline...........       92.0  84 W T8 & 0.81 BF         103.13      214.21     282.16        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
 Renovation.                                                                                  Inst.
                                     New Lamp & Ballast      EL 1...............       95.2  84 W T8 & 0.81 BF         112.68      214.21     291.71      -9.56      100.0        0.0        NER
                                      Purchase.                                               Inst.
                                                             EL 2...............       97.6  84 W T8 & 0.81 BF         119.89      214.21     298.92     -16.76      100.0        0.0        NER
                                                                                              Inst.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Incandescent Reflector Lamps
    Table VII.25 through Table VII.28 below show the LCC impacts and 
payback periods for the identified subgroups for IRLs.

     Table VII.25--LCC and PBP Subgroup Results for Institutions Serving Low Income Populations for a 55 W PAR38 2,500 Hour HIR EL 1 Representative Lamp Operating in the Commercial Sector
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                             Life-cycle cost              Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Rated                                                                            Percentage of        Mean
                                                                                     lamp                                                                           consumers that      payback
               Event                        Response            Efficacy level     efficacy       Lamp option       Installed  Discounted                LCC          experience         period
                                                                                     lm/W                              cost     operating  LCC 2012$   savings  ----------------------   years
                                                                                                                      2012$    cost 2012$               2012$                  Net
                                                                                                                                                                  Net cost   benefit
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Event I: Lamp Failure; or Event      Baseline..............  Baseline...........       17.8  60W, 1500hrs,              10.52        8.68      19.21        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
 III: New Construction and                                                                    Improved Halogen.
 Renovation.
                                     Lamp Replacement or     EL 1...............       18.5  55W, 2500hrs, HIR....      13.07        7.96      15.80       3.41        0.0      100.0        3.2
                                      New Lamp Purchase.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                Table VII.26--LCC and PBP Subgroup Results for Low-Income Consumers for a 55 W PAR38 2,500 Hour HIR EL 1 Representative Lamp Operating in the Residential Sector
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                             Life-cycle cost              Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Rated                                                                            Percentage of        Mean
                                                                                     lamp                                                                           consumers that      payback
               Event                        Response            Efficacy level     efficacy       Lamp option       Installed  Discounted                LCC          experience         period
                                                                                     lm/W                              cost     operating  LCC 2012$   savings  ----------------------   years
                                                                                                                      2012$    cost 2012$               2012$                  Net
                                                                                                                                                                  Net cost   benefit
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Event I: Lamp Failure; or Event      Baseline..............  Baseline...........       17.8  60W, 1500hrs,               9.40       10.21      19.62        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
 III: New Construction and                                                                    Improved Halogen.
 Renovation.

[[Page 24157]]

 
                                     Lamp Replacement or     EL 1...............       18.5  55W, 2500hrs, HIR....      11.95        9.36      16.98       2.64        0.0      100.0        5.5
                                      New Lamp Purchase.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Table VII.27--LCC and PBP Subgroup Results for Institutions Serving Low Income Populations for a 55 W PAR38 4,200 Hour Improved HIR EL 1 Representative Lamp Operating in the Commercial Sector
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                             Life-cycle cost              Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Rated                                                                            Percentage of        Mean
                                                                                     lamp                                                                           consumers that      payback
               Event                        Response            Efficacy level     efficacy       Lamp option       Installed  Discounted                LCC          experience         period
                                                                                     lm/W                              cost     operating  LCC 2012$   savings  ----------------------   years
                                                                                                                      2012$    cost 2012$               2012$                  Net
                                                                                                                                                                  Net cost   benefit
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Event I: Lamp Failure; or Event      Baseline..............  Baseline...........       17.8  60W, 1500hrs,              10.52        8.68      19.21        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
 III: New Construction and                                                                    Improved Halogen.
 Renovation.
                                     Lamp Replacement or     EL 1...............       18.5  55W, 4200hrs,              14.94        7.96      13.30       5.91        0.0      100.0        5.6
                                      New Lamp Purchase.                                      Improved HIR.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Table VII.28--LCC and PBP Subgroup Results for Low-Income Consumers for a 55 W PAR38 4,200 Hour Improved HIR EL 1 Representative Lamp Operating in the Residential Sector
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                             Life-cycle cost              Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Rated                                                                            Percentage of        Mean
                                                                                     lamp                                                                           consumers that      payback
               Event                        Response            Efficacy level     efficacy       Lamp option       Installed  Discounted                LCC          experience         period
                                                                                     lm/W                              cost     operating  LCC 2012$   savings  ----------------------   years
                                                                                                                      2012$    cost 2012$               2012$                  Net
                                                                                                                                                                  Net cost   benefit
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Event I: Lamp Failure; or Event      Baseline..............  Baseline...........       17.8  60W, 1500hrs,               9.40       10.21      19.62        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
 III: New Construction and                                                                    Improved Halogen.
 Renovation.
                                     Lamp Replacement or     EL 1...............       18.5  55W, 4200hrs,              13.82        9.36      15.13       4.48          0        100        9.5
                                      New Lamp Purchase.                                      Improved HIR.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
    EPCA establishes a rebuttable presumption that an energy 
conservation standard is economically justified if the increased 
purchase 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. DOE's LCC and PBP analyses generate values that calculate the 
payback period for consumers of potential energy conservation 
standards, which include, but are not limited to, the 3-year payback 
period contemplated under the rebuttable presumption test. However, DOE 
routinely conducts a full economic analysis that considers the full 
range of impacts--including those on consumers, manufacturers, the 
nation, and the 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 evaluate the economic justification for a potential standard 
level (thereby supporting or rebutting the results of

[[Page 24158]]

any preliminary determination of economic justification).
    Table VII.29 shows the GSFL payback periods that are less than 3 
years for the most common sector for each product class. There are no 
IRL payback periods less than 3 years.

                                 Table VII.29--GSFL Efficacy Levels With Rebuttable Payback Period Less Than Three Years
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                 Mean
                                                                                                  Efficacy   Rated lamp                         payback
        Lamp description                 Sector               Event               Response          level     efficacy      Design option       period
                                                                                                                lm/W                             years
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2-Lamp 4-foot Medium Bipin        Commercial.........  Event I: Lamp        Lamp Replacement...        EL 2        96.0  28.4 W T8 & 0.88 BF         2.8
 Instant Start.                                         Failure.                                                          Inst.
                                                       Event II: Ballast    Lamp & Ballast             EL 1        90.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.78 BF         0.4
                                                        Failure.             Replacement.                                 Inst.
                                                                                                       EL 2        96.0  28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF         2.4
                                                                                                                          Inst.
                                                       Event III: New       New Lamp & Ballast         EL 1        90.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.78 BF         0.4
                                                        Construction and     Purchase.                                    Inst.
                                                        Renovation.
                                                                                                       EL 2        96.0  28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF         2.4
                                                                                                                          Inst.
2-Lamp 4-foot Medium Bipin        Commercial.........  Event I: Lamp        Lamp Replacement...        EL 2        96.0  28.4 W T8 & 0.88 BF         2.8
 Programmed Start.                                      Failure.                                                          Prog.
                                                       Event II: Ballast    Lamp & Ballast             EL 1        90.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.72 BF         0.3
                                                        Failure.             Replacement.                                 Prog.
                                                                                                       EL 2        95.4  32.5 W T8 & 0.72 BF         2.5
                                                                                                                          Prog.
                                                                                                       EL 2        96.0  28.4 W T8 & 0.88 BF         2.8
                                                                                                                          Prog.
                                                       Event III: New       New Lamp & Ballast         EL 1        90.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.72 BF         0.3
                                                        Construction and     Purchase.                                    Prog.
                                                        Renovation.
                                                                                                       EL 2        95.4  32.5 W T8 & 0.72 BF         2.5
                                                                                                                          Prog.
                                                                                                       EL 2        96.0  28.4 W T8 & 0.88 BF         2.8
                                                                                                                          Prog.
4-Lamp 4-foot Medium Bipin        Commercial.........  Event I: Lamp        Lamp Replacement...        EL 2        96.0  28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF         2.9
 Instant Start.                                         Failure.                                                          Inst.
                                                       Event II: Ballast    Lamp & Ballast             EL 1        90.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.78 BF         0.5
                                                        Failure.             Replacement.                                 Inst.
                                                                                                       EL 2        96.0  28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF         2.9
                                                                                                                          Inst.
                                                       Event III: New       New Lamp & Ballast         EL 1        90.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.78 BF         0.5
                                                        Construction and     Purchase.                                    Inst.
                                                        Renovation.
                                                                                                       EL 2        96.0  28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF         2.9
                                                                                                                          Inst.
4-Lamp 4-foot Medium Bipin        Commercial.........  Event I: Lamp        Lamp Replacement...        EL 2        96.0  28.4 W T8 & 0.89 BF         2.8
 Programmed Start.                                      Failure.                                                          Prog.
                                                       Event II: Ballast    Lamp & Ballast             EL 1        90.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF         1.0
                                                        Failure.             Replacement.                                 Prog.
                                                                                                       EL 2        96.0  28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF         2.0
                                                                                                                          Prog.
                                                       Event III: New       New Lamp & Ballast         EL 1        90.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF         1.0
                                                        Construction and     Purchase.                                    Prog.
                                                        Renovation.
                                                                                                       EL 2        96.0  28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF         2.0
                                                                                                                          Prog.
T5 Miniature Bipin Standard       Commercial.........  Event II: Ballast    Lamp & Ballast             EL 1       104.3  27.8 W T5 & 0.85 BF         1.2
 Output.                                                Failure.             Replacement.                                 Prog.

[[Page 24159]]

 
                                                                                                       EL 2       109.7  27.8 W T5 & 0.85 BF         2.0
                                                                                                                          Prog.
                                                                                                       EL 2       111.5  26 W T5 & 0.85 BF           2.0
                                                                                                                          Prog.
                                                                                                       EL 2       116.0  25 W T5 & 0.85 BF           2.2
                                                                                                                          Prog.
                                                       Event III: New       New Lamp & Ballast         EL 1       104.3  27.8 W T5 & 0.85 BF         1.2
                                                        Construction and     Purchase.                                    Prog.
                                                        Renovation.
                                                                                                       EL 2       109.7  27.8 W T5 & 0.85 BF         2.0
                                                                                                                          Prog.
                                                                                                       EL 2       111.5  26 W T5 & 0.85 BF           2.0
                                                                                                                          Prog.
                                                                                                       EL 2       116.0  25 W T5 & 0.85 BF           2.2
                                                                                                                          Prog.
T8 Single Pin Slimline..........  Commercial.........  Event II: Ballast    Lamp & Ballast             EL 1        98.2  60.1 W T8 & 0.77 BF         0.6
                                                        Failure.             Replacement.                                 Prog.
                                                                                                       EL 2        99.0  60.1 W T8 & 0.77 BF         1.6
                                                                                                                          Prog.
                                                                                                       EL 2       105.6  54 W T8 & 0.77 BF           2.4
                                                                                                                          Prog.
                                                       Event III: New       New Lamp & Ballast         EL 1        98.2  60.1 W T8 & 0.77 BF         0.6
                                                        Construction and     Purchase.                                    Prog.
                                                        Renovation.
                                                                                                       EL 2        99.0  60.1 W T8 & 0.77 BF         1.6
                                                                                                                          Prog.
                                                                                                       EL 2       105.6  54 W T8 & 0.77 BF           2.4
                                                                                                                          Prog.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
    DOE performed MIAs to estimate the impact of amended energy 
conservation standards on manufacturers of GSFLs and IRLs. The section 
below describes the expected impacts on GSFL and IRL manufacturers at 
each TSL. Chapter 13 of the NOPR TSD explains the MIA in further 
detail.
a. Industry Cash-Flow Analysis Results
    The tables below depict the financial impacts (represented by 
changes in INPV) of amended energy standards on GSFL and IRL 
manufacturers as well as the conversion costs that DOE estimates GSFL 
and IRL manufacturers would incur at each TSL. DOE breaks out the 
impacts on GSFL and IRL manufacturers separately. To evaluate the range 
of cash flow impacts on the GSFL and IRL industries, DOE modeled two 
markup scenarios that correspond to the range of anticipated market 
responses to amended standards. Each scenario results in a unique set 
of cash flows and corresponding industry values at each TSL.
    In the following discussion, the INPV results refer to the 
difference in industry value between the base case and the standards 
case that result from the sum of discounted cash flows from the base 
year (2013) through the end of the analysis period. The results also 
discuss the difference in cash flows between the base case and the 
standards case in the year before the compliance date for amended 
energy conservation standards. This figure represents the size of the 
required conversion costs relative to the cash flow generated by the 
GSFL and IRL industries in the absence of amended energy conservation 
standards.
Cash-Flow Analysis Results by TSL for General Service Fluorescent Lamps
    To assess the upper (less severe) end of the range of potential 
impacts on GSFL manufacturers, DOE modeled a flat, or preservation of 
gross margin, markup scenario. This scenario assumes that in the 
standards case, manufacturers would be able to pass along all the 
higher production costs required for more efficacious products to their 
consumers. Specifically, the industry would be able to maintain its 
average base case gross margin (as a percentage of revenue) despite the 
higher product costs in the standards case. In general, the larger the 
product price increases, the less likely manufacturers are to achieve 
the cash flow from operations calculated in this scenario because it is 
less likely that manufacturers would be able to fully mark up these 
larger cost increases.

[[Page 24160]]

    To assess the lower (more severe) end of the range of potential 
impacts on the GSFL manufacturers, DOE modeled the preservation of 
operating profit markup scenario. This scenario represents the lower 
end of the range of potential impacts on manufacturers because no 
additional operating profit is earned on the higher production costs, 
eroding profit margins as a percentage of total revenue.
    Table VII.30 and Table VII.31 present the projected results for 
GSFLs under the flat and preservation of operating profit markup 
scenarios. DOE examined results for all five product classes (4-foot 
MBP, 8-foot SP slimline, 8-foot RDC HO, 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO, and 4-foot 
T5 MiniBP HO) together.

                         Table VII.30--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for General Service Fluorescent Lamps--Flat Markup Scenario
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                 Trial standard level
                                                              Units                Base case -----------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   1           2           3           4           5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV..........................................  (2012$ millions)................     1,542.5     1,584.4     1,580.3     1,663.1     1,901.1     1,939.7
Change in INPV................................  (2012$ millions)................  ..........        41.8        37.8       120.5       358.5       397.1
                                                (%).............................  ..........        2.7%        2.5%        7.8%       23.2%       25.7%
Product Conversion Costs......................  (2012$ millions)................  ..........         0.9         2.0         5.3         7.5         9.1
Capital Conversion Costs......................  (2012$ millions)................  ..........         1.0        11.0         3.0         5.5        29.5
Total Conversion Costs........................  (2012$ millions)................  ..........         1.9        13.0         8.3        13.0        38.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

           Table VII.31--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for General Service Fluorescent Lamps--Preservation of Operating Profit Markup Scenario
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                 Trial standard level
                                                              Units                Base case -----------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   1           2           3           4           5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV..........................................  (2012$ millions)................     1,542.5     1,541.7     1,533.4     1,531.0     1,519.6     1,502.6
Change in INPV................................  (2012$ millions)................  ..........       (0.9)       (9.2)      (11.5)      (22.9)      (39.9)
                                                (%).............................  ..........       -0.1%       -0.6%       -0.7%       -1.5%       -2.6%
Product Conversion Costs......................  (2012$ millions)................  ..........         0.9         2.0         5.3         7.5         9.1
Capital Conversion Costs......................  (2012$ millions)................  ..........         1.0        11.0         3.0         5.5        29.5
Total Conversion Costs........................  (2012$ millions)................  ..........         1.9        13.0         8.3        13.0        38.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    TSL 1 sets the efficacy level at baseline for two product classes 
(4-foot MBP and 8-foot SP slimline) and EL 1 for three product classes 
(8-foot RDC HO, 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO, and 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO). EL 1 for 
the 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO product class represents the max tech efficacy 
level. At TSL 1, DOE estimates impacts on INPV range from $41.8 million 
to -$0.9 million, or a change in INPV of 2.7 percent to -0.1 percent. 
At TSL 1, industry free cash flow (operating cash flow minus capital 
expenditures) is estimated to decrease by approximately 0.5 percent to 
$156.9 million, compared to the base case value of $157.7 million in 
2016, the year leading up to proposed energy conservation standards.
    Percentage impacts on INPV are slightly positive to slightly 
negative at TSL 1. DOE does not anticipate that manufacturers would 
lose a significant portion of their INPV at this TSL. This is because 
the vast majority of shipments already meets or exceeds the efficacy 
levels prescribed at TSL 1. DOE projects that in the expected year of 
compliance (2017), 100 percent of 4-foot MBP and 8-foot SP slimline 
shipments would meet or exceed the efficacy levels at TSL 1. DOE 
estimates that these lamps account for 88 percent of GSFL shipments in 
2017. Meanwhile, in 2017, 33 percent of 8-foot RDC HO shipments, 45 
percent of 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO, and 37 percent of 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO 
shipments would meet the efficacy levels at TSL 1. Because these 
products comprise a very small percentage of total GSFL shipments in 
2017, a very small percentage of total GSFL shipments would need to be 
converted at TSL 1 to meet these efficacy standards.
    DOE expects conversion costs to be small compared to the industry 
value because most of the GSFL shipments, on a total volume basis, 
already meet or exceed the efficacy levels analyzed at this TSL. DOE 
expects GSFL manufacturers to incur $0.9 million in product conversion 
costs for lamp redesign and testing. DOE estimates manufacturers will 
have minimal capital conversion costs associated with TSL 1, as most 
efficacy gains will be achieved through increasing the amount of REOs 
used to coat the lamps, not through any major equipment upgrades or 
capital investments. DOE expects $1 million in capital conversion costs 
for manufacturers to upgrade and recalibrate production line 
automation.
    At TSL 1, under the flat markup scenario, the shipment-weighted 
average MPC increases by approximately 5 percent relative to the base 
case MPC. Manufacturers are able to fully pass on this cost increase to 
consumers by design in this markup scenario. This slight price increase 
would mitigate the $1.9 million in conversion costs estimated at TSL 1, 
resulting in slightly positive INPV impacts at TSL 1 under the flat 
markup scenario.
    Under the preservation of operating profit markup scenario, 
manufacturers earn the same operating profit as would be earned in the 
base case, but manufacturers do not earn additional profit from their 
investments. The 5 percent MPC increase is slightly outweighed by a 
lower average markup of 1.51 (compared to the flat markup of 1.52) and 
$1.9 million in conversion costs, resulting in small negative impacts 
at TSL 1.
    TSL 2 sets the efficacy level at baseline for one product class (4-
foot MBP), EL 1 for three product classes (8-foot SP slimline, 4-foot 
T5 MiniBP SO, and 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO), and EL 2 for one product class 
(8-foot RDC HO). EL 1 for the 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO product class and EL 
2 for the 8-foot RDC HO product class represent the max tech efficacy 
levels. At TSL 2, DOE estimates

[[Page 24161]]

impacts on INPV to range from $37.8 million to -$9.2 million, or a 
change in INPV of 2.5 percent to -0.6 percent. At this proposed level, 
industry free cash flow is estimated to decrease by approximately 4 
percent to $152.1 million, compared to the base case value of $157.7 
million in 2016.
    Percentage impacts on INPV are slightly positive to slightly 
negative at TSL 2. DOE does not anticipate that manufacturers would 
lose a significant portion of their INPV at this TSL because the vast 
majority of shipments already meets or exceeds the efficacy levels 
prescribed at TSL 2. DOE projects that in 2017, 100 percent of 4-foot 
MBP shipments would meet or exceed the efficacy levels at TSL 2. DOE 
estimates that shipments of this product classes will comprise 86 
percent of GSFL shipments in 2017. Meanwhile, in 2017, 57 percent of 8-
foot SP slimline lamps shipments, 10 percent of 8-foot RDC HO 
shipments, 45 percent of 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO, and 37 percent of 4-foot 
T5 MiniBP HO shipments would meet or exceed the efficacy levels at TSL 
2.
    DOE expects conversion costs to be small compared to the industry 
value because most of the GSFL shipments, on a total volume basis, 
already meet or exceed the efficacy levels analyzed at this TSL. DOE 
expects that product conversion costs will rise from $0.9 million at 
TSL 1 to $2.0 million at TSL 2 for lamp redesign and testing. Capital 
conversion costs will increase from $1.0 million at TSL 1 to $11.0 
million at TSL 2. This is driven by the fact that both 8-foot product 
classes would have to meet higher efficacy levels at this TSL. DOE 
believes this will result in higher capital conversion costs related to 
upgrading and recalibrating production line automation.
    At TSL 2, under the flat markup scenario, the shipment-weighted 
average MPC increases by 5 percent relative to the base case MPC. In 
this scenario, INPV impacts are slightly positive because of 
manufacturers' ability to pass the higher production costs to consumers 
outweighs the $13.0 million in conversion costs. Under the preservation 
of operating profit markup scenario, the 5 percent MPC increase is 
slightly outweighed by a lower average markup of 1.51 (compared to the 
flat markup of 1.52) and $13.0 million in conversion costs, resulting 
in slightly negative impacts at TSL 2.
    TSL 3 sets the efficacy level at baseline for one product class (8-
foot SP slimline) and EL 1 for four product classes (4-foot MBP, 8-foot 
RDC HO, 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO, and 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO). EL 1 for the 4-
foot T5 MiniBP HO product class represents the max tech efficacy level. 
At TSL 3, DOE estimates impacts on INPV to range from $120.5 million to 
-$11.5 million, or a change in INPV of 7.8 percent to -0.7 percent. At 
this proposed level, industry free cash flow is estimated to decrease 
by approximately 2 percent to $154.7 million, compared to the base case 
value of $157.7 million in 2016.
    While more significant than the impacts at TSL 2, the impacts on 
INPV at TSL 3 are still relatively minor compared to the total industry 
value. Percentage impacts on INPV are slightly positive to slightly 
negative at TSL 3. DOE does not anticipate that manufacturers would 
lose a significant portion of their INPV TSL 3. While less than the 
previous TSLs, a large percentage of total shipments still already meet 
or exceed the efficacy levels prescribed at TSL 3. DOE projects that in 
2016, 56 percent of the 4-foot MBP, 100 percent of 8-foot SP slimline, 
33 percent of 8-foot RDC HO shipments, 45 percent of 4-foot T5 MiniBP 
SO, and 37 percent of 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO shipments would meet or 
exceed the efficacy levels at TSL 3.
    DOE expects conversion costs to remain small at TSL 3 compared to 
the industry value because a significant percentage of the GSFL 
shipments, on a total volume basis, already meet or exceed the efficacy 
levels proposed at this TSL. TSL 3 is the first TSL that increases the 
efficacy requirement for 4-foot MBP, which as previously noted, 
comprise a large majority of GSFL shipments. Efficacy gains for these 
products, however, would likely be achieved with additional REOs, which 
would not require any significant capital investments. At TSL 3, DOE 
expects product conversion costs to increase from TSL 2 to $5.3 
million. DOE, however, estimates that capital conversion costs will 
decrease from TSL 2 to $3.0 million at TSL 3 since no amended efficacy 
standards would be set at TSL 3 for 8-foot SP slimline products and the 
8-foot RDC HO product class has a lower EL at TSL 3 than at TSL 2. The 
lower ELs for these two product classes outweigh the increase in EL of 
the 4-ft MBP product class and would cause manufacturers to invest less 
in capital conversion costs at TSL 3 than at TSL 2.
    At TSL 3, under the flat markup scenario, the shipment-weighted 
average MPC increases by 16 percent relative to the base case MPC. In 
this scenario, INPV impacts are slightly positive because 
manufacturers' ability to pass the higher production costs to consumers 
outweighs the $8.3 million in conversion costs. Under the preservation 
of operating profit markup scenario, the 16 percent MPC increase is 
slightly outweighed by a lower average markup of 1.51 (compared to the 
flat markup scenario markup of 1.52) and $8.3 million in conversion 
costs, resulting in negative impacts at TSL 3.
    TSL 4 sets the efficacy level at baseline for one product class (8-
foot SP slimline), EL 1 for three product classes (8-foot RDC HO, 4-
foot T5 MiniBP SO, and 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO), and EL 2 for one product 
class (4-foot MBP). EL 1 for the 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO product class and 
EL 2 for the 4-foot MBP product class represent the max tech efficacy 
levels. At TSL 4, DOE estimates impacts on INPV to range from $358.5 
million to -$22.9 million, or a change in INPV of 23.2 percent to -1.5 
percent. At this proposed level, industry free cash flow is estimated 
to decrease by approximately 3 percent to $152.9 million, compared to 
the base case value of $157.7 million in the year leading up to energy 
conservation standards.
    Percentage impacts on INPV are moderately positive to slightly 
negative at TSL 4. DOE projects that in 2017, 21 percent of 4-foot MBP, 
100 percent of 8-foot SP slimline, 33 percent of 8-foot RDC HO 
shipments, 45 percent of 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO, and 37 percent of 4-foot 
T5 MiniBP HO shipments would meet or exceed the efficacy levels at TSL 
4.
    While DOE expects conversion costs to increase from TSL 3 to TSL 4, 
DOE estimates the costs will still be small compared to the total 
industry value. DOE expects product conversion costs for GSFL 
manufacturers to increase from $5.3 million at TSL 3 to $7.5 million at 
TSL 4. DOE expects capital conversion costs to increase from $3.0 
million at TSL 3 to $5.5 million at TSL 4. While a higher percentage of 
shipments would need to be converted to meet the efficacy requirements 
at TSL 4, increasing the efficacy of GSFLs will not likely be a very 
capital-intensive process. Instead, increasing GSFL efficacy will 
likely be more focused around increasing the amount of REOs in the 
lamps.
    At TSL 4, under the flat markup scenario the shipment-weighted 
average MPC increases by 52 percent relative to the base case MPC. In 
this scenario, INPV impacts are slightly positive because of 
manufacturers' ability to pass the higher production costs to consumers 
outweighs the $13.0 million in conversion costs. Under the preservation 
of operating profit markup scenario, the 52 percent MPC increase is 
slightly outweighed by a lower average markup of 1.51 (compared to the 
flat markup scenario markup of 1.52) and $13.0 million in conversion 
costs, resulting in negative impacts at TSL 4.

[[Page 24162]]

    TSL 5 sets the efficacy level at max tech for all product classes. 
This represents EL 1 for one product class (4-foot T5 MiniBP HO) and EL 
2 for five product classes (4-foot MBP, 8-foot SP slimline, 8-foot RDC 
HO, and 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO). At TSL 5, DOE estimates impacts on INPV 
to range from $397.1 million to -$39.9 million, or a change in INPV of 
25.7 percent to -2.6 percent. At this proposed level, industry free 
cash flow is estimated to decrease by approximately 10 percent to 
$143.4 million, compared to the base case value of $157.7 million in 
2016.
    Percentage impacts on INPV are significantly positive to slightly 
negative at TSL 5. DOE projects that in 2017, 21 percent of the 4-foot 
MBP, 25 percent of 8-foot SP slimline, 10 percent of 8-foot RDC HO 
shipments, 14 percent of 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO, and 37 percent of 4-foot 
T5 MiniBP HO shipments would meet the efficacy levels at TSL 5.
    DOE expects conversion costs to increase from TSL 4 to TSL 5 due to 
the 8-foot slimline, 8-foot RDC HO, and 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO product 
classes moving to max tech ELs at TSL 5. DOE estimates that capital 
conversion costs will be $29.5 million at TSL 5 as a result of 
manufacturers having to upgrade all of their production lines to 
manufacture max tech products. DOE expects GSFL manufacturers to incur 
$9.1 million in product conversion costs for lamp redesigns and 
testing. However, these larger total conversion costs at TSL 5, $38.6 
million remain relatively small compared to the almost $2 billion total 
GSFL industry value at TSL 5.
    At TSL 5, under the flat markup scenario, the shipment-weighted 
average MPC increases by 57 percent relative to the base case MPC. In 
this scenario, INPV impacts are slightly positive because of 
manufacturers' ability to pass the higher production costs to consumers 
outweighs the $38.6 million in conversion costs. Under the preservation 
of operating profit markup scenario, the 57 percent MPC increase is 
slightly outweighed by a lower average markup of 1.51 (compared to the 
flat markup scenario markup of 1.52) and $38.6 million in conversion 
costs, resulting in negative impacts at TSL 5.
Cash Flow Analysis Results by TSL for Incandescent Reflector Lamps
    DOE incorporated the same markup scenarios to represent the upper 
and lower bounds of industry impacts for IRLs as was done for GSFLs: 
the flat, or preservation of gross margin, markup scenario and the 
preservation of operating profit markup scenario. DOE, however, 
analyzed one TSL for IRLs in addition to the baseline levels. DOE also 
analyzed an alternative shipment scenario for IRLs, the shortened 
lifetime scenario, in addition to the reference case. DOE acknowledges 
that to meet the proposed IRL energy conservation standards, IRL 
manufacturers may choose to shorten the lifetime of some of their IRLs, 
rather than make the investments to increase the efficacy of the lamps. 
DOE presents the results of this analysis in appendix 13C of the NOPR 
TSD.
    Table VII.32 and Table VII.33 present the projected results for 
IRLs under the flat and preservation of operating profit scenarios. DOE 
examined results for one representative product class for IRLs.

        Table VII.32--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Incandescent Reflector Lamps--Flat Markup Scenario
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Trial standard
                                                              Units                  Base case       level  1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV..........................................  (2012$ millions)................           176.0           128.6
Change in INPV................................  (2012$ millions)................  ..............          (47.5)
                                                (%).............................  ..............          -27.0%
Product Conversion Costs......................  (2012$ millions)................  ..............             6.1
Capital Conversion Costs......................  (2012$ millions)................  ..............            65.4
Total Conversion Costs........................  (2012$ millions)................  ..............            71.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Table VII.33--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Incandescent Reflector Lamps--Preservation of Operating Profit
                                                 Markup Scenario
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Trial standard
                                                              Units                  Base case       level  1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV..........................................  (2012$ millions)................           176.0           124.2
Change in INPV................................  (2012$ millions)................  ..............          (51.8)
                                                (%).............................  ..............          -29.5%
Product Conversion Costs......................  (2012$ millions)................  ..............             6.1
Capital Conversion Costs......................  (2012$ millions)................  ..............            65.4
Total Conversion Costs........................  (2012$ millions)................  ..............            71.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    TSL 1 sets the efficacy level at EL 1, max tech, for the IRL 
representative unit. At TSL 1, DOE estimates impacts on INPV to range 
from -$47.5 million to -$51.8 million, or a change in INPV of -27.0 
percent to -29.5 percent. At TSL 1, industry free cash flow is 
estimated to decrease by approximately 131 percent to -7.5 million, 
compared to the base case value of $23.8 million in 2016.
    INPV impacts are negative at TSL 1 regardless of the markup 
scenario chosen. DOE estimates that in 2017, 41 percent of IRL 
shipments would meet the efficacy requirements proposed at TSL 1. The 
majority of shipments would need to be converted to meet the standards 
proposed at this TSL.
    DOE expects substantial conversion costs for IRL manufacturers at 
TSL 1 associated with increasing the efficacy of IRLs. Manufacturers 
would have to invest in retooling burner machines, increasing coating 
capacity, and upgrading their production lines to allow for enhanced 
reflector coating. Some manufacturers expressed concern that they do 
not currently possess the technology required at the analyzed standard 
level and could exit the market entirely. Overall, DOE expects these 
capital conversion costs to total $65.4 million for the industry. DOE 
estimates that IRL manufacturers will also incur

[[Page 24163]]

$6.1 million in product conversion costs for lamp and production line 
redesign, as well as testing and certification.
    At TSL 1, under the flat markup scenario, the shipment-weighted 
average MPC increases by 13 percent relative to the base case MPC. In 
this scenario, INPV impacts are negative because the manufacturers' 
ability to pass the higher production costs to consumers does not 
outweigh $71.5 million in conversion costs. Under the preservation of 
operating profit markup scenario, the 13 percent MPC increase is 
outweighed by a lower average markup of 1.50 (compared to the flat 
markup scenario markup of 1.52) and $71.5 million in conversion costs, 
resulting in negative impacts at TSL 1. The significant capital and 
product conversion costs that IRL manufacturers must make at TSL 1 
cause INPV to be negative regardless of the markup chosen.
    DOE also analyzed a shortened lifetime sensitivity scenario where 
manufacturers shorten the lifetime of IRLs to mitigate the costs of 
complying with the proposed standard. By shortening the lifetime of 
IRLs manufacturers reduce the capital conversion costs they must make 
to comply with the proposed standard. DOE presents the INPV results of 
this analysis in appendix 13C of this NOPR TSD. DOE requests comment on 
the $6.1 product conversion costs and $65.4 capital conversion costs 
necessary for manufacturers to comply with the proposed standards.
b. Impacts on Employment
    DOE quantitatively assessed the impacts of potential amended energy 
conservation standards on direct employment. DOE used the GRIM to 
estimate the domestic labor expenditures and number of domestic 
production workers in the base case and at each TSL from 2013 to 2046. 
DOE used statistical data from the U.S. Census Bureau's 2011 Annual 
Survey of Manufacturers (ASM), the results of the engineering analysis, 
and interviews with manufacturers to determine the inputs necessary to 
calculate industry-wide labor expenditures and domestic employment 
levels. Labor expenditures involved with the manufacture of the product 
are a function of the labor intensity of the product, the sales volume, 
and an assumption that wages remain fixed in real terms over time.
    In the GRIM, DOE used the labor content of each product and the 
manufacturing production costs to estimate the annual labor 
expenditures in the industry. DOE used census data and interviews with 
manufacturers to estimate the portion of the total labor expenditures 
that is attributable to domestic labor.
    The production worker estimates in this section cover only workers 
up to the line-supervisor level directly involved in fabricating and 
assembling a product within a manufacturing facility. Workers 
performing services that are closely associated with production 
operations, such as material handing with a forklift, are also included 
as production labor. DOE's estimates account for production workers who 
manufacture only the specific products covered of this rulemaking. For 
example, a worker on a fluorescent lamp ballast production line would 
not be included with the estimate of the number of GSFL or IRL workers.
    The employment impacts shown in Table VII.34 and Table VII.35 below 
represent the potential production employment that could result 
following amended energy conservation standards. The upper bound of the 
results estimates the maximum change in the number of production 
workers that could occur after compliance with amended energy 
conservation standards when assuming that manufacturers continue to 
produce the same scope of covered products in the same production 
facilities. It also assumes that domestic production does not shift to 
lower labor-cost countries. Because there is a real risk of 
manufacturers evaluating sourcing decisions in response to amended 
energy conservation standards, the lower bound of the employment 
results includes the estimated total number of U.S. production workers 
in the industry who could lose their jobs if some or all existing 
production were moved outside of the United States. While the results 
present a range of employment impacts following 2017, the sections 
below also include qualitative discussions of the likelihood of 
negative employment impacts at the various TSLs. Finally, the 
employment impacts shown are independent of the employment impacts from 
the broader U.S. economy, documented in chapter 17 of the NOPR TSD. DOE 
seeks comment on the potential domestic employment impacts to GSFL and 
IRL manufacturers at the proposed efficacy levels.
Employment Impacts for General Service Fluorescent Lamps
    Using 2011 ASM data and interviews with manufacturers, DOE 
estimates that approximately three quarters of the GSFLs sold in the 
United States are manufactured domestically. With this assumption, DOE 
estimates that in the absence of amended energy conservation standards, 
there would be approximately 1,800 domestic production workers involved 
in manufacturing GSFLs in 2017. The table below shows the range of the 
impacts of potential amended energy conservation standards on U.S. 
production workers in the GSFL industry.

               Table VII.34--Potential Changes in the Total Number of Domestic General Service Fluorescent Lamp Production Workers in 2017
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Trial standard level
                            Base case                             --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     1            2              3               4               5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Number of Domestic Production Workers in 2017 (without             1,848        1,848        1,847           1,844           1,814           1,817
 changes in production locations)................................
Potential Changes in Domestic Production Workers in 2017 *.......  ...........            0          (1)     (4)-(1,848)    (34)-(1,848)    (31)-(1,848)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* DOE presents a range of potential employment impacts. Numbers in parentheses indicate negative numbers.

    At the upper end of the range, all examined TSLs show slight 
negative impacts on domestic employment levels. DOE believes that 
manufacturers could face slight negative impacts on domestic employment 
levels because there would be an increase in the shipments of products 
typically not manufactured domestically, such as 4-foot T5 MiniBP 
lamps, and a decrease of products typically manufactured domestically, 
such as 4-foot MBP lamps.

[[Page 24164]]

    Several manufacturers emphasized that it is difficult to predict 
employment impacts of energy conservation standards. One potential 
uncertainty is the future price of REOs and these employment decisions 
become more complex when more REOs are required for higher efficacious 
products.
    DOE does not expect any significant changes in domestic employment 
at TSLs 1 or 2 because standards would not be amended for 4-foot MBP 
lamps, which comprise approximately 86 percent of GSFL shipments in 
2017. While DOE does not anticipate the entire, or even a large portion 
of, domestic employment to move abroad at TSLs 3, 4 or 5, DOE 
acknowledges that there could be a loss of domestic employment at these 
TSLs due to the required increase in efficacy of 4-foot MBP lamps. The 
potential loss of domestic employment would most likely be a result of 
a possible increase in the price of REOs. Based on the REO prices 
modeled in the reference case, DOE does not estimate a significant loss 
of domestic employment at TSLs 3, 4, or 5. Overall, manufacturers were 
uncertain about how amended energy conservation standards would affect 
domestic employment and sourcing decisions. Ultimately, both employment 
and sourcing decisions could be determined by the stability and 
predictability of REO prices.
Employment Impacts for Incandescent Reflector Lamps
    Using 2011 ASM data and interviews with manufacturers, DOE 
estimates that approximately half of the IRLs sold in the United States 
are manufactured domestically. With this assumption, DOE estimates that 
in the absence of amended energy conservation standards, there would be 
approximately 300 domestic production workers involved in manufacturing 
IRLs in 2017. The table below shows the range of the impacts of 
potential amended energy conservation standards on U.S. production 
workers in the IRL industry.

     Table VII.35--Potential Changes in the Total Number of Domestic
         Incandescent Reflector Lamp Production Workers in 2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Trial standard
                                                               level
                Base case                                ---------------
                                                                 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Number of Domestic Production                  308             335
 Workers in 2017 (without changes in
 production locations)..................
Potential Changes in Domestic Production  ..............        27-(308)
 Workers in 2017 *......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* DOE presents a range of potential employment impacts. Numbers in
  parentheses indicate negative numbers.

    At the upper end of the range TSL 1 shows a slight positive impact 
on domestic employment levels. The increasing product cost at TSL 1 
would result in higher labor expenditures per-unit, which could cause 
manufacturers to hire more domestic workers to meet this added labor 
demand, assuming IRL production remains in domestic facilities.
    Manufacturers are concerned that higher prices for IRLs will drive 
consumers to alternate technologies and it may not make economic sense 
for them to continue to produce IRLs. Increasing the efficacy of IRLs 
would cost manufacturers millions in capital conversion costs. Some 
stated that they do not have the technology to meet the proposed energy 
conservation standards and said it is possible they would not spend 
their limited resources to convert all IRL production to meet efficacy 
levels at TSL 1. Ultimately, the high costs associated with increasing 
the efficacy of IRLs could cause some IRL manufacturers to exit the 
market.
c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
    GSFL manufacturers stated that they did not anticipate any capacity 
constraints outside of the availability of REOs. One manufacturer 
pointed out that moving the industry to max tech efficacy levels could 
triple the amount of REOs demanded by GSFL manufacturers. Tripling the 
demand for REOs that are already difficult to come by could trigger 
some capacity concerns by creating extra volatility in the market. The 
sharp increase in demand for REOs could cause wide variations in the 
price and availability of REOs, making production costs more 
unpredictable.
    A few IRL manufacturers expressed concern about the capacity of 
their IR coating machines and that the companies that manufacture those 
machines might not be able to respond to the demand for IR coating 
machines necessary to manufacture higher efficacious IRLs. DOE, 
however, received a comment from ADLT, a company that manufactures IR 
coating machines, that they estimate the current global capacity of IR 
coatings for IRLs to be over 50 million units annually. ADLT claims 
this IR coating capacity is supported by three different coating 
processes and provided by at least five different companies. ADLT 
stated they are in a position to increase their IR coating capacity by 
20 million units annually using existing equipment within a two-year 
time period. ADLT believes that additional coating capacity can be 
generated from one or more of at least five IR coating facilities owned 
and operated by other companies worldwide. Given a three-year period 
between the ruling and its effective date, ADLT believes there is ample 
time available for various companies to react to the potential increase 
in IR coating demand. Given that DOE estimated approximately 65 million 
IRLs may be sold in 2017 in the preliminary analysis, ADLT believes 
that IR coating capacity in excess of 70 million units in total can 
readily be made available. (ADLT, No. 31 at p. 3) While this exceeds 
DOE's NOPR IRL shipment estimate of approximately 32 million units to 
be sold in 2017, ADLT did not provide a source for their claim that the 
current IR coating capacity is 50 million units annually or for the 
potential to increase this IR coating capacity to 70 million units 
annually in 2017. Therefore, it is unclear if this additional IR 
coating capacity or current IR coating capacity is sufficient to meet 
the potential U.S. demand for IRLs at the higher EL.
d. Impacts on Sub-Groups of Manufacturers
    Using average cost assumptions to develop an industry cash-flow 
estimate may not be adequate for assessing differential impacts among 
manufacturer subgroups. Small manufacturers, niche product 
manufacturers, and manufacturers exhibiting cost structures 
substantially different from the industry average could be affected 
disproportionately. DOE analyzed the impacts to small businesses in 
section VIII.B and did not identify any other adversely impacted 
subgroups for GSFLs or IRLs for this

[[Page 24165]]

rulemaking based on the results of the industry characterization.
e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
    While any one regulation may not impose a significant burden on 
manufacturers, the combined effects of recent or impending regulations 
may have serious consequences for some manufacturers, groups of 
manufacturers, or an entire industry. Assessing the impact of a single 
regulation may overlook this cumulative regulatory burden. In addition 
to energy conservation standards, other regulations can significantly 
affect manufacturers' financial operations. Multiple regulations 
affecting the same manufacturer can strain profits and lead companies 
to abandon product lines or markets with lower expected future returns 
than competing products. For these reasons, DOE conducts a cumulative 
regulatory burden analysis as part of its rulemakings pertaining to 
lighting efficacy.
    During previous stages of this rulemaking, DOE identified a number 
of requirements, in addition to amended energy conservation standards 
for GSFLs and IRLs, that manufacturers will face for products they 
manufacture three years prior to and three years after the compliance 
date of the amended standards. The following section briefly addresses 
comments DOE received with respect to cumulative regulatory burden and 
summarizes other key related concerns that manufacturers raised during 
interviews.
    Several manufacturers expressed concern that GSFLs and IRLs face 
several regulations and that they have not had time to fully assess the 
effects of the 2009 Lamps Rule, compliance with which was required in 
2012. Several manufacturers also expressed concern about the overall 
volume of DOE's energy conservation standards with which they must 
comply. Most GSFL and IRL manufacturers also make a full range of 
lighting products and share engineering and other resources with these 
other internal manufacturing divisions for different products 
(including certification testing for regulatory compliance). 
Manufacturers cited current DOE rulemakings for high intensity 
discharge (HID) lamps, metal halide fixtures, LEDs, and CFLs. Some 
manufacturers also raised concerns about other existing regulations 
separate from DOE's energy conservation standards that manufacturers of 
GSFLs and IRLs must meet. These include: the Restriction of Hazardous 
Substances (RoHS) Directive, California Title 20, FTC labeling 
requirements, Interstate Mercury Education and Reduction Clearinghouse 
(IMERC) labeling requirements, the Minamata Convention on Mercury, and 
disclosure of procurement methods of conflict minerals mandated by the 
Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, among others. DOE seeks 
comment on GSFL manufacturers potentially increasing the amount of 
mercury in GSFLs in order to comply with the proposed GSFL standards.
    DOE discusses these and other requirements in chapter 13 of the 
NOPR TSD, which lists the estimated compliance costs of those 
requirements when available. In considering the cumulative regulatory 
burden, DOE evaluates the timing of regulations that impact the same 
product because the coincident requirements could strain financial 
resources in the same profit center and consequently impact capacity. 
DOE also identified several ongoing rulemakings that could potentially 
impact other business units of GSFL and IRL manufacturers in general, 
but the impacts of those ongoing rulemakings remain speculative and are 
therefore not included in the analysis for today's proposed rule. DOE 
did not receive any data on other regulatory costs that affect the 
industry modeled in the cash-flow analysis. To the extent DOE receives 
specific costs associated with other regulations affecting those profit 
centers (GSFL and IRL) modeled in the GRIM, DOE can incorporate that 
information into its cash-flow analysis. The cash-flow scenarios 
analyzed for today's proposed rule include the impacts of the 2009 
Lamps Rule, as the levels established in that rule have become the 
baseline for the proposed standards and the lamp prices estimated in 
the engineering analysis reflect the investments that manufacturers 
made to comply with the 2009 Lamps Rule. DOE seeks comment on the 
compliance costs of any other regulations GSFL or IRL manufacturers 
must make, especially if compliance with those regulations is required 
three years before or after the estimated compliance date of these 
proposed standards (2017).
3. Shipments Analysis and National Impact Analysis
    Projections of shipments are an important input to the NIA. As 
discussed in section VI.I, DOE developed a shipments model that 
incorporated substitution matrixes, which specify the product choices 
available to consumers (lamps as well as lamp-and-ballast combinations 
for fluorescent lamps) depending on whether they are renovating 
lighting systems, installing lighting systems in new construction, or 
simply replacing lamps; and a module that assigns shipments to product 
classes and efficacy levels based on consumer sensitivities to first 
costs and operation and maintenance costs. The model estimates the 
shipments of each lamp type in the base case and under the conditions 
set by each TSL. Table VII.36 and Table VII.37 present the estimated 
cumulative shipments in the base case and the relative change under 
each TSL.

                                   Table VII.36--Effect of Standard Cases on Cumulative Shipments of GSFL in 2017-2046
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Base case          TSL 1            TSL 2            TSL 3            TSL 4            TSL 5
                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Change in        Change in        Change in        Change in        Change in
                     Lamp type                         Cumulative       shipments        shipments        shipments        shipments        shipments
                                                       shipments       relative to      relative to      relative to      relative to      relative to
                                                        millions        base case        base case        base case        base case        base case
                                                                        (percent)        (percent)        (percent)        (percent)        (percent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4-foot MBP........................................            5,700              0.0             0.34             -2.7              -24              -18
8-foot SP slimline................................              110              0.0              -13              8.6               71               24
8-foot RDC HO.....................................               21              0.0             -8.5              0.0              0.0             -8.5
4-foot T5, MiniBP SO..............................              410              0.0             0.83               28              250              210
4-foot T5, MiniBP HO..............................              660              0.0             0.27            -0.01            -0.12             0.17
2-foot U-shaped...................................              230              0.0              0.0             -0.0             -0.0             -0.0
                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total GSFL*...................................            7,100              0.0             0.13            -0.39             -3.4             -2.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* May not sum due to rounding.

[[Page 24166]]

    As shown in the preceding Table, depending on TSL, the consumer 
choice model projects significant shifts across product classes, in 
particular, it projects significant shifts to 4-foot T5 standard output 
lamps in the TSL 4 and TSL 5 standards cases. DOE requests comment on 
the reasonableness of its assumption that first cost is a significant 
driver of consumers' choice of product class, which results in the 
shipments analysis projecting a rapid shift from 4-foot MBP T8s to 
standard output T5s in the TSL 5 standards case. The TSL5 standards 
case substantially increases first cost for 4-foot MBP T8s.
    Noting that DOE projects a sharp decrease in total GSFL shipments 
both with and without standards during the rulemaking period because of 
the projected sharp incursion of LEDs into the GSFL market, DOE also 
seeks comment on the reasonableness of the shipments model projection 
for TSL 5. Specifically, DOE seeks comment on whether standard output 
T5 lamps could increase from 3 to 4 percent of the standard output GSFL 
market presently, to approximately 13 percent of the same market by 
2020, and to approximately 30 percent of the much attenuated standard 
output GSFL market by 2046.

               Table VII.37--Effect of Standard Cases on Cumulative Shipments of IRL in 2017-2046
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Base case          TSL 1
                                                                               ---------------------------------
                                                                                                    Change in
                                   Lamp Type                                       Cumulative       shipments
                                                                                   shipments       relative to
                                                                                    millions        base case
                                                                                                    (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard spectrum; >2.5 inch diameter; www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table VII.42 shows the consumer NPV results for each TSL considered 
for GSFLs, and Table VII.43 shows the consumer NPV results for each TSL 
considered for IRL. In each case, the impacts cover the lifetime of 
product purchased in 2017-2046.

 Table VII.42--Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for GSFL Trial Standard Levels for Units Sold in 2017-2046
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  TSL 1     TSL 2     TSL 3     TSL 4     TSL 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Billion 2012$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7% discount rate..............................................     -0.39     -0.48      0.23       3.2       3.1
3% discount rate..............................................     -0.49     -0.63       1.0       8.1       8.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Table VII.43--Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for IRL Trial
               Standard Levels for Units Sold in 2017-2046
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              TSL 1
                                                       -----------------
                                                          Billion 2012$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7% discount rate......................................              0.18
3% discount rate......................................              0.28
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 24168]]

    The NPV results based on the afore-mentioned nine-year shipments 
period are presented in Table VII.44 and Table VII.45. The impacts are 
counted over the lifetime of product purchased in 2017-2025. As 
mentioned previously, this information is presented for informational 
purposes only and is not indicative of any change in DOE's analytical 
methodology or decision criteria.

 Table VII.44--Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for GSFL Trial Standard Levels for Units Sold in 2017-2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  TSL 1     TSL 2     TSL 3     TSL 4     TSL 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Billion 2012$
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
7% discount rate..............................................     -0.26     -0.33      0.04       1.1       1.1
3% discount rate..............................................     -0.29     -0.39      0.37       2.5       2.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Table VII.45--Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for IRL Trial
               Standard Levels for Units Sold in 2017-2025
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              TSL 1
                                                       -----------------
                                                          Billion 2012$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7% discount rate......................................              0.13
3% discount rate......................................              0.18
------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Impact of Product Class Switching
    As discussed at the beginning of section VII.B.3, consumer 
switching between product classes yields an increase in shipments for 
some GSFL product classes, with corresponding reductions in shipments 
in other product classes (see Table VII.36). Therefore, a portion of 
the energy savings for some of the TSLs is due to consumers' switching 
between product classes to more energy efficient products with lower 
operating costs. Similarly, the increase in product costs for some of 
the TSLs is substantially impacted by product-class switching. For the 
standard level proposed for GSFL's in this rulemaking, increases in the 
typical cost of 4-foot MBP GSFLs relative to 8-foot SP slimline or 4-
foot MiniBP T5s is expected to drive some consumers to shift toward the 
latter two product classes, yielding a reduction in energy consumption 
relative to the base case, with a lower increase in purchase costs than 
would be obtained without the product-class switching. Conversely, as 
is true for TSL1, potential standard level that increases the typical 
purchase prices of the latter two product classes above would reduce 
migration to these product classes, yielding a net reduction in the 
energy savings relative to the base case, with a greater increment in 
product costs. This is true for example with TSL1 where the efficiency 
requirements are increased for product classes which are already 
relatively efficient (e.g., 4 foot T5 miniBP) while not increased for 
product classes which are relatively inefficient (e.g., 4 foot MBP). In 
this case, there is no product class switching as consumers are 
forecasted to continue purchasing the less costly and less efficient 
technology (4 foot MBP).
    Because of these assumed shifts in shipments between product 
classes, the NES and monetized cost and benefit values computed for a 
single product class, considered in isolation, may yield negative 
energy savings and associated benefits as well as negative associated 
costs . For the proposed standard level, the increased shipments of 
MiniBP T5 lamps and 8-foot SP slimline lamps will lead to negative 
energy savings and costs for both of those product classes, when viewed 
in isolation, simply because significantly more lamps from those 
product classes are purchased and operated in the standards case than 
in the base case. Those negative values, however, do not represent an 
actual reduction in consumer benefit for the service being delivered to 
the consumer since the negative values for the particular product 
classes are more than offset by the large positive contributions to the 
aggregate energy savings and monetized benefits across all product 
classes partially due to the corresponding reduction in shipments of 4-
ft MBP T8s. DOE requests comment on the consumer choice model that 
projects shifts in shipments between product classes and whether there 
are other factors (e.g. utility, costs to replace light fixtures, 
design incompatibility) that may preclude or limit that shifting that 
may not be considered in DOE's analysis. For informational purposes, 
chapter 12 of the TSD presents NES and NPV values computed for each 
product class individually.
d. Alternative Scenario Analyses
    As discussed in section VI.I and VI.J, DOE conducted several 
sensitivity analyses to determine the potential impact of uncertain 
future prices for materials that are important to the manufacture of 
efficient GSFL and IRL products.
    In the case of GSFLs, DOE considered the possibility that the price 
of rare earth oxides rises again. As mentioned in section V.I, rare 
earth oxides, used in GSFL phosphors to improve lamp efficiency, 
underwent a large price spike in 2010 and 2011, but their prices have 
since lowered to almost their pre-spike level. To assess the effect of 
higher rare earth prices on the impact of energy conservation standards 
for GSFLs, DOE performed an alternative analysis in which the average 
price of rare earth oxides was assumed to be midway between the peak of 
the 2011 price spike and the pre-spike level, and was assumed to remain 
at that elevated level throughout the analysis period. The details of 
the price model that DOE used for this analysis are given in appendix 
11B of the NOPR TSD. The impacts of the modeled rare earth oxide price 
increase on the NES and NPV of this rulemaking were small to moderate 
and did not affect the ranking of the TSLs (see chapter 12 of the NOPR 
TSD).
    In the case of IRLs, DOE considered the possibility of a 
significant increase in the price of xenon gas, which DOE believes is 
now used as a fill gas in all standards-compliant IRL products. Demand 
for xenon gas has been rising recently, which may lead to price 
increases in the future. To assess the effect of a significant xenon 
price increase on the impact of an energy conservation standard for 
IRL, DOE performed an alternative analysis in which the price of xenon 
is assumed to increase by a factor of ten in the near future and remain 
at these elevated levels throughout the analysis period. The details of 
the xenon market assessment used to inform this analysis are given in 
appendix 7C of the TSD for the NOPR. The impacts of the modeled xenon 
price increase on the NES and NPV of this rulemaking were minimal and 
did not affect the ranking of the TSLs (see chapter 12 of the NOPR 
TSD).
e. Indirect Impacts on Employment
    DOE expects energy conservation standards for GSFLs and IRLs to 
reduce energy costs for product owners, and the resulting net savings 
to be redirected to

[[Page 24169]]

other forms of economic activity. Those shifts in spending and economic 
activity could affect the demand for labor. As described in section 
VI.O, DOE used an input/output model of the U.S. economy to estimate 
indirect employment impacts of the TSLs that DOE considered in this 
rulemaking. DOE understands that there are uncertainties involved in 
projecting employment impacts, especially changes in the later years of 
the analysis. Therefore, DOE generated results for near-term time 
frames, where these uncertainties are reduced.
    The results suggest that the proposed standards are likely to have 
negligible impact on the net demand for labor in the economy. The net 
change in jobs is so small that it would be imperceptible in national 
labor statistics and might be offset by other, unanticipated effects on 
employment. Chapter 17 of the NOPR TSD presents detailed results.
4. Impact on Utility or Performance
    DOE believes that the standards it is proposing today will not 
lessen the utility or performance of GSFLs and IRLs. DOE reached this 
conclusion based on the analyses conducted to develop the proposed GSFL 
and IRL efficacy levels. In the engineering analysis, DOE considered 
only technology options that would not have adverse impacts on product 
utility. See section VI.B and chapter 4 of this TSD for further details 
regarding the screening analysis. DOE also divided products in to 
classes based on performance-related features that justify different 
standard levels such as those impacting consumer utility. DOE then 
developed separate standard levels for each product class. See section 
VI.C and chapter 3 of this TSD for further details regarding product 
classes selected and consumer utility.
    Further, DOE's evaluation shows that products meeting proposed 
efficacy levels are not of lesser utility or performance than products 
at existing standard levels. DOE considered several characteristics 
when evaluating utility and performance of GSFLs including physical 
constraints (i.e., shape and size), diameter, lumen package, color 
quality (i.e., CCT and CRI), lifetime, and ability to dim. DOE 
determined that these GSFL performance characteristics were not 
diminished for any proposed standard level. For IRLs, DOE considered 
lumen package, lifetime, shape, and diameter when evaluating utility 
and performance. DOE determined that these IRL performance 
characteristics were not diminished for any proposed standard level. 
DOE did not assess CRI or CCT for IRLs because they are intended as a 
measure of the light quality of non-incandescent/halogen lamps when 
compared with incandescent/halogen lamps. See section VI.D and chapter 
5 of this TSD for further details on the selection of more efficacious 
substitutes for the baseline and development of proposed efficacy 
levels.
    DOE requests comment on its assumption that there will be no 
lessening of utility or performance such that the performance 
characteristics, including physical constraints, diameter, lumen 
package, color quality, lifetime, and ability to dim, would be 
adversely affected for the GSFL efficacy levels. Similarly, DOE also 
requests comment on its assumption that there will be no lessening of 
utility or performance such that the performance characteristics, 
including lumen package, lifetime, shape, diameter, and light quality, 
would be adversely affected for the IRL efficacy levels.
5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
    DOE considers any lessening of competition that is likely to result 
from amended standards. The Attorney General determines the impact, if 
any, of any lessening of competition likely to result from a proposed 
standard, and transmits such determination to the Secretary, together 
with an analysis of the nature and extent of such impact.
    To assist the Attorney General in making such determination, DOE 
will provide DOJ with copies of the NOPR and the TSD for review. DOE 
will consider DOJ's comments on the proposed rule in preparing the 
final rule, and DOE will publish and respond to DOJ's comments in that 
document.
6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy
    Enhanced energy efficiency, where economically justified, improves 
the nation's energy security, strengthens the economy, and reduces the 
environmental impacts or costs of energy production. Reduced 
electricity demand due to energy conservation standards is also likely 
to reduce the cost of maintaining the reliability of the electricity 
system, particularly during peak-load periods. As a measure of this 
reduced demand, chapter 16 in the NOPR TSD presents the estimated 
reduction in generating capacity for the TSLs that DOE considered in 
this rulemaking.
    Energy savings from standards for GSFLs and IRLs could also produce 
environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air 
pollutants and GHGs associated with electricity production. Table 
VII.46 and Table VII.47 provide DOE's estimate of cumulative emissions 
reductions projected to result from the TSLs considered in this 
rulemaking. DOE reports annual emissions reductions for each TSL in 
chapter 14 of the NOPR TSD.

              Table VII.46--Cumulative Emissions Reduction Estimated for GSFL Trial Standard Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Trial standard level
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
                                                           1           2           3           4           5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Power Sector Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (million metric tons)...........................         9.9         9.7          42         140         160
SO2 (thousand tons).................................          15          15          64         220         250
NOX (thousand tons).................................         5.5         5.5          23          78          89
Hg (tons)...........................................       0.019       0.019       0.082        0.28        0.32
N2O (thousand tons).................................        0.16        0.16        0.69         2.4         2.7
CH4 (thousand tons).................................         1.1         1.0         4.5          15          18
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Upstream Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (million metric tons)...........................        0.52        0.51         2.2         7.6         8.6
SO2 (thousand tons).................................        0.11        0.11        0.48         1.6         1.9
NOX (thousand tons).................................         7.2         7.0          31         100         120

[[Page 24170]]

 
Hg (tons)...........................................     0.00028     0.00028      0.0012      0.0041      0.0047
N2O (thousand tons).................................      0.0053      0.0052       0.023       0.077       0.088
CH4 (thousand tons).................................          43          42         180         630         720
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Total Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (million metric tons)...........................          10          10          44         150         170
SO2 (thousand tons).................................          15          15          65         220         250
NOX (thousand tons).................................          13          12          54         180         210
Hg (tons)...........................................       0.020       0.019       0.083        0.28        0.32
N2O (thousand tons).................................        0.17        0.16        0.71         2.5         2.8
N2O (thousand tons CO2eq)*..........................          49          48         210         730         830
CH4 (thousand tons).................................          44          43         190         640         730
CH4 (million tons CO2eq)*...........................       1,100       1,100       4,700      16,000      18,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* CO2eq is the quantity of CO2 that would have the same GWP.

  Table VII.47--Cumulative Emissions Reduction Estimated for IRL Trial
                             Standard Levels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Trial
                                                               standard
                                                                 level
                                                             -----------
                                                                   1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Power Sector Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (million metric tons)...................................        0.66
SO2 (thousand tons).........................................        0.69
NOX (thousand tons).........................................        0.35
Hg (tons)...................................................      0.0012
N2O (thousand tons).........................................      0.0095
CH4 (thousand tons).........................................       0.066
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Upstream Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (million metric tons)...................................       0.032
SO2 (thousand tons).........................................      0.0069
NOX (thousand tons).........................................        0.45
Hg (tons)...................................................     0.00002
N2O (thousand tons).........................................     0.00033
CH4 (thousand tons).........................................         2.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Total Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (million metric tons)...................................        0.70
SO2 (thousand tons).........................................        0.69
NOX (thousand tons).........................................        0.79
Hg (tons)...................................................      0.0012
N2O (thousand tons).........................................      0.0099
N2O (thousand tons CO2eq)*..................................         2.9
CH4 (thousand tons).........................................         2.7
CH4 (million tons CO2eq)*...................................          68
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* CO2eq is the quantity of CO2 that would have the same GWP.

    As part of the analysis for this rule, DOE estimated monetary 
benefits likely to result from the reduced emissions of CO2 
and NOX that DOE estimated for each of the TSLs considered. 
As discussed in section VI.M.1, DOE used the most recent values for the 
SCC developed by an interagency process. The four sets of SCC values 
resulting from that process (expressed in 2012$) represented by $11.8/
metric ton (the average value from a distribution that uses a 5 percent 
discount rate), $39.7/metric ton (the average value from a distribution 
that uses a 3 percent discount rate), $61.2/metric ton (the average 
value from a distribution that uses a 2.5 percent discount rate), and 
$117/metric ton (the 95th-percentile value from a distribution that 
uses a 3 percent discount rate). These values correspond to the value 
of emission reductions in 2015; the values for later years are higher 
due to increasing damages as the projected magnitude of climate change 
increases.
    Table VII.48 and Table VII.49 present the global value of 
CO2 emissions reductions at each TSL. For each of the four 
cases, DOE calculated a present value of the stream of annual values 
using the same discount rate as was used in the studies upon which the 
dollar-per-ton values are based. DOE calculated domestic values as a 
range from 7 percent to 23 percent of the global values, and these 
results are presented in chapter 15 of the NOPR TSD.

   Table VII.48--Estimates of Global Present Value of CO2 Emissions Reduction Under GSFL Trial Standard Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       SCC Case*
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 TSL                  5% discount rate,  3% discount rate,    2.5% discount    3% discount rate,
                                           average*           average*        rate, average*    95th percentile*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Billion 2012$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Power Sector Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................                 77                330                520              1,000
2...................................                 76                330                520              1,000
3...................................                330              1,400              2,200              4,300
4...................................              1,100              4,700              7,300             14,000
5...................................              1,200              5,300              8,400             16,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 24171]]

 
                                               Upstream Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................                4.0                 17                 27                 54
2...................................                4.0                 17                 27                 53
3...................................                 17                 74                120                230
4...................................                 57                250                390                760
5...................................                 65                280                450                870
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Total Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................                 81                350                550              1,100
2...................................                 80                350                540              1,100
3...................................                340              1,500              2,300              4,500
4...................................              1,100              4,900              7,700             15,000
5...................................              1,300              5,600              8,900             17,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* For each of the four cases, the corresponding SCC value for emissions in 2015 is $11.8, $39.7, $61.2, and $117
  per metric ton (2012$).

   Table VII.49--Estimates of Global Present Value of CO2 Emissions Reduction Under IRL Trial Standard Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       SCC Case*
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 TSL                  5% discount rate,  3% discount rate,    2.5% discount    3% discount rate,
                                           average*           average*        rate, average*    95th percentile*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Billion 2012$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Power Sector Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................                5.8                 24                 37                 72
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Upstream Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................               0.28                1.2                1.8                3.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Total Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................                6.1                 25                 39                 75
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* For each of the four cases, the corresponding SCC value for emissions in 2015 is $11.8, $39.7, $61.2, and $117
  per metric ton (2012$).

    DOE is well aware that scientific and economic knowledge about the 
contribution of CO2 and other GHG emissions to changes in 
the future global climate and the potential resulting damages to the 
world economy continues to evolve rapidly. Thus, any value placed on 
reducing CO2 emissions in this rulemaking is subject to 
change. DOE, together with other Federal agencies, will continue to 
review various methodologies for estimating the monetary value of 
reductions in CO2 and other GHG emissions. This ongoing 
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. However, consistent with DOE's 
legal obligations, and taking into account the uncertainty involved 
with this particular issue, DOE has included in this proposed rule the 
most recent values and analyses resulting from the interagency process.
    DOE also estimated the cumulative monetary value of the economic 
benefits associated with NOX emissions reductions 
anticipated to result from amended standards for GSFLs and IRLs. The 
dollar-per-ton value that DOE used is discussed in section VI.L. Table 
VII.50 and Table VII.51 present the cumulative present values for each 
TSL calculated using 7 percent and 3 percent discount rates.

[[Page 24172]]

   Table VII.50--Estimates of Present Value of NOX Emissions Reduction
                    Under GSFL Trial Standard Levels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            3% discount     7% discount
                   TSL                         rate            rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Million 2012$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Power Sector Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................             9.6             5.8
2.......................................             9.5             5.8
3.......................................              40              24
4.......................................             130              77
5.......................................             150              89
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Upstream Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................              12             6.9
2.......................................              12             6.9
3.......................................              50              29
4.......................................             170              93
5.......................................             190             110
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Total Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................              21              13
2.......................................              21              13
3.......................................              90              53
4.......................................             290             170
5.......................................             340             200
------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Table VII.51--Estimates of Present Value of NOX Emissions Reduction
                     Under IRL Trial Standard Levels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      3%          7%
                       TSL                         discount    discount
                                                     rate        rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Million 2012$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Power Sector Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................        0.71        0.52
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Upstream Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................        0.87        0.61
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Total Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................         1.6         1.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Summary of National Economic Impacts
    The NPV of the monetized benefits associated with emissions 
reductions can be viewed as a complement to the NPV of the consumer 
savings calculated for each TSL considered in this rulemaking. Table 
VII.52 presents the NPV values that result from adding the estimates of 
the potential economic benefits resulting from reduced CO2 
and NOX emissions in each of four valuation scenarios to the 
NPV of consumer savings calculated for each TSL considered in this 
rulemaking, at both a 7 percent and 3 percent discount rate. The 
CO2 values used in the columns of each table correspond to 
the four sets of SCC values discussed above.

 Table VII.52--Net Present Value of Consumer Savings Combined With Present Value of Monetized Benefits From CO2
                          and NOX Emissions Reductions Under GSFL Trial Standard Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Consumer NPV at 3% discount rate added with:
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                   TSL                     SCC Case $11.8/   SCC Case $39.7/   SCC Case $61.2/   SCC Case $117/
                                           metric ton CO2*   metric ton CO2*   metric ton CO2*   metric ton CO2*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Billion 2012$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................             -0.39             -0.12              0.08              0.60
2.......................................             -0.53             -0.27             -0.07              0.44
3.......................................               1.5               2.6               3.4               5.7
4.......................................               9.5                13                16                23
5.......................................               9.7                14                17                26
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Consumer NPV at 7% discount rate added with:
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                   TSL                     SCC Case $11.8/   SCC Case $39.7/   SCC Case $61.2/   SCC Case $117/
                                           metric ton CO2*   metric ton CO2*   metric ton CO2*   metric ton CO2*
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Billion 2012$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................             -0.30             -0.03              0.17              0.70
2.......................................             -0.38             -0.12              0.08              0.59
3.......................................              0.63               1.8               2.6               4.8
4.......................................               4.5               8.3                11                18
5.......................................               4.6               9.0                12                21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* These label values represent the global SCC in 2015, in 2012$. For NOX emissions, each case uses the medium
  value, which corresponds to $2,639 per ton.

[[Page 24173]]

 Table VII.53--Net Present Value of Consumer Savings Combined with Present Value of Monetized Benefits from CO2
                          and NOX Emissions Reductions Under IRL Trial Standard Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Consumer NPV at 3% discount rate added with:
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                   TSL                    SCC Case  $11.8/  SCC Case  $39.7/  SCC Case  $61.2/   SCC Case  $117/
                                           metric ton CO2*   metric ton CO2*   metric ton CO2*   metric ton CO2*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Billion 2012$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................              0.29              0.31              0.32              0.36
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Consumer NPV at 7% discount rate added with:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   TSL                        SCC Case          SCC Case          SCC Case          SCC Case
                                          $11.8/metric ton  $39.7/metric ton  $61.2/metric ton   $117/metric ton
                                                      CO2*              CO2*              CO2*              CO2*
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Billion 2012$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................              0.19              0.20              0.22              0.25
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* These label values represent the global SCC in 2015, in 2012$. For NOX emissions, each case uses the medium
  value, which corresponds to $2,639 per ton.

    Although adding the value of consumer savings to the values of 
emission reductions provides a valuable perspective, two issues should 
be considered. First, the national operating cost savings are domestic 
U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of market 
transactions, while the value of CO2 reductions is based on 
a global value. Second, the assessments of operating cost savings and 
the SCC are performed with different methods that use different time 
frames for analysis. The national operating cost savings is measured 
for the lifetime of product shipped in 2017-2046. The SCC values, on 
the other hand, reflect the present value of future climate-related 
impacts resulting from the emission of one metric ton of CO2 
in each year. These impacts continue well beyond 2100.
8. Other Factors
    The Secretary, in determining whether a standard is economically 
justified, may consider any other factors that the Secretary deems to 
be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) No other factors were 
considered in this analysis.

C. Proposed Standards

    When considering proposed standards, the new or amended energy 
conservation standard that DOE adopts for any type (or class) of 
covered product 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)) In 
determining whether a standard is economically justified, the Secretary 
must determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens, 
considering to the greatest extent practicable the seven statutory 
factors discussed previously. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The new or 
amended standard must also ``result in significant conservation of 
energy.'' (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
    DOE considers the impacts of standards at each TSL, beginning with 
the max tech level, to determine whether that level met the evaluation 
criteria. Where the max tech level is not justified, DOE then considers 
the next most efficient level and undertakes the same evaluation until 
it reaches the highest efficiency level that is technologically 
feasible, economically justified, and saves a significant amount of 
energy.
    To aid the reader in understanding the benefits and/or burdens of 
each TSL, Table VII.54 and Table VII.55 in this section summarize the 
quantitative analytical results for each TSL, based on the assumptions 
and methodology discussed herein. The efficacy levels contained in each 
TSL are described in section VI.D. In addition to the quantitative 
results presented in the tables, DOE also considers other burdens and 
benefits that affect economic justification. These include the impacts 
on identifiable subgroups of consumers who may be disproportionately 
affected by a national standard (see section VI.H), and impacts on 
employment. DOE discusses the impacts on employment in GSFL and IRL 
manufacturing in section VII.B.2.b, and discusses the indirect 
employment impacts in section VI.O.
    As discussed in previous DOE standards rulemakings and the February 
2011 NODA (76 FR 9696, Feb. 22, 2011), DOE also notes that economics 
literature provides a wide-ranging discussion of how consumers trade 
off upfront costs and energy savings in the absence of government 
intervention. Much of this economics literature attempts to explain why 
consumers appear to undervalue energy efficiency improvements. This 
undervaluation suggests that regulation promoting energy efficiency can 
produce significant net private gains (as well as producing social 
gains by, for example, reducing pollution). There is evidence that 
consumers undervalue future energy savings as a result of (1) a lack of 
information, (2) a lack of sufficient savings to warrant accelerating 
or altering purchases (e.g., an inefficient ventilation fan in a new 
building or the delayed replacement of a water pump), (3) inconsistent 
weighting of future energy cost savings relative to available returns 
on other investments, (4) computational or other difficulties 
associated with the evaluation of relevant tradeoffs, and (5) a 
divergence in incentives (e.g., renter versus owner; builder vs. 
purchaser). Other literature indicates that with less-than-perfect 
foresight and a high degree of uncertainty about the future, it may be 
rational for consumers to trade off these types of investments at a 
higher-than-expected rate between current consumption and uncertain 
future energy cost savings. Some studies suggest that this seeming 
undervaluation may be explained in certain circumstances by differences 
between tested and actual energy savings, or by uncertainty and 
irreversibility of energy investments. There may also be ``hidden'' 
welfare losses to consumers if newer energy efficient products are 
imperfect substitutes for the less efficient products they replace, in 
terms of performance or other attributes that consumers value. In the 
abstract, it may be difficult to say how a welfare gain from correcting

[[Page 24174]]

potential under-investment in energy conservation compares in magnitude 
to the potential welfare losses associated with no longer purchasing a 
machine or switching to an imperfect substitute, both of which still 
exist in this framework.
    The mix of evidence in the empirical economics literature suggests 
that if feasible, analysis of regulations mandating energy-efficiency 
improvements should explore the potential for both welfare gains and 
losses and move toward a fuller economic framework where all relevant 
changes can be quantified.\91\ While DOE is not prepared at present to 
provide a fuller quantifiable framework for this discussion, DOE seeks 
comments on how to assess these possibilities.\92\ In particular, DOE 
requests comment on whether there are features or attributes of the 
more energy efficient GSFLs and IRLs that manufacturers would produce 
to meet the standards in this proposed rule that might affect the 
welfare, positively or negatively, of consumers who purchase these 
lamps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ A good review of the literature related to this issue can 
be found in Gillingham, K., R. Newell, K. Palmer. (2009). ``Energy 
Efficiency Economics and Policy,'' Annual Review of Resource 
Economics, 1: 597-619; and Tietenberg, T. (2009). ``Energy 
Efficiency Policy: Pipe Dream or Pipeline to the Future?'' Review of 
Environmental Economics and Policy. Vol. 3, No. 2: 304-320.
    \92\ A draft paper, ``Notes on the Economics of Household Energy 
Consumption and Technology Choice,'' proposes a broad theoretical 
framework on which an empirical model might be based and is posted 
on the DOE Web site along with this notice at www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Benefits and Burdens of Trial Standard Levels Considered for General 
Service Fluorescent Lamps
    Table VII.54 and Table VII.55 summarize the quantitative impacts 
estimated for each TSL for GSFL.

                     Table VII.54--Summary of Analytical Results for GSFL: National Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Category                 TSL 1         TSL 2          TSL 3            TSL 4              TSL 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        National FFC Energy Savings quads
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        0.21          0.21            0.89                3.0                3.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     NPV of Consumer Benefits 2012$ billion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% discount rate..............         -0.49         -0.63             1.0                8.1                8.1
7% discount rate..............         -0.39         -0.48            0.23                3.2                3.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Cumulative Emissions Reduction (Total FFC Emissions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (million metric tons).....            10            10              44                150                170
SO2 (thousand tons)...........            15            15              65                220                250
NOX (thousand tons)...........            13            12              54                180                210
Hg (tons).....................         0.020         0.019           0.083               0.28               0.32
N2O (thousand tons)...........          0.17          0.16            0.71                2.5                2.8
N2O (thousand tons CO2eq) *...            49            48             210                730                830
CH4 (thousand tons)...........            44            43             190                640                730
CH4 (million tons CO2eq) *....         1,100         1,100           4,700             16,000             18,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Value of Emissions Reduction (Total FFC Emissions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 2012$ million **..........   82 to 1,100   80 to 1,100    340 to 4,500    1,100 to 15,000    1,300 to 17,000
NOX--3% discount rate, 2012$              21            21              90                290                340
 million......................
NOX--7% discount rate, 2012$              13            13              53                170                200
 million......................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* CO2eq is the quantity of CO2 that would have the same GWP.
** Range of the economic value of CO2 reductions is based on estimates of the global benefit of reduced CO2
  emissions.

             Table VII.55--Summary of Analytical Results for GSFL: Manufacturer and Consumer Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Category                       TSL 1         TSL 2         TSL 3         TSL 4         TSL 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Manufacturer Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change in Industry NPV (2012$                41.8--(0.9)   37.8--(9.2)  120.5--(11.5  358.5--(22.9  397.1--(39.9
 million)[dagger].........................                                         )             )             )
Change in Industry NPV (%)[dagger]........    2.7--(0.1)    2.5--(0.6)    7.8--(0.7)   23.2--(1.5)   25.7--(2.6)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Consumer Mean LCC Savings 2012$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4-foot MBP 2, 210 thousand tons of NOX, 250 
thousand tons of SO2, 0.32 tons of Hg, 730 thousand tons of 
CH4, and 2.8 thousand tons of N2O. The estimated 
monetary value of the CO2 emissions reductions at TSL 5 
ranges from $1,300 million to $17,000 million.
    At TSL 5, the weighted average LCC savings is $3.14 for the 4-foot 
MBP lamps, $2.76 for the 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO lamps, $2.28 for the 4-
foot T5 MiniBP HO lamps, $2.08 for the 8-foot SP slimline lamps, and -
$16.76 for the 8-foot RDC HO lamps.
    At TSL 5, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of 
$39.9 million to an increase of $397.1 million. If the decrease is 
realized, TSL 5 could result in a net loss of up to 2.6 percent in INPV 
to manufacturers of covered GSFLs. Also at TSL 5, DOE estimates 
industry will need to invest approximately $38.6 million in conversion 
costs.
    After considering the analysis and weighing the benefits and the 
burdens, DOE has tentatively concluded that, at TSL 5 for GSFL, the 
benefits of energy savings, positive NPV of total consumer benefits, 
positive impacts on consumers (as indicated by positive average LCC 
savings, favorable PBPs, and the large percentage of consumers who 
would experience LCC benefits), emission reductions and the estimated 
monetary value of the emissions reductions would outweigh the potential 
reduction in industry value, and increase in LCCs experienced by 
certain consumers at TSL 5. The Secretary has concluded that TSL 5 
would save a significant amount of energy and is technologically 
feasible and economically justified.
    Based on the above considerations, DOE today proposes to adopt the 
energy conservation standards for GSFL at TSL 5. Table VII.56 presents 
the proposed energy conservation standards for GSFL.

      Table VII.56--Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for GSFL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Proposed level
              Lamp type                     CCT K             lm/W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4-Foot Medium Bipin.................           4,500              90.6
2-Foot U-Shaped.....................           4,500              84.3
8-Foot Slimline.....................           4,500              94.1
8-Foot High Output..................           4,500              95.6
4-Foot Miniature Bipin Standard                4,500              91.3
4-Foot Miniature Bipin High Output..           4,500              78.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Summary of Benefits and Costs (Annualized) of the Proposed Standards 
for General Service Fluorescent Lamps
    The benefits and costs of today's proposed standards, for product 
sold in 2017-2046, can also be expressed in terms of annualized values. 
The annualized monetary values are the sum of (1) the annualized 
national economic value of the benefits from consumer operation of 
product that meet the proposed standards (consisting primarily of 
operating cost savings from using less energy, minus increases in 
product purchase and installation costs, which is another way of 
representing consumer NPV), and (2) the annualized monetary value of 
the benefits of emission reductions, including CO2 emission 
reductions.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ DOE used a two-step calculation process to convert the 
time-series of costs and benefits into annualized values. First, DOE 
calculated a present value in 2013, the year used for discounting 
the NPV of total consumer costs and savings, for the time-series of 
costs and benefits using discount rates of 3 and 7 percent for all 
costs and benefits except for the value of CO2 
reductions. For the latter, DOE used a range of discount rates. From 
the present value, DOE then calculated the fixed annual payment over 
a 30-year period (2017 through 2046) that yields the same present 
value. The fixed annual payment is the annualized value. Although 
DOE calculated annualized values, this does not imply that the time-
series of cost and benefits from which the annualized values were 
determined is a steady stream of payments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimates of annualized benefits and costs of the proposed 
standards for GSFL are shown in Table VII.57. The results under the 
primary estimate are as follows. Using a 7-percent discount rate for 
benefits and costs other than CO2 reduction, for which DOE 
used a 3-percent discount rate along with the average SCC series that 
uses a 3-percent discount rate, the cost of the standards proposed in 
today's rule is $873 million per year in increased product costs; while 
the estimated benefits are $1,180 million per year in reduced product 
operating costs, $314 million per year in CO2 reductions, 
and $19.3 million per year in reduced NOX emissions. In this 
case, the net benefit would amount to $642 million per year. Using a 3-
percent discount rate for all benefits and costs

[[Page 24176]]

and the average SCC series, the estimated cost of the standards 
proposed in today's rule is $751 million per year in increased product 
costs; while the estimated benefits are $1,200 million per year in 
reduced operating costs, $314 million per year in CO2 
reductions, and $18.9 million per year in reduced NOX 
emissions. In this case, the net benefit would amount to approximately 
$783 million per year.

               Table VII.57--Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Standards for GSFL (TSL 5)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Primary estimate  Low net benefits     High net benefits
                                    Discount rate            *              estimate *          estimate *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  .................                       Million 2012$/year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating Cost Savings..........  7%...............  1,180............  1,160...........  1,220
                                  3%...............  1,200............  1,170...........  1,250
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value     5%...............  98...............  98..............  98
 ($11.8/t case) **.
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value     3%...............  314..............  314.............  314
 ($39.7/t case) **.
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value     2.5%.............  456..............  456.............  456
 ($61.2/t case) **.
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value     3%...............  968..............  968.............  968
 ($117/t case) **.
NOX Reduction Monetized Value     7%...............  19.3.............  19.3............  19.3
 (at $2,639/ton) **.
                                  3%...............  18.9.............  18.9............  18.9
Total Benefits [dagger].........  7% plus CO2 range  1,300 to 2,160...  1,280 to 2,140..  1,340 to 2,210
                                  7%...............  1,520............  1,490...........  1,560
                                  3% plus CO2 range  1,320 to 2,180...  1,290 to 2,160..  1,370 to 2,230
                                  3%...............  1,530............  1,510...........  1,580
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental Product Costs.......  7%...............  873..............  910.............  873
                                  3%...............  751..............  785.............  751
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Net Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total [dagger]..................  7% plus CO2 range  426 to 1,291.....  367 to 1,232....  469 to 1,330
                                  7%...............  642..............  583.............  685
                                  3% plus CO2 range  567 to 1,432.....  505 to 1,370....  615 to 1,480
                                  3%...............  783..............  722.............  831
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This table presents the annualized costs and benefits associated with GSFLs shipped in 2017-2046. These
  results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2046 from the products purchased in 2017-2046. The
  results account for the incremental variable and fixed costs incurred by manufacturers due to the standard,
  some of which may be incurred in preparation for the rule. The Primary Benefits Estimate assumes the central
  energy prices from AEO2013 and a decreasing incremental product cost, due to price learning. The Low Benefits
  Estimate assumes the low estimate of energy prices from AEO2013 and constant real product prices. The High
  Benefits Estimate assumes the high energy price estimates from AEO2013 and decreasing incremental product
  costs, due to price learning.
** The CO2 values represent global monetized values of the SCC, in 2012$, in 2015 under several scenarios of the
  updated SCC values. The first three cases use the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5%, 3%, and
  2.5% discount rates, respectively. The fourth case represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution
  calculated using a 3% discount rate. The SCC time series used by DOE incorporate an escalation factor. The
  value for NOX is the average of the low and high values used in DOE's analysis.
[dagger] Total Benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are derived using the series corresponding to
  average SCC with 3-percent discount rate. In the rows labeled ``7% plus CO2 range'' and ``3% plus CO2 range,''
  the operating cost and NOX benefits are calculated using the labeled discount rate, and those values are added
  to the full range of CO2 values.

3. Benefits and Burdens of Trial Standard Levels Considered for 
Incandescent Reflector Lamps
    Table VII.58 and Table VII.59 summarize the quantitative impacts 
estimated for the potential IRL standards.

  Table VII.58--Summary of Analytical Results for IRL: National Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Category                              TSL 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    National FFC Energy Savings Quads
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             0.013
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 NPV of Consumers Benefits 2012$ Billion
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% discount rate...........................  0.28
7% discount rate...........................  0.18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Cumulative Emissions Reduction (Total FFC Emissions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO[ihel2] (million metric tons)............  0.70
SO[ihel2] (thousand tons)..................  0.69

[[Page 24177]]

 
NOX (thousand tons)........................  0.79
Hg (tons)..................................  0.0012
N[ihel2]O (thousand tons)..................  0.0099
N[ihel2]O (thousand tons CO[ihel2]eq) *....  2.9
CH4 (thousand tons)........................  2.7
CH4 (thousand tons CO[ihel2]eq) *..........  68
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Value of Emissions Reduction (Total FFC Emissions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO[ihel2] 2012$ million **.................  6.1 to 75
NOX--3% discount rate 2012$ million........  1.6
NOX--7% discount rate 2012$ million........  1.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* CO[ihel2]eq is the quantity of CO[ihel2] that would have the same GWP.
** Range of the economic value of CO[ihel2] reductions is based on
  estimates of the global benefit of reduced CO[ihel2] emissions.

  Table VII.59--Summary of Analytical Results for IRL: Manufacturer and
                            Consumer Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Category                               TSL 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Manufacturer Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change in Industry NPV 2012$ million **.............     (47.5) - (51.8)
Change in Industry NPV % **.........................     (27.0) - (29.5)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Consumer Mean LCC Savings * 2012$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard spectrum; >2.5 inch diameter; 2.5 inch diameter; 2, 0.79 thousand tons of NOX, 
0.69 thousand tons of SO2, 0.0012 tons of Hg, 2.7 thousand 
tons of CH4, and 0.0099 thousand tons of N2O. The 
estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions reductions at 
TSL 1 ranges from $6.1 million to $75 million.
    At TSL 1, the weighted average LCC savings for the standard 
spectrum, > 2.5 inch diameter, W
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Spectrum.........................................              >2.5             >=125        7.1P\0.27\
40 W-205 W................................................                                =125        6.0P\0.27\
                                                                                          2.5             >=125        6.0P\0.27\
40 W-205 W................................................                                =125        5.1P\0.27\
                                                                                          2 
emission reductions.
    Estimates of annualized benefits and costs of the proposed 
standards for IRL are shown in Table VII.61. The results under the 
primary estimate are as follows. Using a 7-percent discount rate for 
benefits and costs other than CO2 reduction, for which DOE 
used a 3-percent discount rate along with the average SCC series that 
uses a 3-percent discount rate, the annualized incremental equipment 
cost of the standards proposed in today's rule is negative $10.4 
million per year,\94\ and the annualized benefits of the standards 
proposed in today's rule are $7.2 million per year in reduced product 
operating costs, $1.4 million per year in CO2 reductions, 
and $0.11 million per year in reduced NOX emissions. In this 
case, the net benefit would amount to $19 million per year. Using a 3-
percent discount rate for all benefits and costs and the average SCC 
series, the estimated annualized incremental equipment cost of the 
standards proposed in today's rule is negative $9.7 million per 
year,\94\ and the annualized benefits of the standards proposed in 
today's rule are $5.9 million per year in reduced operating costs, $1.4 
million per year in CO2 reductions, and $0.09 million per 
year in reduced NOX emissions. In this case, the net benefit 
would amount to approximately $17 million per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ This represents a reduction in product costs compared to 
the base case, because the more efficacious products have 
substantially longer lifetimes than the products that would be 
eliminated by the proposed standard.

                Table VII.61--Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Standards for IRL (TSL 1)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Low net benefits    High net benefits
                                    Discount rate     Primary estimate*       estimate*           estimate*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 ..................                       Million 2012$/year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating Cost Savings.........  7%................  7.2...............  7.1...............  10
                                 3%................  5.9...............  5.8...............  5.8
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value    5%................  0.5...............  0.5...............  0.5
 ($11.8/t case)**.
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value    3%................  1.4...............  1.4...............  1.4
 ($39.7/t case)**.
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value    2.5%..............  2.0...............  2.0...............  2.0
 ($61.2/t case)**.
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value    3%................  4.2...............  4.2...............  4.2
 ($117/t case)*.
NOX Reduction Monetized Value    7%................  0.11..............  0.11..............  0.16
 (at $2,639/ton)**.
                                 3%................  0.09..............  0.09..............  0.09
Total Benefits [dagger]........  7% plus CO2 range.  7.8 to 12.........  7.7 to 11.........  7.8 to 12
                                 7%................  8.7...............  8.6...............  8.7
                                 3% plus CO2 range.  6.4 to 10.........  6.4 to 10.........  6.4 to 10
                                 3%................  7.4...............  7.3...............  7.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental Product Costs        7%................  -10.4.............  -10.5.............  -10.4
 [Dagger].
                                 3%................  -9.7..............  -9.8..............  -9.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Net Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total [dagger].................  7% plus CO2 range.  18 to 22..........  18 to 22..........  18 to 22
                                 7%................  19................  19................  19
                                 3% plus CO2 range.  16 to 20..........  16 to 20..........  16 to 20

[[Page 24179]]

 
                                 3%................  17................  17................  17
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This table presents the annualized costs and benefits associated with IRLs shipped in 2017-2046. These results
  include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2046 from the products purchased in 2017-2046. The results
  account for the incremental variable and fixed costs incurred by manufacturers due to the standard, some of
  which may be incurred in preparation for the rule. The Primary Benefits Estimate assumes the central energy
  prices from AEO2013 and a decreasing incremental product cost, due to price learning. The Low Benefits
  Estimate assumes the low estimate of energy prices from AEO2013 and constant real product prices. The High
  Benefits Estimate assumes the high energy price estimates from AEO2013 and decreasing incremental product
  costs, due to price learning.
** The CO2 values represent global monetized values of the SCC, in 2012$, in 2015 under several scenarios of the
  updated SCC values. The first three cases use the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5%, 3%, and
  2.5% discount rates, respectively. The fourth case represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution
  calculated using a 3% discount rate. The SCC time series used by DOE incorporate an escalation factor. The
  value for NOX is the average of the low and high values used in DOE's analysis.
[dagger] Total Benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are derived using the series corresponding to
  average SCC with 3-percent discount rate. In the rows labeled ``7% plus CO2 range'' and ``3% plus CO2 range,''
  the operating cost and NOX benefits are calculated using the labeled discount rate, and those values are added
  to the full range of CO2 values.
[Dagger] This reduction in product costs occurs because the more efficacious products have substantially longer
  lifetimes than the products that would be eliminated by the proposed standard.

VIII. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    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 that it intends to address, including, where applicable, 
the failures of private markets or public institutions that warrant new 
agency action, as well as to assess the significance of that problem. 
The problems that today's standards address are as follows:
    (1) There is a lack of consumer information and/or information 
processing capability about energy efficiency opportunities in the 
lighting market.
    (2) There is asymmetric information (one party to a transaction has 
more and better information than the other) and/or high transactions 
costs (costs of gathering information and effecting exchanges of goods 
and services).
    (3) There are external benefits resulting from improved energy 
efficiency of GSFLs and IRLs that are not captured by the users of such 
equipment. These benefits include externalities related to 
environmental protection and energy security that are not reflected in 
energy prices, such as reduced emissions of GHGs.
    In addition, DOE has determined that today's regulatory action is 
an ``economically significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f)(1) 
of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, section 6(a)(3) of the Executive 
Order requires that DOE prepare a regulatory impact analysis (RIA) on 
today's rule and that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 
(OIRA) in OMB review this rule. DOE presented to OIRA for review the 
draft rule and other documents prepared for this rulemaking, including 
the RIA, and has included these documents in the rulemaking record. The 
assessments prepared pursuant to Executive Order 12866 can be found in 
the technical support document for this rulemaking.
    DOE has also reviewed this regulation pursuant to Executive Order 
13563, issued on January 18, 2011 (76 FR 3281, Jan. 21, 2011). EO 13563 
is supplemental to and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, 
and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive 
Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, agencies are required by 
Executive Order 13563 to: (1) Propose or adopt a regulation only upon a 
reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing 
that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor 
regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with 
obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other 
things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative 
regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory 
approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits (including 
potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other 
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the extent 
feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the 
behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; 
and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct 
regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the 
desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing 
information upon which choices can be made by the public.
    DOE emphasizes as well that Executive Order 13563 requires agencies 
to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present 
and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its 
guidance, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has 
emphasized that such techniques may include identifying changing future 
compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or 
anticipated behavioral changes. In this NOPR, DOE has taken particular 
note of the potential for future volatility in the price of rare earth 
oxides used in the manufacture of GSFLs as it affects the future costs 
and benefits of the proposed standard. DOE plans to pursue a 
retrospective review of rare earth prices as input for any future 
updates to GSFL standards. For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE 
believes that today's NOPR is consistent with these with the principles 
laid out in Executive Order 13563, including the requirement that, to 
the extent permitted by law, benefits justify costs and that net 
benefits are maximized.

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires 
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for 
any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the 
agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
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

[[Page 24180]]

Counsel's Web site (http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel).
    As a result of this review, DOE has prepared an IRFA for GSFLs and 
IRLs, a copy of which DOE will transmit to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) for review under 5 
U.S.C. 605(b). As presented and discussed below, the IFRA describes 
potential impacts on GSFL and IRL manufacturers and discusses 
alternatives that could minimize these impacts.
    A statement of the objectives of, and reasons and legal basis for, 
the proposed rule are set forth elsewhere in the preamble and not 
repeated here.
1. Description and Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
a. Methodology for Estimating the Number of Small Entities
    For manufacturers of GSFLs and IRLs, the SBA has set a size 
threshold, which defines those entities classified as ``small 
businesses'' for the purposes of the statute. DOE used the SBA's small 
business size standards to determine whether any small entities would 
be subject to the requirements of the rule. 65 FR 30836, 30848 (May 15, 
2000), as amended at 65 FR 53533, 53544 (Sept. 5, 2000) and codified at 
13 CFR part 121. The size standards are listed by North American 
Industry Classification System (NAICS) code and industry description 
available at: http://www.sba.gov/content/table-small-business-size-standards. GSFL and IRL manufacturing is classified under NAICS code 
335110, ``Electric Lamp Bulb and Part Manufacturing.'' The SBA sets a 
threshold of 1,000 employees or less for an entity to be considered as 
a small business for this category.
    To estimate the number of companies that could be small business 
manufacturers of GSFLs and IRLs covered by this rulemaking, DOE 
conducted a market survey using publicly available information. DOE's 
research involved industry trade association membership directories 
(including NEMA), information from previous rulemakings, individual 
company Web sites, SBA's database, and market research tools (e.g., 
Hoover's reports). DOE also asked stakeholders and industry 
representatives if they were aware of any small manufacturers during 
manufacturer interviews and DOE public meetings. DOE used information 
from these sources to create a list of companies that potentially 
manufacture or sell GSFLs or IRLs and would be impacted by this 
rulemaking. As necessary, DOE contacted companies to determine whether 
they met the SBA's definition of a small business manufacturer of GSFLs 
or IRLs. DOE screened out companies that do not offer products covered 
by this rulemaking, do not meet the definition of a ``small business,'' 
or are completely foreign owned and operated.
    For GSFLs, DOE initially identified a total of 47 potential 
companies that sell GSFLs in the United States. After reviewing 
publicly available information on these potential GSFL manufacturers, 
DOE determined that 26 were either large manufacturers, manufacturers 
that were completely foreign owned and operated, or did not sell GSFLs 
covered by this rulemaking. DOE then contacted the remaining 21 GSFL 
companies to determine whether they met SBA's definition of a small 
business and whether they manufactured or sold GSFLs that would be 
affected by today's proposal. Based on these efforts, DOE estimated 
that there are 21 small businesses that either manufacture or sell 
covered GSFLs in the United States.
    For IRLs, DOE initially identified a total of 37 potential 
companies that sell IRLs in the United States. After reviewing publicly 
available information on these potential IRL manufacturers, DOE 
determined that 22 were either large manufacturers, manufacturers that 
were completely foreign owned and operated, or did not sell IRLs 
covered by this rulemaking. DOE then contacted the remaining 15 IRL 
companies to determine whether they met SBA's definition of a small 
business and whether they manufactured or sold IRLs that would be 
affected by today's proposal. Based on these efforts, DOE estimated 
that there are 15 small businesses that either manufacture or sell 
covered IRLs in the United States.
b. Manufacturer Participation
    DOE contacted all 21 identified GSFL small businesses to invite 
them to take part in a small business MIA interview. Of the GSFL 
manufacturers DOE contacted, eight responded to DOE's email and phone 
communications and 13 did not. DOE was able to reach and discuss 
potential standards with two of the eight GSFL small business 
manufacturers that responded. The remaining six declined DOE's request 
to be interviewed for this rulemaking. DOE also contacted all 15 
identified IRL small businesses to invite them to take part in a small 
business MIA interview. Of the IRL manufacturers DOE contacted, five 
responded to DOE's email and phone communications and 10 did not. DOE 
was able to reach and discuss potential standards with two of the five 
IRL small business manufacturers. The remaining three declined DOE's 
request to be interviewed for this rulemaking. DOE also obtained 
information about small business manufacturers and potential impacts on 
small businesses while interviewing large manufacturers.
c. General Service Fluorescent Lamp and Incandescent Reflector Lamp 
Industry Structures and Nature of Competition
    Three major manufacturers supply approximately 90 percent of the 
GSFL market. None of these three major GSFL manufacturers are small 
businesses. DOE estimates that the remaining 10 percent of the GSFL 
market is served by either small businesses or manufacturers that are 
completely foreign owned and operated. No small business has more than 
a three percent market share in the GSFL industry. Similarly in the IRL 
market, the same three major GSFL manufacturers supply approximately 80 
percent of the IRL market. Again, none of these three major IRL 
manufacturers is a small business. DOE estimates that the remaining 20 
percent of the IRL market is served by either small businesses or 
manufacturers that are completely foreign owned and operated. No small 
business has more than three percent of the IRL market individually. 
Small businesses that sell covered GSFLs and IRLs tend to be companies 
that outsource the manufacturing to overseas companies who produce the 
lamps specified by the small businesses. These small businesses provide 
the specifications for these lamps as well as the testing and 
certification to comply with any U.S. energy conservation standards.
d. Comparison Between Large and Small Entities
    For GSFLs and IRLs, small businesses differ from large 
manufacturers in several ways that directly affect the extent to which 
a company would be impacted by any potential energy conservation 
standards. The main differences between small and large entities for 
this rulemaking are that small manufacturers of GSFLs and IRLs have 
lower sales volumes and are frequently not the original manufacturers 
of GSFLs and IRLs. Therefore, these small businesses would not have any 
capital conversion costs to comply with amended standards, since the 
machinery used to produce GSFLs and IRLs is owned and operated by 
overseas manufacturers. The small businesses would most likely 
experience higher per-unit costs for the

[[Page 24181]]

products if the conversion costs experienced by the overseas 
manufacturers are passed through to the small businesses, potentially 
reducing those small business' manufacturer markups and profits. Small 
businesses would also have product conversion costs associated with 
testing and certifying any lamps that would need to be redesigned due 
to standards. Typically the testing and certification costs are 
proportional to the number of products offered by a company and not the 
volume of sales. Some small businesses stated they could offer up to 75 
percent of the number of covered products that large manufacturers 
offer; however, the volume of sales for each single product offered by 
a small business would be significantly smaller than that of a larger 
manufacturer. Consequently, the revenue associated with a single 
product is much smaller for small businesses than for large 
manufacturers. Therefore, these small businesses could have product 
conversion costs in the same range as large manufacturers, since 
product conversion costs scale to number of products offered, even 
though the total revenue is significantly lower for small businesses 
compared to large manufacturers.
    Lower sales volumes are the biggest disadvantage for most small 
businesses. A lower-volume business' product conversion costs are 
spread over fewer units than a larger competitor. Thus, unless the 
small business can differentiate its product in some way that earns a 
price premium, the small business experiences a reduction in profit 
per-unit relative to the large manufacturer. Most small GSFL and IRL 
businesses operate in the same lighting markets as large manufacturers 
and do not operate in niche GSFL and IRL markets. Much of the same 
equipment would need to be purchased by both large manufacturers and 
small businesses to produce GSFLs and IRLs at higher efficacy levels. 
If the small business is not the original lamp manufacturer, the 
manufacturer that sells to the small business would have to purchase 
this equipment. Therefore, undifferentiated small businesses would face 
a greater per-unit cost penalty because they must spread the conversion 
costs over fewer units. While small businesses may not be directly 
paying these capital conversion costs, they are still responsible for 
selling certified products made by the original lamp manufacturers. The 
costs incurred by contracted manufacturers are passed on to small 
businesses that must maintain profit margins by either increasing 
product prices or decreasing profitability.
2. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements
    Small GSFL and IRL businesses will be affected differently by the 
proposed energy conservation standards compared to large manufacturers. 
One of the key differences between large manufacturers and the small 
businesses identified by DOE for this rulemaking is that small IRL and 
GSFL businesses typically outsource the manufacturing of the lamps they 
sell to original equipment manufacturers abroad. This, in addition to 
the small volume of sales typical of small businesses, results in small 
GSFL and IRL businesses having different types and amounts of 
conversion costs compared to large manufacturers.
    As a result of this rulemaking, small businesses will incur product 
conversion costs because products that no longer meet the proposed 
efficacy levels of amended energy conservation standards will most 
likely need to be redesigned, retested, and recertified. Since small 
businesses have significantly less revenue and annual R&D budgets than 
large manufacturers, the product conversion costs necessary to comply 
with amended standards represent a significant portion of a small 
business' annual revenue. However, unlike large manufacturers, small 
businesses will most likely not incur any capital conversion costs due 
to amended standards because small businesses usually do not own and 
operate the machinery used to manufacture the covered lamps. The 
capital conversion costs incurred by original equipment manufacturers 
will instead be passed along indirectly to the domestic small 
businesses.
    In the GSFL market, DOE identified 21 small GSFL businesses with 
covered products affected by this rulemaking. It is unlikely that small 
GSFL businesses will incur any capital conversion costs because small 
businesses usually do not own and operate the machinery used to 
manufacture the covered lamps; however, they will likely face 
significant product conversion costs to cover R&D, certification, and 
testing of products that need to be redesigned to meet the proposed 
GSFL efficacy levels of today's NOPR. DOE estimates that approximately 
20 percent of the covered products offered by small GSFL manufacturers 
meet the proposed efficacy levels at TSL 5. As a result, an average of 
approximately 80 percent of products would need to be redesigned to 
meet proposed efficacy levels, resulting in small GSFL businesses 
incurring more than $1.6 million on average in product conversion costs 
or nearly seven times as much as typical annual GSFL R&D expenses. GSFL 
sales account for approximately 25 percent of a typical small business' 
annual revenue, so redesigning up to 80 percent of those offerings 
could have a significant impact on their business. Redesigning a large 
majority of product offerings that represent a significant revenue 
stream will be more difficult for small businesses, compared to large 
businesses, as they have less R&D and revenue.

Table VIII.1--Estimated GSFL Product Conversion Costs as a Percentage of
                         Annual GSFL R&D Expense
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Product        Total  conversion
                                    conversion cost       cost  as a
                                    as a percentage     percentage  of
                                     of annual R&D      annual revenue
                                   expense (percent)       (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Typical Large Manufacturer......                   1                   0
Typical Small Manufacturer......                 692                  31
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the IRL market, DOE identified 15 small IRL businesses with 
covered products affected by this rulemaking. DOE estimates that a 
typical small IRL business will not incur any direct capital conversion 
costs at TSL 1, the proposed standard in today's NOPR, since most IRL 
small businesses do not own and operate the machinery used to 
manufacture IRLs. The small businesses would most likely experience 
higher per-unit costs for the products if the

[[Page 24182]]

conversion costs experienced by the overseas manufacturers are passed 
through to the small businesses, potentially reducing those small 
business' manufacturer markups. Small IRL businesses are expected to 
incur product capital conversion costs of approximately $836 thousand 
per manufacturer. As Table VIII.2 below illustrates, small businesses 
would have significant product conversion costs amounting to nearly 
nine times the annual amount spent on IRL R&D. Small IRL businesses 
have much smaller annual R&D budgets as well as smaller annual revenue 
streams, so incurring the product conversion costs necessary to meet 
the efficacy standards at TSL 1 could be problematic for those small 
businesses that have a large majority of their IRLs at the baseline 
efficacy level. Total conversion cost for a typical small business 
could amount to nearly a third that small business' annual IRL revenue.

 Table VIII.2--Estimated IRL Product Conversion Costs as a Percentage of
                         Annual IRL R&D Expense
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Product        Total  conversion
                                    conversion cost       cost  as a
                                    as a percentage     percentage  of
                                     of annual R&D      annual  revenue
                                  expense  (percent)       (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Typical Large Manufacturer......                 387                  28
Typical Small Manufacturer......                 852                  29
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While some small businesses would have some products meet the IRL 
efficacy levels proposed in today's NOPR, there are a few small 
businesses that may not be able to meet the IRL efficacy levels 
proposed in today's NOPR. Not meeting TSL 1 for IRL products may also 
be a strategic decision for some small businesses since IRL products 
make up about five percent of a typical small IRL business' revenue. 
Therefore, some small lighting businesses may choose to not sell IRLs 
covered by this rulemaking and exit the market.
    Small businesses in both the IRL and GSFL industries expressed 
concern that possible manufacturing downtime, discontinuation of 
product lines, and high direct and indirect conversion costs resulting 
from amended GSFL and IRL energy conservation standards could have a 
significant impact on their revenue and could affect domestic 
employment decisions. Domestic employment impacts would be especially 
prevalent in the GSFL market where GSFL revenue accounts for 
approximately 25 percent of a typical small business' revenue. Domestic 
employment impacts would be seen in small business' sales forces and 
warehouse staff that could be potentially downsized as a result of 
amended GSFL and IRL standards.
3. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and Regulations
    DOE is not aware of any rules or regulations that duplicate, 
overlap, or conflict with the rule being considered today.
4. Significant Alternatives to the Proposed Rule
    The discussion above analyzes impacts on small businesses that 
would result from the GSFL TSL and IRL TSL DOE is proposing in today's 
notice. Though TSLs lower than the proposed TSLs are expected to reduce 
the impacts on small entities, DOE is required by EPCA to establish 
standards that achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency 
that are technically feasible and economically justified, and result in 
a significant conservation of energy. Therefore, DOE rejected the lower 
TSLs.
    The NOPR TSD includes a regulatory impact analysis in chapter 18. 
For GSFLs and IRLs, this report discusses the following policy 
alternatives in addition to the other TSLs being considered: (1) 
Consumer rebates, (2) consumer tax credits, and (3) manufacturer tax 
credits. DOE does not intend to consider these alternatives further 
because they either are not feasible to implement or are not expected 
to result in energy savings as large as those that would be achieved by 
the standard levels under consideration.
    DOE continues to seek input from businesses that would be affected 
by this rulemaking and will consider comments received in the 
development of any final rule.
5. Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments
    NEMA commented during the framework comment period there is an 
added burden of significantly more testing and reporting of a lot of 
small sales volume lamps which would result from the proposed increase 
in regulations. This increased burden would be much harder on small 
business manufacturers, especially if those small business 
manufacturers have to pay testing costs to a National Voluntary 
Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) source facility. (NEMA, No. 10 
at p. 75) NEMA also commented during the framework comment period that 
there is a substantial cumulative effect of numerous concurrent 
lighting regulations being carried out in addition to this rulemaking 
and small business manufacturers are even harder hit because of this 
cumulative regulatory burden. NEMA believes that small business 
manufacturers should not have to bear an unfair burden as a result of 
overly aggressive policies. (NEMA, No. 10 at pp. 74-75) DOE agrees that 
there is potential for small manufacturers to be disproportionately 
burdened by additional regulations as a result of additional testing 
and reporting costs and from the potential of a cumulative regulatory 
burden, DOE outlines its conclusions on the potential impacts of 
amended standards on small businesses in the above section of today's 
NOPR.
    DOE's MIA suggests that most GSFL small businesses will generally 
be able to maintain profitability at the TSL proposed in today's 
rulemaking. It is possible, however, that small IRL manufacturers could 
incur significant conversion costs as a result of this proposed rule, 
and those high costs could endanger their IRL business. However, based 
on the fact that IRL sales typically only account for a small but non-
trivial overall portion of a small lighting business' sales, DOE does 
not believe that any small business will go out of business due to the 
IRL standard proposed in today's NOPR. DOE's MIA is based on its 
interviews of both small and large manufacturers, and consideration of 
the small business impacts explicitly enters into DOE's choice of the 
TSLs proposed in today's NOPR.
    DOE did not receive any public comments suggesting that small 
businesses would not be able to achieve the efficiency levels at TSL 5 
for GSFLs and at TSL 1 for IRLs. DOE seeks

[[Page 24183]]

comment on the feasibility of small business to achieve the efficacy 
levels for GSFLs and IRLs proposed in today's NOPR.

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

    Manufacturers of GSFLs and IRLs must certify to DOE that their 
products comply with any applicable energy conservation standards. In 
certifying compliance, manufacturers must test their products according 
to the DOE test procedures for GSFLs and IRLs, including any amendments 
adopted for those test procedures. DOE has established regulations for 
the certification and recordkeeping requirements for all covered 
consumer products and commercial equipment, including GSFLs and IRLs. 
76 FR 12422 (March 7, 2011). The collection-of-information requirement 
for the certification and recordkeeping is subject to review and 
approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This 
requirement has been approved by OMB under OMB control number 1910-
1400. Public reporting burden for the certification is estimated to 
average 20 hours per response, including the time for reviewing 
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and 
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the 
collection of information.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty 
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays 
a currently valid OMB Control Number.

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

    Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, 
DOE has determined that the proposed rule fits within the category of 
actions included in Categorical Exclusion (CX) B5.1 and otherwise meets 
the requirements for application of a CX. See 10 CFR Part 1021, App. B, 
B5.1(b); 1021.410(b) and Appendix B, B(1)-(5). The proposed rule fits 
within the category of actions because it is a rulemaking that 
establishes energy conservation standards for consumer products or 
industrial equipment, and for which none of the exceptions identified 
in CX B5.1(b) apply. Therefore, DOE has made a CX determination for 
this rulemaking, and DOE does not need to prepare an Environmental 
Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement for this proposed rule. 
DOE's CX determination for this proposed rule is available at http://cxnepa.energy.gov.

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism.'' 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999) 
imposes certain requirements on federal agencies formulating and 
implementing policies or regulations that preempt state law or that 
have Federalism implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to 
examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any 
action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the states and 
to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order 
also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure 
meaningful and timely input by state and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications. 
On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the 
intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the 
development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. EPCA governs and 
prescribes Federal preemption of state regulations as to energy 
conservation for the products that are the subject of today's proposed 
rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the 
extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297) No 
further action is required by 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,'' 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. 61 FR 
4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). 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 
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, this proposed rule 
meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal 
regulatory actions on state, local, and Tribal governments and the 
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). 
For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may 
cause the expenditure by state, local, and Tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one 
year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a 
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the 
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. 
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to 
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers 
of state, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed ``significant 
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving 
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small 
governments before establishing any requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997, 
DOE published a statement of policy on its process for 
intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE's policy 
statement is also available at http://energy.gov/gc/downloads/unfunded-mandates-reform-act-intergovernmental-consultation.
    Although today's proposed rule does not contain a Federal 
intergovernmental mandate, it may require expenditures of $100 million 
or more on the private sector. Specifically, the proposed rule will 
likely result in a final rule that could require expenditures of $100 
million or more. Such expenditures may include: (1) Investment in 
research and development and in capital expenditures by GSFL and IRL 
manufacturers in the years between the final rule and the compliance 
date for the new standards, and (2) incremental additional expenditures 
by consumers to purchase higher-efficiency GSFL and IRL, starting at 
the compliance date for the applicable standard.

[[Page 24184]]

    Section 202 of UMRA authorizes a Federal agency to respond to the 
content requirements of UMRA in any other statement or analysis that 
accompanies the proposed rule. 2 U.S.C. 1532(c). The content 
requirements of section 202(b) of UMRA relevant to a private sector 
mandate substantially overlap the economic analysis requirements that 
apply under section 325(o) of EPCA and Executive Order 12866. The 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the NOPR and the ``Regulatory 
Impact Analysis'' section of the TSD for this proposed rule respond to 
those requirements.
    Under section 205 of UMRA, the Department is obligated to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before 
promulgating a rule for which a written statement under section 202 is 
required. 2 U.S.C. 1535(a). DOE is required to select from those 
alternatives the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the proposed rule unless DOE publishes 
an explanation for doing otherwise, or the selection of such an 
alternative is inconsistent with law. As required by 42 U.S.C. 
6295(i)(4)-(5), today's proposed rule would establish energy 
conservation standards for GSFLs and IRLs that are designed to achieve 
the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that DOE has determined to 
be both technologically feasible and economically justified. A full 
discussion of the alternatives considered by DOE is presented in the 
``Regulatory Impact Analysis'' section of the TSD for today's proposed 
rule.

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

    Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family 
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. 
This rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the 
family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not 
necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

    DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental 
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property 
Rights'' 53 FR 8859 (Mar. 18, 1988), that this regulation would not 
result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth 
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

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

    Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for Federal agencies to 
review most disseminations of information to the public under 
guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines 
issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 
2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 
2002). DOE has reviewed today's NOPR 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 OIRA 
at OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant 
energy action. A ``significant energy action'' is defined as any action 
by an agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of 
a final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under 
Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to 
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use 
of energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a 
significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, 
the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on 
energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, 
and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected 
benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
    DOE has tentatively concluded that today's regulatory action, which 
sets forth energy conservation standards for GSFLs and IRLs, is not a 
significant energy action because the proposed standards are not likely 
to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or 
use of energy, nor has it been designated as such by the Administrator 
at OIRA. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy 
Effects on the proposed rule.

L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review

    On December 16, 2004, OMB, in consultation with the Office of 
Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), issued its Final Information 
Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (the Bulletin). 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 14, 
2005). The Bulletin establishes that certain scientific information 
shall be peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is 
disseminated by the Federal Government, including influential 
scientific information related to agency regulatory actions. The 
purpose of the bulletin is to enhance the quality and credibility of 
the Government's scientific information. Under the Bulletin, the energy 
conservation standards rulemaking analyses are ``influential scientific 
information,'' which the Bulletin defines as scientific information the 
agency reasonably can determine will have, or does have, a clear and 
substantial impact on important public policies or private sector 
decisions. 70 FR 2667.
    In response to OMB's Bulletin, DOE conducted formal in-progress 
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. Generation of this 
report involved a rigorous, formal, and documented evaluation using 
objective criteria and qualified and independent reviewers to make a 
judgment as to the technical/scientific/business merit, the actual or 
anticipated results, and the productivity and management effectiveness 
of programs and/or projects. The ``Energy Conservation Standards 
Rulemaking Peer Review Report'' dated February 2007 has been 
disseminated and is available at the following Web site: 
www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/peer_review.html.

IX. Public Participation

A. Attendance at the Public Meeting

    The time, date, and location of the public meeting are listed in 
the DATES and ADDRESSES sections at the beginning of this notice. If 
you plan to attend the public meeting, please notify Ms. Brenda Edwards 
at (202) 586-2945 or Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. As explained in the 
ADDRESSES section, foreign nationals visiting DOE Headquarters are 
subject to advance security screening procedures.
    In addition, you can attend the public meeting via webinar. Webinar 
registration information, participant instructions, and information 
about the capabilities available to webinar participants will be 
published on DOE's Web site at: www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/24. Participants are 
responsible for ensuring their

[[Page 24185]]

systems are compatible with the webinar software.

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for 
Distribution

    Any person who has plans to present a prepared general statement 
may request that copies of his or her statement be made available at 
the public meeting. Such persons may submit requests, along with an 
advance electronic copy of their statement in PDF (preferred), 
Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format, to 
the appropriate address shown in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning 
of this notice. The request and advance copy of statements must be 
received at least one week before the public meeting and may be 
emailed, hand-delivered, or sent by mail. DOE prefers to receive 
requests and advance copies via email. Please include a telephone 
number to enable DOE staff to make follow-up contact, if needed.

C. Conduct of the Public Meeting

    DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the public meeting 
and may also use a professional facilitator to aid discussion. The 
meeting will not be a judicial or evidentiary-type public hearing, but 
DOE will conduct it in accordance with section 336 of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 
6306). A court reporter will be present to record the proceedings and 
prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the right to schedule the order of 
presentations and to establish the procedures governing the conduct of 
the public meeting. After the public meeting, interested parties may 
submit further comments on the proceedings as well as on any aspect of 
the rulemaking until the end of the comment period.
    The public meeting will be conducted in an informal, conference 
style. DOE will present summaries of comments received before the 
public meeting, allow time for prepared general statements by 
participants, and encourage all interested parties to share their views 
on issues affecting this rulemaking. Each participant will be allowed 
to make a general statement (within time limits determined by DOE), 
before the discussion of specific topics. DOE will allow, as time 
permits, other participants to comment briefly on any general 
statements.
    At the end of all prepared statements on a topic, DOE will permit 
participants to clarify their statements briefly and comment on 
statements made by others. Participants should be prepared to answer 
questions by DOE and by other participants concerning these issues. DOE 
representatives may also ask questions of participants concerning other 
matters relevant to this rulemaking. The official conducting the public 
meeting will accept additional comments or questions from those 
attending, as time permits. The presiding official will announce any 
further procedural rules or modification of the above procedures that 
may be needed for the proper conduct of the public meeting.
    A transcript of the public meeting will be included in the docket, 
which can be viewed as described in the Docket section at the beginning 
of this notice. In addition, any person may buy a copy of the 
transcript from the transcribing reporter.

D. Submission of Comments

    DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this 
proposed rule before or after the public meeting, but no later than the 
date provided in the DATES section at the beginning of this proposed 
rule. Interested parties may submit comments, data, and other 
information using any of the methods described in the ADDRESSES section 
at the beginning of this notice.
    Submitting comments via regulations.gov. The regulations.gov Web 
page will require you to provide your name and contact information. 
Your contact information will be viewable to DOE Building Technologies 
staff only. Your contact information will not be publicly viewable 
except for your first and last names, organization name (if any), and 
submitter representative name (if any). If your comment is not 
processed properly because of technical difficulties, DOE will use this 
information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, DOE 
may not be able to consider your comment.
    However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you 
include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your 
comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable 
should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to 
your comment. Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see only first 
and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, 
and any documents submitted with the comments.
    Do not submit to regulations.gov information for which disclosure 
is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and commercial or 
financial information (hereinafter referred to as Confidential Business 
Information (CBI)). Comments submitted through regulations.gov cannot 
be claimed as CBI. Comments received through the Web site will waive 
any CBI claims for the information submitted. For information on 
submitting CBI, see the Confidential Business Information section 
below.
    DOE processes submissions made through regulations.gov before 
posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being 
submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed 
simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several 
weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that regulations.gov 
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
    Submitting comments via email, hand delivery/courier, or mail. 
Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery, or mail also 
will be posted to regulations.gov. If you do not want your personal 
contact information to be publicly viewable, do not include it in your 
comment or any accompanying documents. Instead, provide your contact 
information in a cover letter. Include your first and last names, email 
address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover 
letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any 
comments
    Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, 
documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via mail or hand 
delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible. It is 
not necessary to submit printed copies. No facsimiles (faxes) will be 
accepted.
    Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE 
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that 
are not secured, that are written in English, and that are free of any 
defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or 
any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the 
electronic signature of the author.
    Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the 
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters 
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled 
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting 
time.
    Confidential Business Information. According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 
person submitting information that he or she believes to be 
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via 
email, postal mail, or hand delivery/courier two well-marked copies: 
one copy of the document

[[Page 24186]]

marked confidential including all the information believed to be 
confidential, and one copy of the document marked non-confidential with 
the information believed to be confidential deleted. Submit these 
documents via email or on a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own 
determination about the confidential status of the information and 
treat it according to its determination.
    Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat 
submitted information as confidential include: (1) A description of the 
items; (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as 
confidential within the industry; (3) whether the information is 
generally known by or available from other sources; (4) whether the 
information has previously been made available to others without 
obligation concerning its confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the 
competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from 
public disclosure; (6) when such information might lose its 
confidential character due to the passage of time; and (7) why 
disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.
    It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public 
docket, without change and as received, including any personal 
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be 
exempt from public disclosure).

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment

    Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, DOE 
is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of 
interested parties concerning the following issues:
    1. DOE requests comment on the overall methodology, assumptions, 
and results of the GSFL and IRL engineering analyses. (See section VI.D 
for further details.)
    2. In the engineering analysis, DOE selects a baseline lamp as a 
reference point against which to measure changes resulting from energy 
conservation standards. DOE requests comments on the baseline lamps 
selected in this analysis for GSFLs. (See section VI.D.2.c for further 
details.)
    3. For GSFLs, the baseline and more efficacious substitutes 
selected represent the most common lifetimes for each product class. 
DOE requests comment on the rated lifetimes of the GSFL baselines and 
more efficacious substitutes. (See section VI.D.2.d for further 
details.)
    4. Because fluorescent lamps operate on a ballast in practice, DOE 
analyzed lamp-and-ballast systems in the engineering analysis, to more 
accurately capture real-world energy use and light output. DOE requests 
comments on its methodology for developing lamp-and-ballast systems as 
well as the results of these GSFL systems. (See section VI.D.2.e for 
further details.)
    5. For GSFLs, DOE requests comment on the max tech levels 
identified in this analysis and more information on the accuracy of 
catalog and certification data which were used to identify these 
levels. (See section VI.D.2.f for further details.)
    6. DOE develops ELs based on three factors: (1) The design options 
associated with the specific lamps studied; (2) the ability of lamps 
across wattages to comply with the standard level of a given product 
class; and (3) the max tech EL. DOE requests comments on the 
methodology used to develop ELs for GSFLs as well as on the resulting 
ELs. (See section VI.D.2.g for further details.)
    7. DOE develops scaling factors to scale the levels developed 
directly for the representative product classes and determine levels 
for product classes not analyzed directly. DOE requests comments on the 
scaling factors developed to scale GSFL product classes from the less 
than or equal to 4,500 K CCT lamps to the greater than 4,500 K CCT 
lamps. DOE also requests comments on the scaling factor developed to 
scale from the 4-foot MBP product class to the 2-foot U-shaped product 
class. (See section VI.D.2.h for further details.)
    8. In the engineering analysis, DOE selects a baseline lamp as a 
reference point against which to measure changes resulting from energy 
conservation standards. DOE requests comments on the baseline lamps 
selected in this analysis for IRLs. (See section VI.D.3.c for further 
details.)
    9. In the engineering analysis for IRLs, DOE observed lifetime 
changes for different technologies. DOE requests comment on the rated 
lifetimes of the baseline and more efficacious substitutes. (See 
section VI.D.3.d for further details).
    10. DOE requests comment on the max tech levels identified in this 
analysis and information on high efficacy IRLs including prototype 
lamps. (See section VI.D.3.e for further details.)
    11. DOE has not found evidence that more efficacious small 
diameter, modified spectrum, or 130 V IRLs are not technologically 
feasible or practicable to manufacture, and therefore is proposing to 
increase efficacy levels for these lamp types. DOE requests comment on 
any technological barriers in manufacturing more efficacious small 
diameter, modified spectrum, or 130 V rated lamps for commercial 
production. (See section VI.D.3.i for further details.)
    12. Because GSFLs and IRLs are difficult to reverse-engineer (i.e., 
not easily disassembled), DOE directly estimated end-user prices for 
lamps by establishing discounts from manufacturer suggested price 
lists. DOE requests feedback on the pricing methodology used in this 
analysis. (See section VI.E for further details.)
    13. DOE used data published in the 2010 LMC in combination with 
CBECS, MECS, and RECS to determine an average weighted electricity 
price based on the probability of a GSFL or IRL in a particular 
building type in each census division and large state. DOE requests 
comment on its methodology of determining average weighted electricity 
prices in the LCC. (See section VI.G.6 for further details.)
    14. DOE determined LCC savings and PBP results for different 
scenarios where consumers need to purchase a lamp (i.e., lamp failure, 
ballast failure, and new construction and renovation for GSFLs and lamp 
failure and new construction and renovation for IRLs). DOE requests 
comments on these lamp purchasing events developed for this analysis. 
(See section VI.G.9 for further details.)
    15. DOE conducts the LCC and PBP analyses over the lifetime of the 
product. DOE considered the impact of group relamping practices on GSFL 
lifetime in the commercial and industrial sectors. DOE requests comment 
on its spot and group relamping assumptions, particularly the percent 
of rated life at which group relamping occurs. DOE also requests 
comment on its general approach to determining lamp lifetime for this 
analysis. (See section VI.G.10.a for further details.)
    16. DOE requests comment on its LCC analysis period assumptions. In 
particular, DOE requests comment on basing the analysis period on the 
baseline lamp life divided by the annual operating hours of that lamp 
for the IRL and the commercial and industrial sector GSFL analyses. DOE 
also requests comment on basing the analysis period on the useful life 
of the baseline lamp for a specific event for residential GSFLs. (See 
section VI.G.12 for further details.)
    17. For this rulemaking, DOE analyzed the effects of this proposal 
assuming that the GSFLs and IRLs would be available to purchase for 30 
years and undertook a sensitivity analysis using 9 years rather than 30 
years of product shipments. The choice of a 30-year period of shipments 
is consistent with the DOE analysis for

[[Page 24187]]

other products and commercial equipment. The choice of a 9-year period 
is a proxy for the timeline in EPCA for the review of certain energy 
conservation standards and potential revision of and compliance with 
such revised standards. DOE is seeking input, information and data on 
whether there are ways to further refine the analytic timeline. (See 
section VI.I for further details.)
    18. DOE assumes in its shipments and national impacts analyses that 
reduced wattage 4-foot MBP lamps can be coupled to dimming ballasts, 
but it assumes that no individual reduced wattage lamp option will be 
coupled to more than 10 percent of the dimming ballasts in the 
installed stock, owing to performance problems that may arise in some 
applications. DOE welcomes input on the reasonableness and 
appropriateness of these assumptions. (See section VI.I for further 
details.)
    19. DOE assumes in its reference shipments and national impacts 
analyses that the future real price of rare earth oxides used in the 
manufacture of GSFLs will remain near current levels on average. DOE 
further assumes in an alternative-scenario analysis that the future 
price of rare earth oxides may increase owing to market forces outside 
of this proposed rulemaking, but DOE assumes that the future price is 
not likely to exceed 3.4 times the current price on average. DOE 
estimates that the standard proposed here would cause a maximum annual 
increase in demand for rare earth oxides of 296 tons in 2017, with 
lower demand increases in later years. DOE welcomes input on the 
reasonableness and appropriateness of these estimates and assumptions. 
(See section VI.I for further details.)
    20. DOE assumes in its reference shipments and national impacts 
analyses that the future price of xenon gas will remain near current 
levels on average. DOE further assumes in an alternative-scenario 
analysis that the future price of xenon gas may rise but that it is not 
likely to exceed ten times the current price on average. DOE welcomes 
input on the reasonableness and appropriateness of these assumptions. 
(See section VI.I for further details.)
    21. To improve DOE's estimates of the potential impact of lighting 
controls on this rulemaking, DOE seeks input on the current fraction of 
GSFL ballast shipments that are dimming ballasts and the likely rate of 
growth of dimming ballasts in the future. (See section VI.I for further 
details.)
    22. DOE assumed zero direct rebound effect for efficiency 
improvements in GSFLs and IRLs. DOE conducted sensitivity analyses to 
evaluate alternative assumptions about rebound. DOE welcomes comment on 
its assumptions and methodology for estimating the rebound effect 
including potential magnitudes of rebound effects. (See section 
VI.J.1for further details.)
    23. To calculate the MSP, in the MIA, DOE determined the 
distribution chain markup for the GSFL and IRL industries. DOE invites 
comment on its methodology of using a 1.52 distribution chain markup in 
combination with the medium end-user price to estimate the MSP of all 
GSFLs and IRLs. (See section VI.K.2 for further details.)
    24. As part of the MIA, DOE estimates the product and capital 
conversion costs that all manufacturers must make to comply with 
potential standards. DOE requests comment on the $6.1 product 
conversion costs and $65.4 capital conversion costs necessary for IRL 
manufacturers to comply with the proposed standards. (See sections 
VI.K.2.a and VII.B.2.a for further details.)
    25. DOE solicits comment on the application of the new SCC values 
used to determine the social benefits of CO2 emissions 
reductions over the rulemaking analysis period. (The rulemaking 
analysis period covers from 2017 to 2046 plus the appropriated number 
of years to account for the lifetime of the equipment purchased between 
2017 and 2046.) In particular, the agency solicits comment on the 
agency's derivation of SCC values after 2050 where the agency applied 
the average annual growth rate of the SCC estimates in 2040-2050 
associated with each of the four sets of values. (See section VI.M.1 
for further details.)
    26. As part of the MIA, DOE quantitatively assessed the impacts of 
potential amended energy conservation standards on direct employment. 
DOE seeks comment on the potential domestic employment impacts to GSFL 
and IRL manufacturers at the proposed efficacy levels. (See section 
VII.B.2.b for further details.)
    27. In the cumulative regulatory burden analysis, DOE assess the 
combined effects of recent or impending regulations on manufacturers. 
DOE seeks comment on the compliance costs of any other regulations GSFL 
or IRL manufacturers must make, especially if compliance with those 
regulations is required three years before or after the estimated 
compliance date of these proposed standards (2017). (See section 
VII.B.2.e for further details.)
    28. As part of the cumulative regulatory burden analysis, DOE 
examines how the proposed standards affect manufacturers complying with 
other regulations. Since GSFL manufacturers must also comply with the 
Minimata Convention on Mercury, DOE seeks comment on GSFL manufacturers 
potentially increasing the amount of mercury in GSFLs in order to 
comply with the proposed GSFL standards. (See section VII.B.2.e for 
further details.)
    29. For the proposed GSFL standards, DOE requests comment on the 
reasonableness of its assumption that first cost is a significant 
driver of consumers' choice of product class, which results in the 
shipments analysis projecting a rapid shift from 4-foot MBP T8s to 
standard output T5s in the TSL 5 standards case. The TSL 5 standards 
case substantially increases first cost for 4-foot MBP T8s. (See 
section VII.B.3 for further details.)
    30. Noting that DOE projects a sharp decrease in total GSFL 
shipments both with and without standards during the rulemaking period 
because of the projected sharp incursion of LEDs into the GSFL market--
DOE seeks comment on the reasonableness of the shipments model 
projection for TSL 5, specifically, that standard output T5 lamps could 
increase from 3 to 4 percent of the standard output GSFL market 
presently, to approximately 13 percent of the same market by 2020, and 
to approximately 30 percent of the much attenuated standard output GSFL 
market by 2046. (See section VII.B.3 for further details.)
    31. DOE requests comment on its assumption that there will be no 
lessening of utility or performance such that the performance 
characteristics, including lumen package, color quality, lifetime, and 
ability to dim, would be adversely affected for the GSFL efficacy 
levels. (See sections VII.B.4, VI.A, VI.B, VI.C, and VI.D for further 
details.)
    32. DOE requests comment on whether there are features or 
attributes, including physical constraints such as shape or diameter, 
of the more energy-efficient GSFL lamps that manufacturers would 
produce to meet the standards in this proposed rule that might affect 
how they would be used by consumers. DOE requests comment specifically 
on how any such effects should be weighed in the choice of standards 
for GSFLs for the final rule.
    33. DOE requests comment on its assumption that there will be no 
lessening of utility or performance such that the performance 
characteristics, including lumen package and lifetime, would be 
adversely affected for the IRL efficacy levels. (See sections VII.B.4, 
VI.A, VI.B, VI.C, and VI.D for further details.)
    34. DOE requests comment on whether there are features or 
attributes,

[[Page 24188]]

such as the shape or diameter, of the more energy-efficient IRL lamps 
that manufacturers would produce to meet the standards in this proposed 
rule that might affect how they would be used by consumers. DOE 
requests comment specifically on how any such effects should be weighed 
in the choice of standards for the IRLs for the final rule.
    35. Due to the assumed shifts in shipments between product classes, 
the energy savings and monetized cost and benefit values computed for a 
single product class, considered in isolation, may yield negative 
energy savings but are more than offset by the large positive 
contributions to the aggregate energy savings and monetized benefits 
across all product classes. The expected switching between product 
classes also led to an aggregate negative cost estimate for the 
proposed standard level. In part due to the negative cost estimate for 
IRLs, DOE requests comment on the consumer choice model that projects 
shifts in shipments between product classes and whether there are other 
factors (e.g. utility, costs to replace light fixtures, design 
incompatibility) that may preclude or limit that shifting that may not 
be considered in DOE's analysis. (See section VII.3.c. and chapter 12 
of the TSD for more details).
    36. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires 
DOE to analyze the impact of its proposed standards on small entities, 
as well as any alternatives that accomplish the stated objectives of 
EPCA and minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule 
on small entities. DOE requests comment on the potential impacts to 
GSFL and IRL small businesses at the proposed efficacy levels. (See 
section VIII.B for further details.)

X. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of today's 
proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business 
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, 
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
and Small businesses.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 11, 2014.
 David T. Danielson,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE proposes to amend 
part 430 of chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS

0
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.

0
2. In Sec.  430.2, add the definitions for ``700 series fluorescent 
lamp'', ``Designed and marketed,'' ``Fluorescent lamp designed for use 
in reprographic equipment,'' ``Impact-resistant fluorescent lamp,'' 
``Lamps primarily designed to produce radiation in the ultra-violet 
region of the spectrum,'' ``Reflectorized or aperture lamp,'' in 
alphabetical order, and revise the definition for ``fluorescent lamp'' 
to read as follows:

Sec.  430.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    700 series fluorescent lamp means a fluorescent lamp with a color 
rendering index (measured according to the test procedures outlined in 
Appendix R to subpart B of this part) that is in the range (inclusive) 
of 70 to 79.
* * * * *
    Designed and marketed means that the intended application of the 
lamp is stated in a publicly available document (e.g., product 
literature, catalogs, packaging labels, and labels on the product 
itself). This definition is applicable to terms related to the 
following covered lighting products: fluorescent lamp ballasts; 
fluorescent lamps; general service fluorescent lamps; general service 
incandescent lamps; incandescent lamps; incandescent reflector lamps; 
medium base compact fluorescent lamps; and specialty application 
mercury vapor lamp ballasts.
* * * * *
    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 49 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 25 
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 44 or more.
* * * * *
    Fluorescent lamp designed for use in reprographic equipment means a 
fluorescent lamp intended for use in equipment used to reproduce, 
reprint, or copy graphic material.
* * * * *
    Impact-resistant fluorescent lamp means a lamp that
    (1) Has a coating or equivalent technology that is compliant with 
NSF/ANSI 51 (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3) and is 
designed to contain the glass if the glass envelope of the lamp is 
broken; and
    (2) Is designated and marketed for the intended application, with:
    (i) The designation on the lamp packaging; and
    (ii) Marketing materials that identify the lamp as being impact-
resistant, shatter-resistant, shatter-proof, or shatter-protected.
* * * * *
    Lamps primarily designed to produce radiation in the ultra-violet 
region of the spectrum mean fluorescent lamps that primarily emit light 
in the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum where light has a 
wavelength between 10 and 400 nanometers.
* * * * *
    Reflectorized or aperture lamp means a fluorescent lamp that 
contains an inner reflective coating on the bulb to direct light.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 430.32 is amended by revising paragraph (n) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  430.32  Energy and water conservation standards and their 
effective dates.

* * * * *
    (n) General service fluorescent lamps and incandescent reflector 
lamps. (1) Except as provided in paragraphs (n)(2),

[[Page 24189]]

(n)(3), and (n)(4) 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:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Minimum average
             Lamp type                 Nominal lamp       Minimum CRI    lamp efficacy lm/     Effective date
                                          wattage                                W
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4-foot medium bipin................             >35 W                69              75.0  Nov. 1, 1995.
                                               35 W                69              68.0  Nov. 1, 1995.
                                               65 W                69              80.0  May 1, 1994.
                                               100 W                69              80.0  May 1, 1994.
                                              
                                       temperature              W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4-foot medium bipin.............  4,500K and 4,500K and 4,500K and 4,500K and 4,500K and 4,500K and 
                                       temperature              W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4-foot medium bipin.............  4,500K and 4,500K and 4,500K and 4,500K and 4,500K and 4,500K and 
                                                                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
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (6) Except as provided in paragraph (n)(7) of this section each of 
the following incandescent reflector lamps manufactured after July 14, 
2012, shall meet or exceed the lamp efficacy standards shown in the 
table:

 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 Minimum average
        Rated lamp wattage              Lamp spectrum         Lamp diameter     Rated voltage   lamp efficacy lm/
                                                                 inches                                 W
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
40-205...........................  Standard Spectrum......              >2.5           >=125 V       6.8*P\0.27\
                                                                                        =125 V       5.7*P\0.27\
                                                                                        2 .5           >=125 V       5.8*P\0.27\
                                                                                        =125 V       4.9*P\0.27\
                                                                                        
                                                                 inches                                 W
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
40-205...........................  Standard Spectrum......              >2.5            >=125V        7.1P\0.27\
                                                                                         =125V        6.0P\0.27\
                                                                                         2.5            >=125V        6.0P\0.27\
                                                                                         =125V        5.1P\0.27\
                                                                                         pre>
```