EERE Information Center Search Help More Search Options

Printable Version



### Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts

Framework Meeting

The Department of Energy held an informal

public meeting as a first step in the

rulemaking process to amend energy

conservation standards for fluorescent lamp

ballasts and adopt standards for additional

fluorescent lamp ballasts, if such additional

standards are warranted.

DATE: Wednesday,

February 6, 2008

TIME: 9:00 a.m. - 4:00

p.m. EDT

LOCATION: U.S. Department of

Energy

1000 Independence

Avenue, SW

Room 1E-245

Washington, DC

20585

The following documents are available as

Adobe Acrobat PDFs. Download Adobe Reader

.

Meeting Materials

Notice of Public Meeting and Availability

of the Framework Document, Federal

Register, January 22, 2008 ( PDF 87 KB )

Rulemaking Framework Document for

Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts, January 14,

2008 ( PDF 1 MB )

Agenda ( PDF 63 KB )

Presentation from the Meeting ( PDF 698

KB )

Public Meeting Transcript, February 6,

2008 ( PDF 961 KB )

Comments

All comments submitted must identify the

Fluorescent Lamp Ballast Rulemaking activity

to which it corresponds, with the appropriate

docket number and/or regulatory information

number (RIN). The docket number and RIN for

the fluorescent lamp ballast rule are:

Docket number EERE-2007- Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards: Fluorescent Lamp Ball... http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standard s/residential/b...

1 of 2 7/6/2009 11:09 A MBT-STD-0016 and RIN 1904-AB50

Comments may be submitted using any of the

following methods:

Federal eRulemaking Portal:

http://www.regulations.gov/ and follow

the instructions for submitting

comments.

E-mail: ballasts.rulemaking@ee.doe.gov

Please be sure to include the docket

number and/or RIN in the subject line of

the message.

Mail:

Mrs. Brenda Edwards

U.S. Department of Energy

Building Technologies Program

Mailstop: EE-2J

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20585-0121

Please submit one signed paper

original.

Hand Delivery/Courier:

Mrs. Brenda Edwards

U.S. Department of Energy

Building Technologies Program,

Sixth Floor

950 L'Enfant Plaza, SW

Washington, DC 20024

Please submit one signed paper

original.

Printable Version

Building Technologies Program Home | EERE Home | U.S. Department of Energy

Webmaster | Web Site Policies | Security & Privacy | USA.gov

Content Last Updated: 09/05/2008 Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards: Fluorescent Lamp Ball... http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standard s/residential/b...

2 of 2 7/6/2009 11:09 A M1

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

PUBLIC MEETING ON FRAMEWORK DOCUMENT FOR ENERGY

CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR FLUORESCENT LAMP BALLASTS

U.S. Department of Energy

Room 1E­245

1000 Independence Avenue, Southwest

Washington, D.C.

Wednesday, February 6, 2008

9:00 a.m.

Participants

LINDA GRAVES

Department of Energy

RON LEWIS

Department of Energy

DOUG BROOKMAN, Facilitator

MICHAEL SCHOLAND

Navigant Consulting

BOB EHRHARDT

Philips Lighting and Electronics

NEMA Ballast Chair

CHERYL ENGLISH

Acuity Brands Lighting

ED THOMAS

GE Lighting

HOWARD WOLFMAN

PRISCILLA RICHARDS

NYSERDA

ANDREW DeLASKI

Appliance Standards Awareness Project

MIKE RIVEST

Navigant Consulting

CONAN O'ROURKE

Lighting Research Center

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00642

Participants : (Continued)

MARK REA

Lighting Research Center

JEFF PLASKON

GE Lighting

ERIC STAS

Department of Energy

MICHAEL McCABE

Department of Energy

DIANA BURK

Navigant Consulting

FRANCES WOOD

On Location

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00643

A G E N D A

AGENDA ITEM: PAGE:

Welcome 5

Linda Graves

Introductions 6

Agenda Review 6

Doug Brookman

Opening Remarks 11

Bob Ehrhardt

Philips Lighting and Electronics

Regulatory History and Scope of Coverage 12

Mike Scholand

Test Procedure

Conan O'Rourke

Energy Conservation

Mike Scholand

ANOPR Analysis: 67

Standard Overview 78

Market and Technology

Screening Analysis Assessment and 84

Conan O'Rourke

Engineering Analysis 120

Conan O'Rourke

Afternoon Session

ANOPR Analysis: (Continued)

Product Price Determination 135

Diana Burk

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00644

A G E N D A

AGENDA ITEM: PAGE:

ANOPR Analysis: (Continued)

Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis 145

Mike Scholand

Energy Use and End­Use Load Characterization 149

Diana Burk

Life­Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis 153

Diana Burk

Shipments Analysis 170

Diana Burk

National Impact Analysis 179

Diana Burk

NOPR Analysis:

Life­Cycle Cost Subgroup Analysis

Manufacturer Impact Analysis and 194

Mike Scholand

Utility Impact Analysis, Employment

Impact Analysis, and Environmental

Assessment 201

Frances Wood

Regulatory Impact Analysis 209

Mike Scholand

Other Issues and Comments 210

Closing Remarks

Doug Brookman

Linda Graves

Ron Lewis 212

213

214

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 5

1 P R O C E E D I N G S

2 9:07 a.m.

3 Welcome

4 Linda Graves

MS. GRAVES: Good morning, and welcome to the

6 Department of Energy. We are so pleased that you could

7 come. We very much value your input. We rely on it.

8 We applaud it. The purpose of this meeting is to go

9 through the analytical assumptions and methodologies

that will drive the final outcome of the standards for

11 ballasts. Now, in the course of doing that we will, at

12 some point, touch briefly on test procedures, which are

13 such an inherent part of this rulemaking.

14 I'm Linda Graves. I am the team lead for the

Lighting rulemakings. I rely heavily on a very dynamic

16 team of very well qualified engineers and other

17 analysts, as well as my boss, Ron Lewis, who is also

18 here, and input from general counsel and policy.

19 Before I turn it over to Doug, our

facilitator, I just want to make sure that ­­ there was

21 one handout that we didn't have when some of you first

22 arrived. We had problems with printing. That's the

23 one that's about the issues. So I just hope everyone

24 has that. If you don't, if you could get it from the

front door there.

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 6

1 And with that, I'm going to turn the meeting

2 over to our esteemed facilitator, Doug Brookman, who

3 always does a great job for us making sure that

4 everyone is heard and we have a good discussion of the

issues. Thank you.

6 Introductions

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you very much. Good

8 morning, everybody. Thanks for being here on time so

9 we can get an early start on this. I think everybody

has a copy of the agenda. Before I do an agenda

11 review, it's our custom to give everybody a chance to

12 introduce him­ or herself, so I'd like to do that. If

13 you'd say your name and your organizational

14 affiliation. I'll start with Priscilla.

This will not show up in the recorded record

16 of the meeting because, unless everybody sticks their

17 face right in the microphones, which I'm not sure is

18 necessary, we'll be getting names as we go along.

19 (Introductions off mic.)

Agenda Review

21 Doug Brookman

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. I think each of

23 you has a copy of the agenda. I'm going to run through

24 this briefly. If you'd take a peek at it. We are now

finishing the first substantive block, Introductions

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 7

1 and Agenda Review. Following this agenda review,

2 there's an opportunity for each of you, any of you that

3 wish to do so, to make brief statements for the record

4 about key issues that you'd like to bring to the fore

here at the front end of this meeting.

6 The format for this meeting, as you can see

7 from your handout materials, is there's a great deal of

8 documentation. Somewhere around about over 100 slides

9 that detail how this framework for the rulemaking lays

out overtime. But if anybody wishes to cue a key issue

11 from your perspective at the front end, that would be

12 the time to do it, following this agenda review.

13 Following the opening remarks, we're going to

14 have a brief orientation to the regulatory history and

the scope of coverage. Following that, the test

16 procedure and energy conservation standard overview.

17 We'll take a break mid­morning, around about 10:30.

18 Then we'll move into the analyses that are

19 involved in the ANOPR. Starting round about 10:45,

market and technology assessment and the screening

21 analysis; 11:30­ish, engineering analysis and product

22 price determination.

23 We'll take a break for lunch. Everybody is

24 on their own for lunch. We'll have more specific

instructions for those of you that are new to this

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 8

1 about where to go for lunch when we get there.

2 Following lunch, preliminary and manufacturer

3 impact analysis. Following that, energy use and end4 use load characterization, life­cycle cost and payback

period analysis, and shipments analysis, national

6 impact analysis, and life­cycle cost sub­group

7 analysis. We'll take a break mid afternoon. We'll

8 talk about manufacturer impact analysis, utility impact

9 analysis, employment impact analysis, environmental

assessment, and regulatory impact analysis, a whole lot

11 of analyses as you can see.

12 And then, at the end of the day, we'll be

13 providing, again, another opportunity for people to

14 raise other issues and make comments as they feel they

might need to to get their points across. We'll

16 entertain any closing remarks. We'll adjourn today

17 somewhere round about four or 4:30, I anticipate. You

18 never know; we might get through it quicker than that.

19 We try not to waste anybody's time.

So that's the overview on the agenda.

21 Questions or comments here at the outset?

22 (No response.)

23 MR. BROOKMAN: Let me ask for a show of

24 hands. How many of you are brand new to this kind of a

proceeding?

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 9

1 (Show of hands.)

2 MR. BROOKMAN: So, a number of you. Did you

3 raise your hand, Kyle?

4 (Laughter.)

MR. BROOKMAN: I thought you did. Don't do

6 that.

7 (Laughter.)

8 MR. BROOKMAN: He's already throwing a curve

9 at us. Okay.

I'm glad to have you here. I'm going to ask

11 for your consideration to observe what have emerged as

12 norms over the span of all these years. I'm going to

13 ask simply that you please speak one at a time. Please

14 say your name for the record.

This is a recorded session. These

16 microphones I was told are vintage 1960, so you need to

17 pull them right into your face in order for your

18 comments to be included in the record, and DOE has a

19 desire to have all of your comments fully and clearly

captured in the record. So please make the effort to

21 get the microphone right up close.

22 I'm going to ask that you please keep the

23 focus here. Turn your cell phones on silent mode or

24 turn them off or something. If you need to have a

sidebar conversation with someone that's going to last

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 10

1 more than about 20 seconds, we'll understand. You can

2 take it out of the room. That won't offend anybody if

3 you have to do that.

4 I'm going to be queuing people as best I can

by name to speak, and I'm also wishing to encourage

6 follow­on comments as we go along. So if I drop you

7 out of the queue, don't let me get away with it. Just

8 cue me to queue you again, okay?

9 And those are what I would suggest as norms

for today's meeting. We try to keep this as informal

11 and friendly as possible as we go along, and that

12 benefits the Department in getting the information they

13 wish to receive. Questions or comments here before we

14 proceed?

(No response.)

16 MR. BROOKMAN: I see we have one more person

17 who joined us that didn't get a chance to introduce

18 herself. Would you say your name and organizational

19 affiliation?

MS. THORNE AMANN: Sure. Jennifer Thorne

21 Amann, ACEEE.

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you for joining us.

23 Okay. So I think that's all of the stuff at

24 the outset. There are some housekeeping specifics

we'll get to as we go to the break, but as it stands

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 11

1 now, let's proceed.

2 MR. SCHOLAND: Hi, everybody. My name is

3 Mike Scholand from Navigant Consulting. Doug,

4 unfortunately, did not have anybody advancing his

slides for him while he was speaking, so I'm just going

6 to move through his slides.

7 Are there any ­­ did Doug already ask this?

­

8 ­ stakeholders with opening comments?

9 MR. BROOKMAN: I didn't know whether you

wanted to make a brief opening statement before I did

11 this or not.

12 MR. SCHOLAND: No, we don't.

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Then let's ­­ okay. So this

14 would be the occasion ­­ right now would be the

opportunity for anybody that wished to flag key issues

16 and key concerns here at the outset. Please. And your

17 name for the record.

18 Opening Remarks

19 Bob Ehrhardt

Philips Lighting and Electronics

21 MR. EHRHARDT: This is Bob Ehrhardt, Philips

22 Lighting and Electronics. I'm the NEMA ballast chair.

23 NEMA is very interested, willing, and anxious to help

24 work with the DOE on new rulemaking. We wish to bring

to the DOE's attention, though, that we may need to

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 12

1 change some of the methodology in the rulemaking, and

2 we'll bring up some further comments later on as far as

3 the precision of current metrics used for ballast

4 quantification, namely BEF. NEMA will be making some

comments on alternative quantification methodology

6 moving forward, and we look forward to supporting the

7 DOE in this action.

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you very much. Other

9 opening remarks? I think some of you may have

identified that you wished to do so, but if you

11 shouldn't ­­ if you didn't do that, you can still make

12 opening remarks if you'd like to.

13 (No response.)

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So then, let's proceed.

Regulatory History and Scope of Coverage

16

17

18

19 we want

purpose

21 the end

22 purpose Mike Scholand

(PowerPoint presentation.)

MR. SCHOLAND: Thank you, Doug. So I guess

to start just by highlighting for you the

of today's framework document so we all know at

of the day if it was a successful meeting. The

today is to present the procedural and

23 analytical approaches the Department intends to use

24 when evaluating energy conservation standards for

fluorescent lamp ballasts.

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 13

1 The intent of this meeting is to provide a

2 public forum for discussion of the rulemaking issues.

3 As Linda mentioned earlier, this meeting is being

4 recorded by a court reporter. There will be a

transcript, and that transcript will become part of the

6 docket, the official record, for this rulemaking

7 process. So everything you say will be recorded as a

8 comment to the Department in today's proceedings.

9 The Department wishes to encourage

stakeholders to submit data, information, written

11 comments, to follow up and to provide information.

12 That helps to make sure the analysis runs smoothly and

13 is truly reflective of the market.

14 And finally, to inform stakeholders and to

facilitate the rulemaking process in general.

16 As you've probably seen, if you've had a

17 chance to look through the framework document that DOE

18 published on its website in January, there's a series

19 of issue boxes that are contained in the document where

DOE has called out specific areas that it's looking for

21 public comment on. It's not to say those are the only

22 issues you should comment on, but those are the areas

23 where DOE wants to make sure it does get feedback. You

24 should feel free to comment on any aspect of the

rulemaking and any issue that's mentioned in the

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 14

1 framework document.

2 We have, in presenting

3 those issue boxes throughout the

4 sections that they appear, and I

also a handout at the door which these slides, included

presentation in the

understand there's

summarizes all the

6 issues for comment on one document. So make sure you

7 reply to everything.

8 And just a heads up. As you can appreciate,

9 when we were putting the slides together we thought of

a few more issues that the Department is interested in.

11 So the slides will have some issue boxes that aren't

12 numbered, but there are other issues that came up in

13 the last couple of weeks and we thought would be

14 helpful to put out in the meeting as well.

On this slide and in the Federal Register

16 notice and in the framework document, as many places as

17 the Department can publish it, are all the information

18 for how to submit comments. There is an e­mail

19 address, BallastRulemaking@ee.doe.gov. You can also

send postal or courier. The comment period closes on

21 March 7th, basically a month from today.

22 So I'll just jump into the regulatory

23 history. I'm glad to hear that there are a few people

24 who are new to this process because I was afraid these

slides would be very tedious for people who are

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 15

1 familiar with the process.

2 But the Energy Conservation Program here at

3 the Department was established by EPCA, the Energy

4 Policy and Conservation Act, back in 1975. The product

we're discussing today, fluorescent lamp ballasts, was

6 added in the National Appliance Energy Conservation

7 amendments of 1988. There were several assignments

8 that were given by Congress to the Department in that

9 notice, in that Act. They prescribed test procedures

for ballasts. Those were codified by DOE in 1989.

11 There were standards prescribed that became effective

12 in the years 1990 and 1991. There were ballast

13 efficacy factor standards. Those were codified in

14 1989. It also directed DOE to review and amend those

standards that they had prescribed.

16 DOE completed that rulemaking in the year

17 2000. I'll discuss that on the last bullet here. Then

18 there was direction from Congress to do a second cycle

19 to review and amend the BEF values, or the standards

for ballasts, and that's what we're talking about

21 today, the second of the two revisions.

22 So as I mentioned, the fluorescent lamp

23 ballast energy conservation standard was published by

24 DOE on September 19th, 2000. I'm sure many of you are

aware of it because it applies to you. This was a

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 16

1 consensus standard agreed between NEMA and efficiency

2 advocates, and DOE adopted that standard and published

3 it in the Federal Register.

4 Then there was a further standard that was

applied to fluorescent lamp ballasts that are designed

6 to operate certain energy­saver lamps, the reduced

7 wattage versions, for example, instead of the F40­T12,

8 the F34­T12 ballast. Those were promulgated in the

9 Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 2005, and so you

see those standards are becoming applicable I think in

11 2010 to 2012. I'm not sure exactly.

12 Then, finally, the Energy Independence and

13 Security Act, which just passed a couple of months ago,

14 has a few other assignments for the Department on

ballasts. One is to direct the Department to amend the

16 fluorescent lamp ballast test procedure to incorporate

17 standby mode and off mode. So we have a slide and some

18 issues that we want to discuss on that with the

19 Department soliciting comment.

Also, the Department is directed to

21 incorporate standby mode and off mode in its analysis

22 for the Energy Conservation Standard because the final

23 rule date for this rulemaking occurs after July 1st of

24 2010. So any final rule published after that date, the

Department needs to take into consideration the standby

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 17

1 mode and off mode. So there are questions for you in

2 the framework document, and the Department would

3 appreciate comments on those issues to help the

4 analysis along.

Finally, there are some definitions in a

6 section related to metal halide fixtures for ballast

7 and electronic ballast. I should also mention that

8 NAECA of 1988, which established the original

9 standards, defined fluorescent lamp ballast, so there's

a few definitions.

11 And then a final point about the ENERGY

12 Independence and Security Act of 2007. It removed the

13 requirement for the Department to hold an advance

14 notice of proposed rulemaking. We'll talk about that a

little more this morning, but essentially it's one of

16 the stages that the Department goes through with the

17 public hearing, a Federal Register notice, and draft

18 documentation for people to review. In an effort to

19 recognize the burden and the timeline and the number of

products, this requirement was removed from the statute

21 for this product, for products that are incorporated in

22 Part 430 of the Code of Federal Regulations. So that's

23 just something to be aware of.

24 As I mentioned, the definitions that are sort

of pertinent to this product are on Slide 12. We have

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 18

1 fluorescent lamp ballast defined by NAECA: a device

2 used to start and operate fluorescent lamps by

3 providing a starting voltage and current and limiting

4 the current during normal operation. And then the

additional two definitions that were in the metal

6 halide lamp fixture section of EISA 2007, ballast and

7 electronic ballast. We just put those there for your

8 information.

9 By the way, feel free to stop me if you have

any questions at any point. I'm not ­­ I actually

11 appreciate feedback, so

12

13

­

14

record.

16 MS.

MR.

MS. ENGLISH:

BROOKMAN:

ENGLISH: it helps to

­­

Mike, I

Please

Sorry. have a question about

­

say your name for the

Cheryl English, Acuity

17 Brands Lighting. I have a question about the Energy

18 Independence Security Act and the removal of the ANOPR.

19 But it looks like on our schedule there are plans to

do an ANOPR.

21 MR. SCHOLAND: Ron, would you like to make a

22 comment about that?

23 MR. LEWIS: Ron Lewis, DOE. That's a new

24 provision saying it's not required to do an ANOPR.

There are advantages ­­ some advantages by maybe not

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 19

1 doing one. There are also exchanges of information and

2 interactions with stakeholders that happen during that

3 that have been very valuable. So it's a new provision,

4 and it didn't mandate that we don't do ANOPRs. We're

still looking at it and trying to see how we accomplish

6 it.

7 So right now we're still putting that in the

8 schedule and trying to find the best way to still get

9 the benefit but decrease the slow­down or any negatives

associated with that. So it's still a question mark,

11 but we want to maintain that interaction and get the

12 input and the comments from stakeholders. So we're

13 trying to find how best to do that.

14 MR. BROOKMAN: As the day goes along, there's

going to be more opportunity to comment on this in

16 greater length.

17 MR. SCHOLAND: Actually, one thing before I

18 leave the definitions slide. The definition of

19 fluorescent lamp ballast is important here because

­­

I'll get to it in two slides from here ­­ the

21 Department is directed to consider additional

22 fluorescent lamp ballasts for coverage and for

23 potential energy conservation standards. So this

24 definition matters because the statute is telling the

Department to consider other ­­ or, additional

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 20

1 fluorescent lamp ballasts.

2 So, what are the standards today? The

3 standards essentially are for 120­volt and

4 fluorescent lamp ballasts that operate one

four­foot medium bi­pin lamps. Those are

6 watt and the 40­watt T12s. Two eight­foot

7 slim­line lamps, both the 60­watt and the 277­volt

and two

both the 34­

single­pin

75­watt. So

8 those would be ballasts that operate fixtures with two

9 lamps. And then finally, ballasts that operate two

eight­foot recessed double­contact high­output lamps.

11 That would be the 95­watt T12 and the 110­watt T12.

12 And then there's a series of exclusions. If

13 the ballast dims to less than 50 percent of the maximum

14 output it's excluded. Ballasts designed for use with

two high­output eight­foot T12 lamps at ambient

16 temperatures of less than 20 degrees Fahrenheit and for

17 use in an outdoor sign, and also ­­ this is something

­

18 ­ I'm not sure if this was an editorial issue with

19 EPACT 2005, but F96 T12 HO energy savers used at

ambient temperatures of plus 20 degrees Fahrenheit and

21 labeled for use with an outdoor sign. So I don't know

22 if the intention was that that should have been a

23 negative 20 or not, but it is definitely plus.

24 Power factor of less than 0.9 and designed

and labeled for residential building applications and

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 21

1 replacement ballasts as defined in ­­ replacement

2 ballasts have a specific definition in the ­­ and that

3 exclusion for replacement ballasts expires on June 30th

4 of 2010. From that point on, replacement ballasts

would be covered products subject to the standards in

6 place.

7 So let's talk a little bit about additional

8 fluorescent lamp ballasts. As I mentioned earlier, the

9 Department is acting under a paragraph in the statute,

which we've reproduced on this slide, which essentially

11 directs the Department to consider amending the

12 standards in effect for fluorescent lamp ballasts. But

13 also, what we've underlined here, "including whether

14 such standards should be amended so that they would be

applicable to additional fluorescent lamp ballasts."

16 So this rulemaking proceeding is looking at

17 two things. It's looking at the standards and it's

18 also looking at coverage for additional lamps.

19 Ultimately, at the end of the day, the Department would

be setting standards on both, if there are any

21 additional ­­ I keep saying "lamps." If there are any

22 additional ballasts, it would be setting standards on

23 both the newly covered ones and the existing ones.

24 Just going into a little more detail on the

additional lamp ballasts, in the framework document the

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 22

1 Department discusses considering extending coverage to

2 ballasts that operate all of the fluorescent lamps that

3 are currently covered and regulated under EPCA. So

4 that would mean all ­­ the four­foot medium bi­pins

rated at greater than 28 watts, the two­foot medium bi6 pin U­shaped lamps rated at greater than or equal to 28

7 watts, and so on.

8 So the thought here is that ­­ if I just jump

9 ahead to the next slide because I think this presents

it a little more clearly. If you look at the standards

11 map between fluorescent lamps and fluorescent lamp

12 ballasts, the blue boxes in this slide represent where

13 the Department is covering ballasts that operate those

14 lamps, and the yellow boxes represent lamps where the

Department covers them as lamps but doesn't necessarily

16 cover the ballasts that operate those lamps.

17 The one box there that's pretty significant

18 is the 32­watt T8, obviously.

19 Okay. So I guess I'll just stop here on this

Slide 17. The Department invites comment on the scope

21 of this rulemaking, which implements the statutory

22 requirement we just looked at, and to consider

23 additional fluorescent lamp ballasts.

24 MR. BROOKMAN: Is it Bob?

MR. EHRHARDT: Yes. Bob Ehrhardt again,

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 23

1 Philips Lighting and Electronics, NEMA Ballast chair.

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Why don't you go back to the

3 previous slide?

4 MR. SCHOLAND: Sure.

MR. BROOKMAN: I like that slide.

6 MR. EHRHARDT: NEMA does recognize that the

7 market is moving away from T12 lamps and the market is

8 becoming predominantly T8. NEMA understands the DOE's

9 interest in expanding the scope of the ballast

rulemaking. As we go further, though, NEMA will be

11 bringing up issues in defining standards for T8 lamps,

12 namely that in previous rulemakings, the metric of BEF,

13 there was quite a range of efficiency levels and BEF

14 was a precise enough metric to delineate between

electromagnetic and electronic ballasts, for instance.

16 As we move into T8s, the T8 market currently

17 has a much tighter range of system efficacies, and the

18 range of system efficacies available on the market

19 today for T8 systems is quite similar to the amount of

error one can have when using BEF measurements. And so

21 NEMA wishes to bring this to the attention of the DOE.

22 NEMA has recognized this issue. NEMA has a

23 study underway to develop a new metric, hopefully

24 correlated to historical BEF measurements. We're

looking at ballast efficiency, especially for T8

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 24

1 ballasts, and we are doing round­robin testing with our

2 NEMA companies and with outside laboratories to try to

3 develop a correlation to BEF. Such a metric of ballast

4 efficiency can have a much tighter tolerance on it, on

the order of 1 or 2 percent, compared with perhaps as

6 much as 5 percent error on BEF measurements.

7 So moving forward, NEMA wishes to have the

8 DOE take into consideration the delineation that it

9 will need to do and the ability to verify compliance

moving forward with the regulations. NEMA will support

11 the DOE in this effort.

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Ron Lewis.

13 MR. LEWIS: In response to that, I generally

14 only chime in to urge people to give their input early.

One of the huge challenges for us if we are

16 introducing a new metric or looking at a new means of

17 doing things is, even quicker than doing the standard,

18 the test procedure to be able to account for that and

19 how we would help people to show that they're in

compliance.

21 So the timeliness of getting that for both

22 the test procedure, which is done before the standard,

23 and then the standard. So I'm just going to urge you

24 that if you've got some work underway to get that to us

real soon.

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 25

1 MR. EHRHARDT: Yes, NEMA does have a test

2 procedure defined, and we are in the process of

3 verifying that test procedure. The ballasts have

­­

4 are out now. We are doing round­robin testing.

There's a group of ballasts from multiple manufacturers

6 that have started testing already. Mr. Ed Thomas can

7 maybe comment on the schedule, but we expect to have,

8 by ­­ in third quarter we expect to have our study

9 completed. But Ed can maybe comment further.

MR. BROOKMAN: Ed Thomas?

11 MR. THOMAS: Thank you. Ed Thomas, GE

12 Lighting. Yes, we ­­ as Bob mentioned, we do have a

13 testing protocol in place. We are doing comparative

14 measurements at different labs, different manufacturer

sites, using all the manufacturers' ballasts, the major

16 manufacturers' ballasts. We are also going to

17 incorporate independent test labs to verify our

18 measurements and also attempt to come up with a

19 correlation or a transfer function between the existing

metric of ballast efficacy factor and the new metric of

21 ballast efficiency.

22 Since this is a ballast rulemaking

23 discussion, ballast efficiency relates to the

24 electrical efficiency of the ballast itself, removing

possible effects of lamp variation and also removing

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 26

1 effects of photometric measurement variation. We think

2 that electrical measurement can be a more accurate

3 means of grading the higher performance ballasts that

4 we now produce.

MR. BROOKMAN: Bob, follow on.

6 MR. EHRHARDT: Yeah, one more comment, and

7 that is that BEF is particularly let's say non­precise

8 for T8 lamps, and the T8 lamps are the last of the 60­

9 hertz referenced lamps. When you do a BEF measurement

with a T8 lamp, you are running it on a 60­hertz

11 reference circuit and then switching it to a high12 frequency electronic ballast.

13 That adds more error than when you have a

14 high­frequency reference and a high­frequency ballast

or a 60­hertz reference and a 60­hertz ballast. NEMA

16 can provide some early data to the DOE to show this

17 effect that we have seen a several percent error of the

18 same ballast going to different labs with different

19 lamps due to this high­frequency to low­frequency

transfer effect.

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Howard.

22 MR. WOLFMAN: Howard Wolfman. Just one quick

23 comment. I think as we start to provide this

24 information everybody is going to come to the

realization that ballast efficiency is much easier to

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 27

1 measure than BEF. Assuming that we're successful in

2 the work that we're doing in the round­robin, the

3 comparisons, et cetera, it will be very evident that

4 all you do is measure input and output power, which can

be done very precisely with laboratory instruments and

6 takes away the photometric variability.

7 So we're excited. We think this may be a

8 simpler way of having a metric.

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Priscilla, did you

have a

­­

11 MS. RICHARDS: Yeah. I guess

­­

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Priscilla, say your name.

13 MS. RICHARDS: This is Priscilla Richards

14 from NYSERDA, and certainly, I don't understand a lot

of what's behind the ballast efficiency metric that

16 you're talking about. I do know that there's been some

17 work done on a relative system efficiency which

18 normalizes the BEF. One of the things that's

19 attractive to NYSERDA and people in the efficiency

community about that is the ability to compare

21 different ballasts across types.

22 So I would be curious, like dimming ballasts

23 versus programmed start versus instant start and the

24 relative efficiency. So I would be curious to know

with this new metric whether or not that kind of

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 28

1 comparison in terms of relative efficiency would be

2 able to be done.

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Bob.

4 MR. EHRHARDT: As a matter of fact, the task

group that is working on this just had a phone meeting

6 with Dr. Rubinstein, who is the originator of the RSE

7 metric. We do complement Dr. Rubenstein on developing

8 this metric. We do agree that it does help improve the

9 understanding. As the ballast efficiency metric that

we are developing can ­­ we are attempting to correlate

11 with BEF, it would also be correlated with the RSE.

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Additional

13 comments? This would be the place for anybody that has

14 additional comments at this point on scope of coverage.

I think this slide here is a really good queuing point

16 for that. Andrew DeLaski.

17 MR. DeLASKI: I do have a comment on that,

18 Doug, but I want to, first of all, just follow on to

19 the conversation about the test method.

MR. BROOKMAN: Please do. Yeah, please.

21 MR. DeLASKI: First of all, it sounds great.

22 Easier to measure, greater accuracy, comparability.

23 These are all things that we like in a test method. I

24 wanted just to ask Ron and the Department a question

about timing because, as you duly noted ­­ I'll just,

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 29

1 first of all, congratulate the Department for getting

2 this underway. This is an important rulemaking.

3 You're under a schedule under a consent

4 decree and court order to get this done by mid 2011.

When would a ­­ how does the Department stage potential

6 changes to a test method? I think the folks in this

7 room need to understand how a test method change would

8 be staged with completion of a rulemaking under

­­

9 which doesn't have, really, any flexibility given the

demands of the court.

11 MR. SCHOLAND: Andrew, can I intercept that

12 question? Mike Scholand. That is Slide 18. In fact,

13 Ron, if this helps you talk to that response, we have

14 some chevrons to present how the test procedure might

be coincident and complete by the NOPR stage of the

16 Energy Conservation Standard so that the notice of

17 proposed rule, the Department could make its proposal

18 for the standard having a final rule on the test

19 procedure in place.

MR. BROOKMAN: Do you want him to forward to

21 that slide?

22 MR. LEWIS: Not yet.

23 MR. SCHOLAND: Not yet. Okay.

24 MR. LEWIS: Ron Lewis, DOE. I just ­­ thanks

for the reminder, in case we hadn't

­­

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 30

1 MR. DeLASKI: I know you're aware, Ron.

2 (Laughter.)

3 MR. DeLASKI: I'm not sure everybody else is.

4 MR. LEWIS: Actually, when I leave for the

mid part of the day here, I have to go to do another

6 big meeting. It's not just because we've got so much

7 work that I can't afford to be sitting here. But the

8 schedule that we put in the original January 31st of

9 2006 Report to Congress that's posted on our website

had a table in there that showed the model for doing

11 standards rulemakings in three years. The target that

12 we still try to live to, if at all possible, is to have

13 the test procedure complete by the time we publish the

14 NOPR of the standard for the product. The time

difference between the NOPR and final rule for the

16 standard in the model is seven and a half months' time.

17 So it means that's three years less seven and

18 a half months to get the test procedure done. So the

19 end date for the ballast rulemaking is

­­

MR. SCHOLAND: June of 2011.

21 MR. LEWIS: ­­ June of 2011. So we would

22 hope to have the test procedure final rule seven and a

23 half months before that. That's the target.

24 MR. SCHOLAND: That is. It's October 2010.

MR. BROOKMAN: Those last comments from

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 31

1 Michael Scholand. Bob.

2 MR. EHRHARDT: Yeah, just to help us

3 understand, if you need a final ruling seven months

4 earlier, when do you need a final proposal for a test

method?

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Mike Rivest.

7 MR. RIVEST: I think I understand the

8 question that Andrew was asking, which is because this

9 is a fundamental change to how we measure efficiency it

totally impacts our ability to do the analysis. So we

11 can't start with the data gathering, for example, to

12 create our cost efficiency curves until that metric has

13 been agreed to. And one of the challenges we would

14 have is that the publicly available data on the

existing product would be by the BEF metric.

16 So your effort to correlate existing BEFs

17 with the new descriptor would have to be ­­ we're

18 talking several months, not ­­ I think we've started

19 this rule actually more quickly than the 36 months

partly because the same analysis team is also working

21 on the lamps rulemaking. So that does give us this

22 early start. It does give us a little bit more time

23 for that initial data­gathering stage. But we don't

24 have a year.

MR. BROOKMAN: Go ahead, Bob.

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 32

1 MR. EHRHARDT: Yeah. I guess my question is,

2 if NEMA and ANSI were to define a ballast ­­ a method

3 of measurement involving ballast efficiency to specify

4 a BEF, and if that was an industry­recognized standard,

would that allow the DOE to accept that method of

6 measurement and continue with their rulemaking with BEF

7 as the metric?

8 MR. SCHOLAND: Do you mean ballast efficiency

9 or BEF?

MR. EHRHARDT: Well, no, I understand that

11 all your historical data, and today our catalogue data,

12 everything is in the form of BEF. The issue with BEF

13 is verification and precision of verification. We all

14 know that we may want to use one lamp instead of

another because it gives us a difference in BEF

16 measurement.

17 If ANSI were to put in its C82.11, for

18 instance, method of measurement a method of measurement

19 that involved ballast input power and ballast output

power with a correlation to BEF, would the Department

21 of Energy consider that as an effective method of

22 measurement for BEF even though it was actually

23 measuring ballast efficiency?

24 MR. BROOKMAN: Mike Rivest.

MR. RIVEST: It still entails a change in

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 33

1 descriptor. So you're using the same letters, BEF

­­

2 MR. EHRHARDT: No, no. It would still be

3 ballast efficiency factor. It would still be

­­

4 MR. RIVEST: Right.

MR. EHRHARDT: ­­ relative light output. We

6 would be describing relative light output over input

7 power, and actually, probably the better correlation is

8 the relative system efficiency ­­ is that RSE? That's

9 probably the better descriptor. It's the most closely

correlatable to the metric we're developing.

11 So you would still describe the ­­ we would

12 still be coming up with a description of relative light

13 output in terms of input power, but we wouldn't be

14 measuring light output. We would have a correlation

agreed to by the lamp manufacturers or lamp power with

16 respect to light output, and then we would be only

17 measuring output power from the ballast. It would be a

18 more precise measurement.

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Ron Lewis.

MR. LEWIS: We're not going to be giving

21 definitive closure to this right now. What we can and

22 will accept at this point ­­ I was trying to address

23 the timeliness of what are our obligations time­wise

24 for completion. The process to date with the

tremendous ramp­up of number of rulemakings that we

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 34

1 have to do and the question earlier about doing ANOPRs,

2 getting the ­­ exposing through this framework document

3 DOE’s needs, discussing the logic and the flow of how

4 things ­­ the process works so people understand it.

We have got a spotted history here of people

6 who are of best thought and efforts trying to get us

7 information that sometimes comes in very late and makes

8 it very difficult for us to make up that time.

9 Sometimes when we first see the material it's

aggregated in a different way than it's really usable.

11 I think part of Mike Rivest's comments there, in doing

12 the analysis to support this, in looking at impacts, in

13 correlating to historical bases, tests, and standards,

14 we have to show the impacts of potential increases in

standards, what the impacts and additional energy

16 savings would be.

17 So we have to be able to have a real handle

18 and a confidence factor on any new methodologies and

19 connect. So there are a lot of decisions that have to

be made, including the Legal Department and Policy and

21 other people that chime in on these things. It's not

22 just a pure technical play.

23 But the difficulty we have and part of the

24 reason that we're ­­ even though we're authorized we're

trying to find a way of still getting the benefit of

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 35

1 the ANOPR step is because we need to get that started

2 early and get the input and get any of those thoughts

3 and get the details and make sure that we're getting

4 the information in a form that's usable to do what

we're required to do by Congress.

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Bob.

7 MR. EHRHARDT: Yeah. The reason NEMA is

8 making such a point of this so early is because if BEF

9 with existing methodology is going to be the metric, we

may very well be arguing that it is inappropriate to

11 develop T8 energy standards because the difference in

12 the efficiency and the efficacy of T8 lighting systems

13 from the best to the worst is on the order of 5 to 10

14 percent. The error in a BEF measurement is on the

order of 5 percent.

16 So we would argue that in order to have

17 meaningful verification of a standard of a rule you

18 will need a metric where you can delineate between the

19 products on the market. If you're looking at T8

instant start systems, the premium systems versus the

21 standard systems, there is, like I say, on the order of

22 a 5 percent difference in the efficiency of those two

23 systems. That's within the error of a BEF measurement.

24 MR. BROOKMAN: Mike Rivest.

MR. RIVEST: I'm just trying to understand

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 36

1 the mechanism here. So if I were to select a ballast

2 from your product catalogue and it currently has a BEF

3 rating associated with it, the goal would be to have a

4 separate test procedure which would measure the

efficiency of that ballast and would have guidance, a

6 table or an equation, that would translate that

7 efficiency back into BEF.

8 What level of accuracy would we have with

9 that same ballast using the equation, using the same

ballast as in your catalogue?

11 MR. EHRHARDT: Well, here's the thing. I

12 would say that if we're using ballast efficiency as the

13 method of measurement, then whether we measured the

14 ballast or UL measured the ballast, or CSA or ETL, the

difference in the measurement and the difference in the

16 correlated BEF would be within 1, at most 2 percent

17 between the different measurements from the different

18 facilities.

19 If we were actually measuring BEF and sent it

from our facility to UL, to CSA, to ETL, you could see

21 as much as a 5 percent difference. And we do have ­­ I

22 believe Ed has some documented evidence of this, where

23 the very same ballast going to different test labs

24 using different lamps can have a 5 percent difference

in the reported measured BEF.

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 37

1 So it's our goal to work with the lamp

2 companies to come to an agreed upon nominal BEF, if you

3 will, for a given ballast. So that's the purpose of

4 our round­robin testing. We're sending the same

ballasts to multiple test labs. We will be getting BEF

6 measurements for those ballasts from multiple test labs

7 and then we will attempt to have an agreed­upon

8 correlation between the ballast efficiencies of those

9 multiple ballasts from multiple manufacturers to a BEF

that then is agreed upon so that when you do report a

11 number it will be much more reproducible and much

12 better verified.

13 MR. RIVEST: Mike Rivest. What would then be

14 the benefit of going back to the BEF? Why not just

stay with the new metric?

16 MR. EHRHARDT: The only benefit I would say

17 would be that it's consistent with your existing

18 rulemaking and consistency for the market, say if

19 they're used to using terms of BEF. In principle, we

think the ballast efficiency ­­ of course for ballasts,

21 that's what we have control over, although we do have

22 some control over the lamp efficacy as well with

23 filament heating.

24 But for instant start in particular, which is

the dominant system in the marketplace right now,

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 38

1 ballast efficiency is the best descriptor for the

2 performance of the ballast. When you start getting

3 into filament heating and rapid­start, program­start

4 systems, et cetera, then you need to take into account

filament effects.

6 Personally, I have some ideas that I want to

7 propose to our group on including filament losses as

8 well. I would like to, in a second step, develop a

9 correlation to include filament losses in our

conversion between BE and BEF. But certainly for the

11 dominant product type on the market today, ballast

12 efficiency is the best descriptor.

13 MR. BROOKMAN: It is Conan, right?

14 MR. O'ROURKE: Conan O'Rourke with the

Lighting Research Center. I'd like to follow up on

16 Bob's comment. Could you please comment where the

17 source of the error is? Is it on the light output side

18 or on the power side? And would you say that error is

19 more systematic error or some random type of error?

MR. EHRHARDT: To the best of our ­­ well, we

21 know that there is some error associated with just

22 doing a light output measurement in itself. There is

23 also an error between lamps. And again, I attribute

24 this ­­ and I don't have a statistically significant

test to refer to, but I attribute this to the fact that

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 39

1 your T8 system is being run on a reference ballast at

2 60 hertz, at 60 hertz with some filament heating. And

3 then you switch it over to a high­frequency ballast.

4 Well, lamps pick up efficacy as you run them

at high frequency, but no one has documented that it is

6 a precise conversion. Not all lamps are going to

7 convert exactly from ­­ are not going to gain the same

8 level of efficacy moving from 60 hertz to high

9 frequency.

Filaments also enter into it because you're

11 going from a filament heated to an instant start, non12 heated filament situation. So you've got some areas of

13 difference in the lamps themselves. If you use

14 multiple manufacturers, you will get different BEFs.

MR. BROOKMAN: Ron Lewis.

16 MR. LEWIS: Is your intention or thought at

17 this point that you would continue to list BEFs as the

18 metric as consumer choice information in the

19 catalogues?

MR. EHRHARDT: Well, that would be a

21 commercial decision. I would expect that we're not

22 going to immediately switch from one metric to another.

23 We don't want to confuse the marketplace. But it is

24 something that over time could perhaps be phased out.

MR. LEWIS: My concern here is we have to

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 40

1 both ­­ the whole mission intention of a new standard

2 is to look forward at things to come. So as you've got

3 thoughts about things that should be, now is the time

4 to get those in. Let's consider those.

We also need to look backwards on how this

6 compares to what's been done in the past and show some

7 incremental impacts that happen. So it's good to have

8 that conversion, that down conversion, especially if

9 it's coming from more precision and as it converts

backwards. That seems to be a better methodology. So

11 that would be helpful.

12 But it would also be useful as we're looking

13 at impacts on consumers and consideration that if you

14 are changing the metric, if you're leaving the old

metric, how that impacts the consumer in clarity and

16 being able to choose, et cetera. That would be

17 important for us to understand what your thoughts are

18 as well because it's a technical analysis that's done.

19 But how it would play out, all the implications, would

be useful for us to better understand as well.

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Mike Rivest.

22 MR. RIVEST: One last consideration. A lot

23 of these discussion points and questions had the BEF

24 metric in mind. Clearly, one discussion that's going

to be very important is the product class discussion.

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 41

1 So really, we'll have to be able to think in terms of

2 the existing metric and how the product classes might

3 look different under this new metric and this new

4 testing.

MR. BROOKMAN: Bob.

6 MR. RIVEST: And we'll get there soon.

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Yeah. Go ahead.

8 MR. EHRHARDT: Just as a comment, NEMA has

9 already initiated use of this metric in our NEMA

Premium Ballast Program, where we do have an

11 alternative verification procedure using ballast

12 efficiency. So we do specify and we do have different

13 classes of product in that we have instant start and we

14 have programmed start. Instant start and programmed

start have different BEF numbers but then they have the

16 same ­­ for verification, the same ballast efficiency.

17 It's not clear that that would be what we

18 would be finally proposing to the DOE, but there is an

19 example of how the industry is already looking to this

new metric.

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Mike Rivest, I want to clarify

22 one thing. I thought you were saying that if they

23 changed the descriptor or the metric that it needs to

24 be essentially endorsed before DOE can use that new

metric reliably.

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 42

1 MR. RIVEST: Well, it's true that the attempt

2 is to have the final rule by the NOPR. But because all

3 the analysis is contingent on this metric, we would

4 have to have maybe not a final rule but a strong

consensus before.

6 MR. BROOKMAN: So that someone like NEMA or

7 ANSI

­­

8 MR. RIVEST: Because the analysis is

9 essentially complete by the ANOPR.

MR. BROOKMAN: Bob, go ahead.

11 MR. EHRHARDT: I'm sorry.

12 MR. BROOKMAN: No, we just want to keep

13 getting these names on the record. Bob.

14 MR. EHRHARDT: Okay. I'm sorry. I think Ed

is chairing our taskforce on the ballast efficiency. I

16 think at our next meeting perhaps we can discuss

17 getting some early test results to the Department of

18 Energy. I think my company would be willing to

19 document some of the issues with ballast BEF, for

instance, to make the issue clearer for the DOE. I

21 think we can ­­ I think we would be able ­­ the

22 industry could pull together at least what I term

23 anecdotal evidence showing issues with BEF and

24 reproducibility of ballast efficiency and well forward

of us having a final decision on our metric.

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 43

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Ed, go ahead.

2 MR. THOMAS: Yeah. Just to build on Bob's

3 comment ­­ Ed Thomas ­­ at GE we do have some anecdotal

4 data to go along with that as well. That was one of

the motivators that prompted me to initiate this new

6 metric of ballast efficiency. We have found that, as

7 was mentioned, you can get variations in your BEF

8 depending upon whose lab you use and whose lamps you

9 use. In the competitive industry that we have, it

delivers a snapshot in time which may not be fully

11 representative of the entire product line of

12 performance that the end user will get from a given

13 product.

14 Speaking as an electrical engineer, I don't

have tremendous control over the lamp, the lamp­making

16 processes, lamp variation, nor do I have control over

17 the photometric measurement process or variations

18 associated. But I do have control over the design of

19 my electronic ballasts, and that metric, ballast

efficiency, would ensure that my design is meeting the

21 criteria without undue effect of the lamp and of the

22 other measurement systems associated with it.

23 MR. BROOKMAN: Ron Lewis.

24 MR. LEWIS: A couple things here. One is, as

Mike Rivest was saying, to do the analysis that we have

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 44

1 to do we need to have a thorough understanding of the

2 implications of the new metric. So if you've got some

3 touch points that we can correlate and start on to

4 understand the differences and how to relate it,

especially as we try to, early on, establish product

6 classes to see if it has impact on the product classes,

7 that's a major decision and could be an obstacle to our

8 moving forward if there's a lot of confusion.

9 So we need to get ­­ if there's anything that

you can give us that helps to clarify, even if it's not

11 complete and comprehensive, it would be appreciated at

12 this point as you continue to pursue populating your

13 data.

14 The second thing is, I think I've heard a

couple times now a bleak kind of remark of the lamp

16 people haven't really bought in on this yet. Part of

17 our interest would be how is this going to play out.

18 Are we going to get input from lamp manufacturers, or

19 resistance, or is there something behind this that may

be controversial beyond adding precision.

21 We applaud your attempt to do that, and

22 that's good. But it seems like this is still being

23 developed within NEMA or within the ballast section.

24 Is it something that is going to be resisted or that

the legacy and residual BEF metric that the lamp people

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 45

1 would be looking for, that be maintained for some

2 reason?

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Bob.

4 MR. EHRHARDT: My only comment is that in

NEMA the ballast section has shared our efforts with

6 the lamp manufacturers and certainly, in many of our

7 cases, GE and Philips and OSI particularly. We are

8 both lamp and ballast companies. We are not developing

9 this totally independent of the lamp industry. They

are aware of our efforts, and I am not aware of any

11 resistance to this.

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Cheryl, did you want to

13 comment? Please. Please do.

14 MS. ENGLISH: Cheryl English, Acuity Brands.

To kind of address some of the things that Ron and

16 Mike have talked about on the consumer impact, my

17 impression ­­ I guess we need to define who the

18 consumer is. But we are regulating a component of an

19 end­use product, which is the luminaire. My impression

of an end­user, lighting designer, architect,

21 electrical engineer is that I don't think I've ever

22 seen a spec with BEF on it. The BEF has primarily been

23 used by the manufacturers of luminaires to purchase

24 efficiency products that meet the regulations.

So I personally don't see a consumer issue,

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 46

1 although I appreciate that you're going to have to

2 study that impact. It's very possible that NEMA could

3 help you do some profiling of the lighting design

4 community to evaluate how much they know about BEF

today, because I think most of them don't even really

6 understand it. So a shift probably wouldn't create

7 that much impact on designers. It would impact the

8 manufacturers of the luminaires.

9 And then with regard to the NEMA Premium, the

ballast standard is not finalized. It hasn't been

11 fully vetted within the Lighting Division. The lamp

12 and ballast companies have been discussing this. The

13 luminaire companies are still waiting to see the draft.

14 I don't expect any controversy there, so we could

potentially fast­track it. But it's not done. I want

16 to make sure we're clear that it's not done.

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Conan.

18 MR. O'ROURKE: Yeah, Conan O'Rourke, Lighting

19 Research Center. One of the points ­­ BEF may not be

used but ballast factor is commonly used to try and

21 estimate what the light output of the system would be

22 using particular lamps and ballasts. I think that's

23 the point of the BEF ­­ where the problem is, is in the

24 ballast factor measurement itself. That's what's

causing the source of the problem. So that part does

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 47

1 provide some utility, and the consumer part, we'll have

2 to figure out how that matters.

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So I want to return to

4 provide another opportunity for comments on scope of

coverage and also product classes at this point,

6 perhaps globally rather than very specifically.

7 Andrew, did you have an additional comment on

8 scope of coverage?

9 MR. DeLASKI: Yeah. I may have a closing

comment on this test method, which you may come back to

11 later today. But I think to the extent that the

12 Department can work with NEMA to fast­track a process

13 to sort through these issues.

14 I certainly hear the goals of reducing

testing costs and getting greater accuracy as being

16 important goals for the program that will ultimately

17 lead to, as Bob has pointed out, the potential for

18 greater energy savings. I think that's one that

19 deserves some close attention from the consultant team

now to see if we can't get it sorted out in the time

21 frame that you described, Mike, which was a matter of

22 months, as opposed to ­­ at least it's only

23 theoretically a matter of a couple of years. In

24 practice, it's a matter of a couple of months, a few

months, whatever I heard Mike say.

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 48

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Go ahead, Bob. Follow on.

2 MR. EHRHARDT: Yeah. I'm not exactly sure of

3 the scope of the work by the consultants, but if they

4 are doing light output measurements and verification of

ballast performance, we would invite them to

6 participate in our study, I would think. If that would

7 help fast­track things.

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you for that comment.

9 Ed, a comment?

MR. THOMAS: Yeah, I would certainly agree

11 with that. We would like as many eyes on this program

12 as we think we could get. The more people

­­

13 interested parties that are looking at this and

14 understanding the issues with the existing measurement

system and the positive aspects of the new measurement

16 system, and maybe more importantly, a transfer function

17 between the measurement systems so that we don't

18 confuse the industry.

19 We basically want to bring a new, more

accurate metric, and we want to explain to the industry

21 why we're doing this and what the benefit of the new

22 metric would be, particularly related to high

23 performance electronic ballasts.

24 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Andrew,

scope of coverage?

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 49

1 MR. DeLASKI: Yeah. And the other comment

2 I'd make ­­ sorry to keep bringing us back to this,

3 Doug.

4 MR. BROOKMAN: No, no.

MR. DeLASKI: The other comment I'd make is

6 that to the extent that there are independent, outside7 the­industry experts that you can bring into your group

8 who can give those of us, like myself, who are not

9 lighting experts per se, or ballast experts

­­

certainly not ­­ confidence that this is something that

11 has the support.

12 I heard the discussion with the luminaire

13 manufacturers and the bulb manufacturers. That's going

14 to happen ­­ that that's all happening at the same time

I think gives the community at large better confidence

16 that what is being fast­tracked is one that has the

17 support of a broad cross section of stakeholders.

18 I know you watch each other very closely as

19 competitors, but to the extent that there is outside

experts as well brought in the process early, so much

21 the better.

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. Howard.

23 MR. WOLFMAN: I think that's an excellent

24 idea. We just, real quickly, need to set up the

mechanism for having outside experts who would like to

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 50

1 participate let us know, as well as our seeking out

2 outside experts. The easiest way to do is have anybody

3 contact Ed Thomas and say, hey, I'd like to

4 participate. Then we can add you to the group. Does

that make sense to our NEMA folks?

6 MR. BROOKMAN: So, Ed, you would be our point

7 of contact for anybody that wishes to participate. Ed

8 Thomas.

9 MR. THOMAS: Yes, I can do that. Again, it

comes under the NEMA committees and it's the Taskforce

11 for Ballast Efficiency.

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Do you want to give your e13 mail address now, or do you want to do it later?

14 MR. THOMAS: I can state it right now. It's

pretty straightforward. The e­mail address is Edward,

16 E­D­W­A­R­D, .Thomas, T­H­O­M­A­S, @GE.com.

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Ron Lewis.

18 MR. LEWIS: If we ever get back to Mike

19 Scholand

­­

MR. BROOKMAN: He's a very patient guy.

21 MR. LEWIS: ­­ and if we ever give him an

22 opportunity to continue with his slides, one of the

23 very next slides is going to start to talk about the

24 test procedure and one of the EISA requirements that

has to do with standby power. One of the things that I

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 51

1 just want to mention is the very easiest thing for us

2 to do is if you had this all completed as an industry

3 standard and it was all put to bed and you had all the

4 details incorporated in that and we can incorporate by

reference. That's one of the considerations.

6 And, make sure that we're in synchronization

7 with each other, that we're hearing issues, we're

8 hearing factors that you think are important or worth

9 consideration.

In the past there have been times where NEMA

11 has had standards and that's gone forward to become an

12 ANSI standard, or other trade associations with other

13 appliances where we've incorporated by reference to

14 make sure that there wasn't any confusion out in the

field that they were the same thing.

16 So if you were talking about timelines and

17 fast­tracking and the capabilities, it would be

18 important for you to take a look at the reality factor

19 of how long would it take you to get a NEMA standard

through all of NEMA. Not just within the ballast

21 section but to get published as NEMA standard, and then

22 even beyond that, the anticipation if it were to become

23 an ANSI standard, and give us a reflection on that.

24 That would be useful for us to know as we're either

developing or ­­ we have to be developing, but so we

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 52

1 don't lose time or have some big obstacle. But it

2 would be good to know that in case that would be one of

3 the alternate paths we could take.

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Howard, do you

have a comment?

6 MR. WOLFMAN: I just need to get a quick

7 clarification so we can get what I'll call our sailing

8 orders lined up correctly. Assuming we complete the

9 work we're doing and we wish to develop this into a

NEMA standard, because that's the fast track, faster

11 than the ANSI process, and I'll pull a number out of

12 the air right now. Probably take 60 to 90 days once we

13 have our work done to get a NEMA standard out there

14 because there's a process within NEMA that has to be

followed.

16 If we have a NEMA standard, can you refer to

17 that by reference?

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Ron Lewis.

19 MR. LEWIS: I think we'll have to get back to

you on that. We have referred to other trade

21 association standards incorporated by reference in the

22 past on occasion. There are a lot of issues here at

23 stake, so it's not that we have complete clarity on

24 this. There's a metric change potentially. There are

a lot of implications, so we would have to look long

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 53

1 and hard at this. But I'm just saying that's a

2 possibility.

3 So keep that in your thought as you're

4 looking at timelines and fast track that. That has

happened in the past. If that would be part of your

6 desire to have that, that you would have to be working

7 to that pace to be able to accomplish that. And I

8 don't rule it out. We would have to talk with general

9 counsel and take a look at what needs are and also get

a little bit better feeling of what this means of a

11 metric change and how that would play out.

12 So we have to move forward, and again, that

13 urgency of getting some data to start to look into it

14 would be helpful. But then as we progress, we'll know

more as we get down the road and be able to make big

16 decisions a little bit further down the road. We don't

17 see every step along the way right now. It's still

18 being evolved.

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Howard.

MR. WOLFMAN: What would be the methodology

21 that we can use working together to help you get the

22 information you need to make that decision as rapidly

23 as possible? Should we get a little task group

24 together offline from this meeting to work together to

this end?

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 54

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Ron Lewis.

2 MR. LEWIS: That's a great idea.

3 (Laughter.)

4 MR. LEWIS: We have an official process.

This is the official ­­ this meeting today is the

6 official kickoff of this rulemaking. So we start to

7 get into limitations as we have a rulemaking underway

8 of all the dialogues and making sure all parties and

9 stakeholders have input and visibility to what's going

on.

11 So we need to utilize the benefit of

12 partnering and learning real­time as this evolves. At

13 the same time, we can't be exclusive or keeping other

14 people out of the play. So it's a balance on how we

can accomplish that. Certainly our desire would be to

16 learn as rapidly and work and be able to get decisions

17 as quick as we can. But we're regulated ourselves by

18 process and there are certain things we can do and we

19 can't do. We have to live within those constraints.

So to the best degree that we can, we'd love

21 to work with you.

22 MR. WOLFMAN: This is Howard again. What we

23 have come to the quick realization of this morning is

24 that time is of the essence in our getting our work

done. We understand that. I guess the ball is then

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 55

1 back in your court in terms of trying to figure out the

2 process, the open process, that we can use to work

3 together to better define these things.

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Bob.

MR. EHRHARDT: Yeah, I just have one further

6 comment, and that is that the technical coordinators

7 from both ANSI C82.11 and ANSI C82.11 Method of

8 Measurement are participants in this NEMA activity. So

9 this is not an independent NEMA activity. This is

something that is done with full cross­cooperation

11 between the ANSI groups and the NEMA groups.

12 MR. BROOKMAN: I thought Ron's comments went

13 to people who wouldn't be traditionally inside the

14 lighting ­­ the industry kind of stuff.

Ron, follow on. Then I'm coming to you.

16 MR. LEWIS: One possible route might be, if

17 we call a meeting like this a public meeting there are

18 certain protocols and things that we have to live with.

19 If you have a meeting that you call and you're

inviting guests along the way to participate, that may

21 be a way of accomplishing things where we're a guest

22 and we're giving you input as opposed to an official

23 DOE meeting. So it's a possible thought, not to do

24 anything that doesn't include all the thought. But

because of the sense of urgency here in some

­­

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 56

1 MR. BROOKMAN: I apologize. I've forgotten

2 your name.

3 MR. REA: That's all right. I'm Mark Rea,

4 Lighting Research Center. There's a lot of discussion

here about the desire to have efficiency as a

6 replacement, but could you just state again, Bob, what

7 the consequences of it doesn't happen? Then what would

8 be NEMA's position? There's a lot to happen here.

9 It's very complicated. So what's the implication if it

doesn't happen?

11 MR. EHRHARDT: Again, Bob Ehrhardt. As I

12 stated, this is not the only rulemaking we're involved

13 in. We work with ACEEE on attempting cooperation, and

14 I'm regularly going out to Sacramento with the

California Energy Commission.

16 We understand the direction regulations are

17 going, and we have our internal regulations. We have

18 our specifications. We have our NEMA Premium Program,

19 for instance, that defines high­performance product,

high­efficiency product that we work with ACEEE and the

21 utilities as promoting energy savings through rebate

22 programs, et cetera.

23 What we are recognizing, particularly with

24 the T8 instant starts is that looking at components

­­

and this is a general statement. Looking at components

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 57

1 we feel we're getting into diminishing returns. Moving

2 from 60 hertz to high frequency, you automatically got

3 approximately 10 percent efficiency just out of the

4 lamp, and the ballast could contribute further. With

lamp improvements you could realize 30 percent energy

6 savings by switching from T12 magnetic to T8

7 electronic.

8 When you're trying to delineate between one

9 electronic system and another, though, those 30 percent

savings are gone. We're now looking at and we're

11 debating back and forth 5 percent energy savings.

12 These are the typical numbers that we're looking at.

13 There are other discussions and I know DOE is

14 investigating. I'm part of the Commercial Lighting

Initiative where a systems approach is probably the

16 next big step in energy savings. As you look at

17 components, and we understand that you have a mandate

18 to continue to look at components. But as you look at

19 components, there is less and less energy to be saved,

and it's really the way these components work together

21 where the big energy savings are going to be.

22 That said, a metric that has, let's say, by

23 our estimates 5 percent error to it, can have 5 percent

24 error to it, is not a particularly effective metric

when you're trying to delineate a 5 percent energy

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 58

1 savings. That's why we recognize that if we're going

2 to start delineating these products we need a better

3 metric.

4 MR. REA: Okay. And actually, you asked the

overall impact. The overall impact is, we would be

6 asking you to build in ­­ we're going to ask you to

7 take into account the error of the measurement as you

8 write your regulations. So you may be writing a

9 regulation for a ballast to try to specify a premium

product, but to be able to truly allow the premium

11 products you may be having enough overlap that standard

12 products also fit.

13 So in order to get this 5 percent savings,

14 you need a better metric.

MR. BROOKMAN: Your name, please.

16 MR. PLASKON: Jeff Plaskon with GE Lighting.

17 Just to build on Bob's point, I was going to mention

18 the same thing as what Bob mentioned. But as well, I

19 think we'd have a harder time reaching industry

consensus because of that error measurement, the error

21 in measuring light output.

22 So I think a more precise measurement would

23 lead to faster industry consensus and maximizing the

24 potential of energy savings.

MR. BROOKMAN: Ron Lewis.

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 59

1 MR. LEWIS: I'd like to introduce Mike

2 Scholand from Navigant Consulting.

3 (Laughter.)

4 MR. LEWIS: He's joined us now.

MR. SCHOLAND: Actually, Ron, I just wanted

6 to get a comment about the scope of coverage. The test

7 procedure is the next five slides, so

­­

8 (Laughter.)

9 MR. BROOKMAN: So this discussion does

anticipate some of that, we presume.

11 MR. LEWIS: So perhaps for the first time

12 we're ahead of ourselves here. We've reached a

13 conclusion before we've introduced the issue.

14 MR. BROOKMAN: This is a detailed discussion.

Very, very helpful from the Department's point of

16 view. You're getting a sense about the pushes and

17 pulls, the pinches all along the way here. I

18 appreciate industry and other participants in the

19 room's efforts and ideas about how to find some way to

have a discussion as meaningful and press this forward.

21 So having introduced him, we know Michael

22 Scholand is a patient guy. He's got twins. Michael,

23 back to you.

24 MR. SCHOLAND: I wondered, could we get at

least Andrew DeLaski's comment on the scope of

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 60

1 coverage? Because, Andrew, you didn't actually say it.

2 You queued up a couple times, but

­­

3 MR. DeLASKI: Right. If you want to go back

4 to that slide, Slide 16.

MR. SCHOLAND: Oh, 16. Got it.

6 MR. DeLASKI: There are a number of other

7 types of ballasts. At this stage, the Department

­­

8 correct me if I'm wrong, but the purpose at this stage

9 is to determine what are the ballast types that you

will investigate, not what are the ballast types you

11 will regulate. Is that the right phrasing of the

12 question?

13 MR. SCHOLAND: That is correct, yes. It's

14 consideration

­­

MR. DeLASKI: So this is not making a

16 predetermination what's going to be regulated. It's

17 what are we going to look at in our analysis to figure

18 out is there energy savings here, is it maybe cost

19 effective. It's really keying it up for ­­ you make

the cut later on at various stages whether or not

21 you're including various technology types.

22 MR. SCHOLAND: Ron, I'll just step in. If

23 you want to add something. The Department is doing

24 exactly this in the fluorescent lamp rulemaking, which

is at the ANOPR stage having a preliminary

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 61

1 determination of scope, at the NOPR stage having a

2 proposed determination of scope, and at the final rule

3 having a final determination of scope.

4 MR. DeLASKI: Okay.

MR. SCHOLAND: So there will be opportunities

6 for the public to look at what the Department is

7 considering, look at the analysis that underpins that

8 decision, and then make comments about that. And then

9 the Department may or may not change its mix of

products at the next stage.

11 MR. DeLASKI: Okay.

12 MR. SCHOLAND: But that's the intent there.

13 Ron, is that correct?

14 MR. LEWIS: Yeah.

MR. DeLASKI: Certainly, if that's the case,

16 I think that I would urge you to take a broader look.

17 I think that you've looked ­­ you've described it far

18 too narrowly as to what you look at. There are a lot

19 of ballasts on the market that are not described within

the scope there.

21 For instance, I certainly would urge you to

22 look at low power factor ballasts. Largely used in the

23 residential market, are certainly not as large a market

24 as the commercial market, but it is certainly an

important marketplace that should be looked at.

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 62

1 I would urge you to look at dimming ballasts

2 as well. I would urge you to look at the low3 temperature ballasts. There are a lot of fluorescent

4 lights in signs outdoors that should be looked at. So

I think you can take a broader look at what is out in

6 the marketplace at this early stage of the rulemaking

7 for what merits investigation.

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Ron Lewis.

9 MR. LEWIS: We always appreciate input, but I

suggest that you review, and maybe it's still on coming

11 slides. I think it's already been handled. There are

12 exemptions that were granted by Congress, things that

13 are ­­ that we can't look at that they've excluded from

14 play, and things such as cold weather ballasts and such

as dimming ballasts that dim below 50 percent, at 50

16 percent or below, and there are a lot of things that

17 are in there.

18 So we are somewhat constrained by that. So

19 there are potentially some other energy­saving

opportunities, and we're open for recommendations and

21 any specifics that people want to give us that are not

22 excluded by the statute.

23 We also don't want to ­­ we want to look for

24 energy savings, but we don't want to spend an

exhaustive effort looking at things that, at the end of

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 63

1 the line, we're chasing things that have very low

2 volume or are a very specialized application, that we

3 spend a lot of time trying to get data that's tough to

4 get or holding up the savings on the big stuff. So

it's a matter of how do we get ­­ make sure the

6 coverage and the scope covers everything that's

7 substantial and has a real true energy savings to it,

8 stay within the parameters that Congress has dictated

9 here with exclusions, and make sure we're doing our due

diligence to put this rule out as a quality rule.

11 MR. DeLASKI: Andrew DeLaski. In response,

12 I'll take a look at the law again, Ron, and I'm not

13 going to concede the point right now that you're

14 constrained from looking at other products. But I'll

look at the law again, but I don't want to concede that

16 point right here and now.

17 With respect to going after the big stuff, I

18 think we've learned our lesson in the lighting market

19 that often we go after the big stuff and the little

stuff becomes the big stuff. The shock resistant bulbs

21 in California right now. The EPACT correction, the

22 EPACT fix to the last ballast standard. We just now

23 are fixing the BR. Little stuff on reflector lamps.

24 So I think we have to be very careful in any

lighting rulemaking that, yeah, one screen is if it's

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 64

1 small today, you've got to ask is it going to be small

2 tomorrow. We have to be thinking about that in this

3 rulemaking as we go forward, that we're not leaving out

4 things that ultimately become the next F34 or the next

BR lamp that becomes a more common product that starts

6 bleeding into the major parts of the marketplace. And

7 some of these markets are important in and of

8 themselves as well. So we need to look at those

9 questions.

MR. BROOKMAN: So let's then move on.

11 Michael Scholand, keep us going here.

12 MR. SCHOLAND: All right. On Slide 18, this

13 was sort of a preliminary presentation of a possible

14 schedule scenario for the concurrent rulemaking we've

been discussing now. The top row that you see there,

16 starting with the framework document, that's today. It

17 was published in January. The workshop today. Comment

18 period closing on March 7th.

19 The ANOPR stage ­­ this is ­­ as Mike Rivest

correctly said, DOE is getting an early start on this

21 product because it wants to make sure it meets its

22 deadlines. So the ANOPR is due in just under two years

23 from now. That should published in November of 2009,

24 the NOPR following about 11 months later, and the final

rule seven and a half months after that.

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 65

1 Built into that row of chevrons is the

2 determination of scope. As I had said to Andrew's

3 comment earlier, there would be a preliminary

4 consideration, a proposed determination of scope, and

then a final determination in each of those bins.

6 We've added a little chevron underneath that

7 one, which is a test procedure issue relating to

8 standby mode and off mode. The Department is directed

9 to have a final rule published by March 31st, 2009,

establishing revisions to its test procedure for

11 fluorescent lamp ballasts. It's specifically called

12 out in EISA 2007, on standby mode and off mode. So the

13 Department will be publishing a NOPR by July and having

14 a final rule in place for March of '09.

Conan O'Rourke is going to be taking over for

16 me in just a minute. Well, actually, Doug, we may want

17 to go to break since it's 10:30, and then after the

18 break Conan take over. He's going to talk about this

19 test procedure and then the bottom chevron, which is

what we've been discussing today for most of the

21 morning, the issue of the Test Procedure ­ DOE had

22 originally been looking at updates to the referenced

23 industry standards for ballasts, and then if the

24 Department were to expand its scope to cover, for

example, electronic ballasts, we might need to add test

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 66

1 procedures for testing electronic ballasts.

2 Now this is a new twist, the proposal that's

3 coming forward today, but the schedule that was

4 intended here is that the final rule for that test

procedure revision would be in place by the NOPR stage.

6 But as Mike and Ron have both emphasized, it's

7 critical that this be locked down much sooner than that

8 so that the ANOPR, which is due in November of next

9 year, to stay on track.

MR. BROOKMAN: Howard.

11 MR. WOLFMAN: Thank you. I'd like to get

12 just quick clarification of Slide 18 on the middle

13 section.

14 MR. SCHOLAND: Sure.

MR. WOLFMAN: Standby mode and off mode.

16 MR. SCHOLAND: Yeah.

17 MR. WOLFMAN: Is this the process for

18 determining only test procedures or would it cover the

19 existing products covered by the existing rule as well

by that date?

21 MR. SCHOLAND: This revision is to establish

22 revisions to the test procedure by that date. Then, in

23 the Energy Conservation Standard, which is the top row,

24 DOE must take into consideration in its new standards,

and those new standards, by the way, become effective

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 67

1 in 2014, okay. So the final rule date there is June

2 2011. The effective date is three years hence. Any

3 standby mode and off mode would apply at that time, as

4 I understand it. Eric, is that correct? Yeah. Okay.

MR. BROOKMAN: Eric? Yes. Okay. Thank you.

6 Additional questions on Slide 18?

7 (No response.)

8 MR. BROOKMAN: It's 10:30. I noticed,

9 looking ahead, that we've only got two slides on

standby mode and off mode, so let's do those before we

11 go to break. Okay. So, thanks, Michael Scholand.

12 MR. SCHOLAND: Okay.

13 MR. BROOKMAN: So we'll be breaking round

14 about 10:45 or so.

Test Procedure

16 Conan O'Rourke

17 (PowerPoint presentation.)

18 MR. O'ROURKE: Thank you, Michael. Most of

19 our discussion this morning did have to do with the

final slide, so we'll cover it at least for the

21 interest of off mode and standby mode.

22 EISA 2007 defines off mode as a condition

23 where the product is connected to a main power source

24 but not providing any standby or active function. The

Department believes at this time that fluorescent

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 68

1 ballasts are not acting in this capacity when they're

2 in the off mode, they are usually connected to the

3 power source and therefore wouldn't be defined as off

4 mode for fluorescent ballast operation (sic.)

The comment with the standby mode. The

6 definition defines the standby mode as a condition in

7 which the product is connected to a main power source

8 and either facilitates an activation or a deactivation

9 of other functions, including active mode by remote

switch, internal sensor, or a timer, or offers a

11 continuous function, including information or status

12 displays or sensor­based functions.

13 The DOE understands that there are some

14 ballasts that are on the market today that do have some

communication capabilities and do have ability to

16 operated remotely, so the Department is looking for

17 comment on how the Department should consider test

18 procedures related to standby mode and off mode and how

19 they should consider that in their analyses.

Okay. That tees up Item 2.

21 MR. BROOKMAN: So, questions or comments on

22 these two slides, 20 and 21, standby mode and off mode

23 test procedures. Bob.

24 MR. EHRHARDT: Yeah. NEMA's had discussion

on this, and as we understand standby mode or off mode

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 69

1 our comment would be that currently we're only aware of

2 dimming ballasts that we understand to be beyond the

3 scope of this rulemaking to include this feature. Not

4 to say that a fixed light output product could not have

this feature, but we're unaware of any products at this

6 time that have it. We are willing to cooperate,

7 though, in developing a test procedure for standby mode

8 and off mode.

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments on standby

mode and off mode test procedures? I see ­­ yes,

11 Andrew.

12 MR. DeLASKI: Just a comment that, in our

13 view, dimming ballasts are not beyond the scope of the

14 Department's purview.

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Okay. So then,

16 final comments on those before we go to break?

17 (No response.)

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Let's go to break. It's now,

19 by my watch, 10:33. Let's try and get back here and

start at 10:45.

21 (Brief recess.)

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So we're beginning now.

23 Slide 23. Proceed, Conan.

24 MR. O'ROURKE: Okay. Thank you. To follow

up on our discussion this morning, the existing DOE

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 70

1 test procedures takes into consideration operation of

2 magnetic ballasts but not electronic ballasts, and the

3 Department of Energy is considering adding these

4 standards in place to cover the electronic ballasts.

In particular, we're looking at updating existing

6 procedures of 82.2, the 2002 edition, C82.1 to the 2004

7 edition, and adding a C82.11, 2002 edition.

8 As this whole discussion happened with

9 ballast deficiency versus ballast efficacy factors,

some issues that relate to ballast efficacy factor or

11 ballast factor itself are the methods stated in the

12 ANSI standards are slightly different for, or are

13 different for instant start ballasts than they are for

14 what the test procedure states. In particular, the

test procedure uses reference light output to compute

16 the ballast factor for rapid start and preheat systems,

17 and for instant start systems it actually uses lamp

18 power on the test ballast versus on the reference

19 ballast.

And also, ANSI doesn't cover lamps

21 necessarily of all categories, specifically the 30­watt

22 and 28­watt T8 lamps. So we're going to be looking for

23 comments how you measure ballast factor where there are

24 no lamps in the ANSI standards to actually determine

what reference lamps are.

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 71

1 So the next slide for Items 3, 4, and 5 have

2 a number of parts. The first part is, DOE welcomes

3 comment on updating the current standards and adding

4 the standard for electronic ballasts. Doug, I don't

know if you want to handle these one at a time.

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Let's just take them one at a

7 time.

8 MR. O'ROURKE: Okay.

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Bob. First, on Item

Number 3.

11 MR. EHRHARDT: Yes. NEMA, and I'll say ANSI,

12 acknowledge that there is some confusion resulting from

13 the test procedures for BEF measurement on electronic

14 ballasts between 82.11 pointing to 82.2, which is a

low­frequency standard. That is being corrected.

16 Documents are out for voting now, and in 2008 in very

17 short order there will be a new version of C82.11 with

18 a C82.11 annex method of measurement that should

19 clarify ­­ that will offer the proper methods of

measurement for BF and BEF measurement on electronic

21 ballasts.

22 MR. O'ROURKE: Okay. Thank you.

23 MR. BROOKMAN: So then, the way ANSI is

24 proceeding with this, it will accommodate the new

approach that you're considering?

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 72

1 MR. EHRHARDT: No, not the new approach. But

2 this is to clarify ­­ the 82.11 method of measurement

3 is long in coming. I will just say that. ANSI does

4 not always move quickly. I think it's what, Howard, 20

years this has been in the making? Sorry.

6 (Laughter.)

7 MR. EHRHARDT: In any case, there is a high8 frequency electronic ballast dedicated method of

9 measurement that has been developed. It is in its

final stages of publishing. It is out for edit and

11 review right now and in a matter of weeks will be

12 published.

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay.

14 MR. EHRHARDT: And this should clarify the

issues that the DOE is raising.

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Additional

17 comments on Item Number 3?

18 MR. O'ROURKE: Just an additional comment,

19 Bob. Is there any updates to 82.2 and 82.1? Do those

stay as they are that you know of?

21 MR. EHRHARDT: Perhaps Howard Wolfman can

22 comment.

23 MR. BROOKMAN: Howard.

24 MR. EHRHARDT: As I caught him with a

mouthful of peanuts.

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 73

1 MR. WOLFMAN: Peanuts, right. Thank you.

2 This is Howard. I'd have to check my file, but 82.1 I

3 believe had some updates in it several years ago. 82.2

4 I believe was reaffirmed. So to the best of my

knowledge, there is no active program right now to

6 update those. As Bob pointed out, 82.2 was created in

7 the days when we only had magnetic ballasts. We did

8 not have electronic ballasts, and it does provide for

9 different ballast factor methodologies for instant

start and for rapid start.

11 Even though it does that, if you were to talk

12 to test labs, and Conan, maybe you can comment on this.

13 Where are you? Conan, where are you?

14 MR. O'ROURKE: I'm right up here.

MR. WOLFMAN: Oh, okay. Thanks.

16 MR. O’ROURKE: I'm in the dark.

17 MR. WOLFMAN: My understanding, my belief is

18 that ballast manufacturers and independent test

19 labs all use the same methodology for determining

ballast factor, be it an instant start or a rapid

21 start ballast. They do not use the power

22 measurements. They use the relative light output

23 measurements.

24 So if there's anybody around the table in

addition to Conan who can comment on the real world, am

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 74

1 I right or do you see a different approach?

2 MR. O'ROURKE: I would say that we would say

3 that we use light output as well. That would be

4 consistent with the DOE procedure. That kind of feeds

into the next discussion about ballast factor. Our

6 next item for comment with the two different methods is

7 what's published in the catalogue for instant start

8 ballasts, is that based on power measurements or based

9 on light output measurements.

MR. BROOKMAN: So that's Item Number 4.

11 Comment on that from anybody?

12 MR. EHRHARDT: This is Bob Ehrhardt again.

13 Certainly my company, and it's our understanding that

14 it's industry practice to use light output measurement

for ballast factor and BEF.

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Howard.

17 MR. WOLFMAN: This is Howard. I concur.

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Concurrence

19 is useful to the Department of Energy.

MR. O'ROURKE: This comment is relevant only

21 to BEF discussion. It obviously doesn't play a role in

22 the ballast efficiency discussion as that plays out.

23 MR. BROOKMAN: Final comments on Item Number

24 4?

(No response.)

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 75

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Item Number 5. Queue that,

2 Conan.

3 MR. O'ROURKE: Yes. The current standard

4 does not address programmed start ballast or modified

rapid start, so comments about how the method would be

6 done. Based on the discussions we just had, I would

7 say light output would be used for all methods of the

8 ballast types. Any further comment on that?

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Priscilla?

MS. RICHARDS: This is, yeah, Priscilla

11 Richards from NYSERDA. Only a comment that it

12 certainly would be useful to this idea of normalizing

13 BEF so you could compare across the different ballast

14 types in terms of what that efficiency rating is. It

would be very useful.

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments on Item

17 Number 5?

18 (No response.)

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Do you want to queue that

final box for us?

21 MR. O'ROURKE: Sure. The last box there is

22 an additional comment that's asking about, for the

23 purposes of measuring ballast factor and reference to

24 using the reference lamp, if there are lamps not in the

ANSI standards, how would you measure ballast

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 76

1 performance with those types of, say, the 28­watt or

2 30­watt T8 lamps? Some guidance on that would be

3 helpful.

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Howard.

MR. WOLFMAN: Let me preface this by saying

6 I'm not a lamp person. You're correct; some of these

7 newer lamps do not yet have ANSI standards. So there's

8 an issue that each lamp company has its own standard

9 for it. Together they try to reach a consensus point

and develop an ANSI standard. Until that time it's a

11 gray area. There is some confusion and perhaps some

12 differences from company to company. Once there is an

13 ANSI standard for lamp and then you find the reference

14 lamp that should be within two and a half percent of

nominal values for the lamp parameters and use that

–

16 after it has been seasoned for 100 hours, use that as

17 your reference lamp.

18 I think this may be another area where the

19 ballast efficiency metric would be very useful because

it doesn't rely upon the need for an ANSI standard for

21 a lamp. The ballast is designed to operate a new lamp.

22 Ballast efficiency allows it to be evaluated strictly

23 based on the efficiency of the ballast.

24 MR. BROOKMAN: Bob.

MR. EHRHARDT: Yeah, I concur, and I'll

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 77

1 elaborate a little bit on Howard's comment. I would

2 say that in principle the ballast efficiency metric

3 that we're developing would be applicable for all

4 ballasts of a given category, be it instant start or

programmed start, et cetera. Or can be, let's say.

6 And that while you can, I believe, have a BEF or a BF

7 measurement with a lamp, in my personal opinion, if you

8 took a manufacturer's reference operating conditions

9 and used that as a reference, you could do a relative

measurement.

11 But again, it's not clearly stated in a

12 standard and it's not possible for the DOE to reference

13 it. A test house would be taking some risk in making a

14 statement to the effect of BEF for a lamp that is not

in an ANSI standard.

16 Yes, it would be a benefit of a ballast

17 efficiency metric to be able to cover lamp types yet to

18 be developed.

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Final comments on this

last box, how to test fluorescent lamp ballasts when

21 the operating lamps are not a part of ANSI C78.81.

22 Are you going to continue?

23 MR. O'ROURKE: No, I'm actually going to turn

24 it over to Mike Scholand, who will cover the Energy

Conservation Standards.

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 78

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay.

2

3

4

Energy Conservation Standard Overview

6 Mike Scholand

7 (PowerPoint presentation.)

8 MR. SCHOLAND: Mike Scholand here. I don't

9 know if I'll be talking too much in the next session or

not. Just kidding. These are my slides.

11 Okay. So there were a few folk who put their

12 hands up this morning when Doug asked "Are you new to

13 the rulemaking process?" Really, Section 3 of this

14 presentation is to try and familiarize you with the

road that DOE is going to follow in the next three and

16 a half years on this product.

17 So I want to start by talking about what the

18 Department refers to as the EPCA factors. These are

19 seven factors that are in the Energy Policy and

Conservation Act that the Department takes into

21 consideration when establishing mandatory efficiency

22 requirements for products. The EPCA factors are listed

23 on the left side, and the DOE analyses that are

24 conducted are listed on the right.

So for example, the first factor is the

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 79

1 economic impact on consumers and manufacturers. DOE

2 considers a life­cycle cost analysis that looks at the

3 consumer cost, perhaps increase in first cost but

4 operating cost savings, and DOE also ­­ so that gives

them an indication of the impact on consumers. And the

6 Department also conducts a manufacturer's impact

7 analysis, which assesses the impact of those standards

8 on manufacturers.

9 So those two pieces are critical pieces of

the Department's decision, and so on and so forth,

11 looking at total energy savings. There's a national

12 impact analysis that quantifies the total energy

13 savings over the time period of analysis, and so on.

14 We're going to have slides throughout today's

briefing to talk about each of the analyses the

16 Department conducts. I'm going to give a 30,000­foot

17 overview now about these analyses, how they fit

18 together, so you know the stage of the rulemaking where

19 they'll occur, but we're going to go into more detail

on each of these throughout the day.

21 And again, you should feel free to stop us at

22 any time with questions if it's unclear, please.

23 So we started to talk about schedule this

24 morning, and this is another slide showing you the

stages of the rulemaking for this product, fluorescent

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 80

1 lamp ballasts and when there are public meetings being

2 held. So today's framework document, you see the

3 framework document public meeting on the timeline there

4 in February 2008.

The ANOPR is scheduled about 22 months from

6 now. That's when it will be published. We just have a

7 little footnote there that EISA amended the statute to

8 remove the requirement to hold an ANOPR for this

9 product, and the Department is considering that issue

and asking for comment on it.

11 The NOPR will be published about 11 months

12 after that, and the final rule in June of 2011. And

13 then the standard itself which is promulgated in the

14 final rule would take effect three years after that.

On the framework document, this is today.

16 Basically, our public meeting is looking to address the

17 issues and present the framework document that was

18 published in January. There was also a Federal

19 Register notice stating that there was today's public

meeting and notifying people that the framework

21 document is available for download on the website.

22 The framework document in general, as you've

23 probably seen as you reviewed it, provides an overview

24 of the rulemaking process and encourages public

participation. It encourages interested parties to

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 81

1 submit comments by the deadline. Another footnote here

2 that Linda and the Department maintains a website, as

3 you may have seen, for this product. On that website

4 you can see all the materials the Department has

published associated with this rulemaking, including

6 the slides from today's presentation, for example, the

7 agenda, the handouts, the framework document, the

8 Federal Register notice, and so on.

9 We give the website on the slide.

So you've heard us throw around this acronym

11 "ANOPR" a few times this morning. That stands for the

12 Advance Notice Of Proposed Rulemaking, or Advance

13 Notice of Proposed Rule, excuse me. The ANOPR is kind

14 of expanded here to show you the analyses that are

contained. The chevrons indicate a little bit how the

16 pieces fit together. We will, again, be discussing

17 each of these analyses this morning as we move through

18 the process: market and technology assessment, the

19 screening analysis, the engineering analysis, and so

on.

21 This is a very detailed process flow diagram.

22 Don't worry about reading it right now. It's pretty

23 small on this slide. But it's more to call out the

24 fact that this Figure is presented in the framework

document so you can see essentially the inputs, the

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 82

1 interconnections between these analyses the Department

2 is conducting, and basically the key outputs that will

3 be coming from those analyses.

4 So the Department will then publish its draft

analysis on the ANOPR and hold another public hearing

6 like this. The purpose of that ­­ or, public meeting,

7 rather ­­ would be to present the methodologies of the

8 ANOPR analysis and to characterize the preliminary

9 results that were found, to discuss specific issues

relating to the analyses, to seek input from

11 stakeholders such as yourselves on the methodologies,

12 the assumptions, and the data sources that were

13 considered, and finally, to describe the upcoming

14 analyses in the next phase of the rulemaking where the

Department would be proposing a standard level.

16 So that's the ANOPR meeting, which will be

17 held after the ANOPR is published. So we're thinking

18 in the ballpark of December of 2009.

19 The next slide, 32, is the NOPR analyses, and

here you can see, as we did with the ANOPR, it spans

21 out to show you the chevrons which define the analyses

22 that are contained in the NOPR. First and foremost,

23 the Department will revise its ANOPR analyses based on

24 the comment received both at the hearing and also in

written comments, written submissions to the

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 83

1 Department.

2 DOE then proceeds to conduct a series of

3 additional analyses to look at the manufacturer's

4 impacts, for example, to look at the utility impacts,

to look at the environmental assessment, and so on. So

6 these are all components of the NOPR.

7 As before, on Slide 33 I show you the

8 analyses in this flow diagram that are conducted in the

9 NOPR phase and how they interconnect with each other

and the key outputs from those analyses.

11 DOE will publish its NOPR in a Federal

12 Register notice and a technical support document on its

13 website and hold another public meeting like this one

14 to hear views on the proposed standard level. At this

stage, DOE is now feeling it's got a good

16 representation of the analytical representation of the

17 market and dynamics of the technology and the

18 economics, so it's proposing a level. So the focus of

19 the NOPR is to get comment on that proposed standard

level and then to receive any input on remaining issues

21 that might be there on any of the analyses.

22 And then finally, the final rule. DOE simply

23 revises its NOPR analyses and publishes the final rule.

24 So that, in a nutshell, is the Energy Conservation

Standards rulemaking process. Are there any questions,

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 84

1 from the new folks in particular? Seems okay?

2 (No response.)

3 MR. SCHOLAND: Great. Then I'll hand over to

4 Diana or Conan. Conan? Okay.

6 ANOPR ANALYSIS

7 Market and Technology Assessment and Screening Analysis

8 Conan O’Rourke

9 (PowerPoint presentation.)

MR. O'ROURKE: Thank you, Michael. The first

11 of the nine parts of the ANOPR are the market and

12 technology assessment. The purpose of that is to get

13 information about the markets and the fluorescent lamp

14 ballast industry and to look at different ways you can

improve efficiency of the products.

16 So the method we go about doing this is

17 identifying and characterizing the manufacturers that

18 are on the market making fluorescent lamp ballasts,

19 getting information on shipments and trends and the

products that are being sold, identifying regulatory

21 and non­regulatory initiatives intended to improve the

22 efficiency of the products covered by the rulemaking,

23 study market failures where energy­efficient products

24 should have reached certain markets but failed to, and

identify the technologies that do make them more

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 85

1 efficient.

2 This is a small segment of one of the earlier

3 slides that Michael showed showing the interrelation.

4 One of the key outputs coming out of the market and

technology assessment is product classes themselves,

6 and that will be used in the engineering analysis. The

7 other important part is different technologies that are

8 identified will be screened in the screening analysis,

9 which I'll discuss later, and then also fed on into the

engineering analysis, which is also a later discussion.

11 So in Item 6, the Department is looking for

12 comments about inputs and shipments and manufacturing

13 costs, product features and efficiency trends, and

14 their distribution channels and, for market shares as

far as whether it relates to ballasts as part of this

16 rulemaking.

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Can you be more specific about

18 what you'd like them to comment on?

19 MR. O'ROURKE: The information that we're

going to need for the market analysis is really where

21 what products are sold. We know some of this

22 information was previously available as part of the

23 U.S. census on fluorescent ballasts. I guess that's

24 good up until 2006. It at least gives some input about

what's being sold. Distribution channels, estimates of

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 86

1 market share would be important parts, also.

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Comments in support of

3 Item Number 6? Bob.

4 MR. EHRHARDT: Yeah. NEMA agrees to work to

supply this information to the best of its ability.

6 Some anti­trust requirements will limit what we can,

7 especially about manufacturing costs. We're not

8 allowed to speak about such things, for instance. But

9 the NEMA ballast section will do its best to provide

market trends and market share analysis for different

11 product types.

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you.

13 MR. O'ROURKE: We believe at this time that

14 the analysis we're using commercially available

products and pricing associated with those, but that

16 will be in a later discussion.

17 I guess Item 7 is looking for comment for

18 potential market failures that could apply to

19 fluorescent ballasts.

MR. EHRHARDT: I have to go back and remember

21 what market failures were defined as.

22 MR. O'ROURKE: It's an energy efficient, say,

23 product that is available on the market but didn't

24 reach certain markets it was intended to. If we have

examples of that. An example might be that people who

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 87

1 build buildings and people that operate buildings have

2 different agendas when they are considering ballasts

3 based on either pricing, first price versus operating

4 cost. That could be considered something that could

impact a market failure.

6 MR. EHRHARDT: Well, there's certainly

7 anecdotal responses to that. What is not clear to me

8 is if we'll be able to provide documented, agreed­upon

9 responses. We can take that to the Ballast Section and

see if we can have a response for you.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Howard.

12 MR. WOLFMAN: Thank you. This is Howard

13 again. This is always a challenging area. When we

14 sell ballasts, they fundamentally go out into the

marketplace. "We" being the industry, they

16 fundamentally go through two different channels. One

17 is to the manufacturers of luminaires and the other is

18 to distributors. Once they leave our docks, we know

19 who we shipped them to but we have no idea what happens

after that. Where do they go, what part of the

21 country, et cetera, et cetera. Individual

22 replacements, retrofits through distributors, new

23 luminaires going into new buildings. Are they going

24 into major renovations of buildings. We don't know as

a ballast group, we don't have access to that type of

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 88

1 information.

2 There may be some additional information that

3 NEMA can gain from other parts of the Lighting Systems

4 Division. We definitely want to work with the

Department as much as we can to provide this

6 information, but please be aware that there are some

7 extreme limitations as to what our knowledge level is.

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Yeah, Bob, go

9 ahead.

MR. EHRHARDT: Yeah. One more comment is

11 that perhaps we can ask Cheryl English. Really, our

12 customers might be able to say something more about the

13 market failures of new product categories as far as

14 market acceptance.

MR. BROOKMAN: Cheryl?

16 MS. ENGLISH: Cheryl English, Acuity Brands

17 Lighting. The biggest market failure that I've

18 experienced is the lack of enforcement. So I think as

19 we look at this rulemaking, anything that we can do to

better define enforcement mechanisms. I appreciate

21 that DOE has limited resources in rulemaking and even

22 more limited in enforcement issues, but perhaps a

23 shared burden. The legal responsibility today, or the

24 existing requirement today, falls completely on the

manufacturer. If we try to pull in retailers, then I

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 89

1 think that there's probably more reception to

2 compliance.

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Andrew.

4 MR. DeLASKI: Actually, I have a couple

comments. One, I just want to follow up on the prior

6 comment about lack of enforcement. I know it's a

7 sensitive area, but I wonder if you could elaborate a

8 little bit. Are folks observing that there are

9 ballasts being sold that don't comply and by your

competitors? Are we seeing smaller manufacturers

11 coming into the marketplace who are selling non12 compliant ballasts?

13 MS. ENGLISH: Yes.

14 MR. DeLASKI: I see lots of nodding around

the table.

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Howard.

17 MR. WOLFMAN: This goes back a number of

18 years, and I'd be surprised if things have changed.

19 But my recollection is that it's the FTC that would be

responsible for the enforcement; is that correct? The

21 Federal Trade Commission?

22 MR. STAS: With labeling issues.

23 MR. BROOKMAN: Eric.

24 MR. WOLFMAN: Yeah, with labeling issues.

MR. STAS: We have the lead on the standards.

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 90

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Eric, you've got to state your

2 name and organization.

3 MR. STAS: Eric Stas, DOE.

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you.

MR. STAS: With labeling issues FTC is the

6 lead agency. But for the standards themselves,

7 unfortunately, that's DOE. But of course, we have

8 limited resources and many things to do, so.

9 MR. WOLFMAN: Again going back in history,

we've observed products that were non­compliant with

11 the rules and labeled as if they were compliant. And

12 being good citizens, we reported that to the FTC, and

13 nothing happened. No enforcement.

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Andrew, I

thought you had another comment.

16 MR. DeLASKI: This is one for the Department.

17 Conan, I guess I'm curious. This particular question

18 about market failures, and I think that's a good

19 question and I think an important question that sort of

speaks to the overall driver behind the act, frankly.

21 Why is it here in this question? How does this fit

22 into your analysis?

23 I'd certainly be interested in helping

24 provide comment on it. I'm curious how it fits into

the analysis.

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 91

1 MR. STAS: Let me respond. Eric Stas, DOE.

2 Executive Order 128622, especially in the most recent

3 amendments, asks us to look specifically at the market

4 failure or other problems leading ­­ specific problems

leading to our rules. We have added some language in

6 recent documents saying that we're going to look at

7 these type of problems and ask for comments and try to

8 figure out what's going on. Maybe do some limited

9 testing of these type of issues if we can get

information.

11 But we may be required to move forward with

12 standards even if we can't show a market failure

13 because EPCA may require it. But the genesis of that

14 question is probably from the Executive Order 12866.

MR. DeLASKI: Okay. But what I heard you say

16 is that it may have relatively little impact on the

17 analysis that you do. It's simply in response to this

18 particular executive order.

19 MR. McCABE: Eric, if I may interject, this

is Michael McCabe. I'm with the Department. The

21 market failure fits in a number of places in the

22 rulemaking process. Howard Wolfman touched on it

23 partially with his observation about where ballasts are

24 shipped, that some are shipped to luminaire

manufacturers, others are shipped to distributors.

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 92

1 In our energy savings analysis and the pieces

2 that are going to be presented later on, we try to

3 capture the market, where products are going into the

4 market and is there a difference in the efficiency of

what's being sold in one segment of the market as

6 opposed to another. For some of the, say, home

7 appliance issues, it's is there a difference in

8 efficiency in what's going into new construction versus

9 replacement.

So this is an issue that deals with the

11 structure of the analysis. As Eric Stas also reported,

12 that in response to the executive order we have to look

13 at alternatives to regulations and identify what the

14 effects of those alternatives would be. Typically in

the past, we have looked at enhanced labeling programs.

16 We've looked at state standards, DSM programs, and

17 have estimated what the cost is in very summary

18 fashion, what the costs and benefits of those would be

19 as compared to a standards program. The standards have

in the past shown benefits that have exceeded the other

21 alternatives.

22 But this is something that has been part of

23 our analysis process for 25 years. Given some recent

24 discussions in other rulemakings with other agencies

and with the legislation, it's one that we're giving

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 93

1 more attention to as far as to try to understand what's

2 happening and be able to discuss that more explicitly

3 throughout the rulemaking.

4 Does that answer it?

MR. DeLASKI: It helps. First of all, your

6 answer, I think, also helps a lot as well, which is

7 that we also have to look at data. What's happening in

8 the marketplace as opposed to what we think is

9 happening in the marketplace. That's why data for the

analyses that you're describing is important. I think

11 it's been the Department's practice in the past to do a

12 cost analysis, the national energy savings analysis.

13 What theoretically is happening in the

14 marketplace often is different from what's actually

happening in the marketplace. So this sort of question

16 I think is somewhat useful, but I think that's limited.

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Additional

18 comments on Item Number 7 before we move on? Yes,

19 Cheryl.

MS. ENGLISH: Doug, I've got one more

21 comment. Cheryl English, Acuity Brands Lighting. I

22 have a comment, and I'm not sure if it fits in here.

23 But a potential limiter to this is that the Energy

24 Independence Act that was just passed in December has a

Section 33.13(g), under Lighting, "The Applicability of

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 94

1 Buy America Act." That does present a number of

2 manufacturing burdens with regard to energy­efficient

3 products. So there probably needs to be some

4 consideration in the analysis of this.

MR. BROOKMAN: Would you say what the

6 Department should do about that?

7 MS. ENGLISH: I don't know how that got into

8 the federal bill, honestly, or why. But in order to

9 promote higher energy­efficient products it requires a

lot of electronics that is not produced in the U.S. It

11 would be great to see if the DOE could get an exemption

12 to that for lighting equipment in order to promote more

13 efficient products.

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Final

comments on No. 7 before we move on?

16 (No response.)

17 MR. BROOKMAN: We're moving on.

18 MR. DeLASKI: Doug?

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Andrew.

MR. DeLASKI: This may be appropriate for

21 later on, but as I'm tracking along here and following

22 the public document, the framework document published

23 on the Web, DOE also invited comments here on how they

24 should weight external benefit. Is that going to be

discussed later or is this the right time to comment on

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 95

1 that?

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Is this a good time for that?

3 MS. GRAVES: Is there an item number with any

4 of it?

MR. DeLASKI: It's not an item number, but

6 two paragraphs up, "DOE invites comments on the weight

7 that should be given to these factors and discussion of

8 external benefits." Item 7.

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Let's have it now.

MR. DeLASKI: It's not given an item number.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Yeah.

12 MR. DeLASKI: So the specific issue I think

13 is that DOE should weight external benefits and the

14 specific external benefits are pollution reductions

that should be monetized for carbon dioxide as well as

16 for NOx, SOx, and mercury. To the extent that there

17 are impacts on credit prices, they should be

18 calculated. The Department, I think, in prior

19 rulemakings has acknowledged it has the capacity to

calculate impacts on credit prices. They should be

21 examined and weighted in the analysis.

22 In addition, the Department should look at

23 impacts on natural gas use and energy security.

24 There's specifically a question here on page 18 of the

framework document, on impacts on natural gas use and

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 96

1 energy security. I would urge the Department to

2 calculate to determine what are the natural gas savings

3 resulting from improved electrical efficiency in

4 ballasts. Of course, it's not a direct savings, but

it's electrical generation. That's an important

6 external benefit in terms of energy security.

7 I also would comment that impacts on energy

8 prices is an issue that's come up in other proceedings

9 and should be considered in this proceeding as well.

As we reduce the demand for a commodity, energy, that

11 should, at least theoretically, have some impact on

12 energy prices. The Department should be developing a

13 methodology for being able to estimate what are impacts

14 on energy prices in the general market.

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Okay. Now we're

16 moving on to Slide 41.

17 MR. O'ROURKE: With Slide 41 we start our

18 discussion of product classes, trying to give some

19 sense of what goes into creating product classes.

Standards will be developed for each product class.

21 Product class in its basic definition is defined as

22 based on the type of energy used or the capacity of the

23 product or other performance­related features that

24 justify different standard levels, such features

affecting customer utility. For ballasts, that falls

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 97

1 under that second category.

2 It's useful when looking at product classes

3 to see at least how they're defined currently. In

4 Slide 42 we're looking at existing product classes for

currently covered product there are several components

6 here. They're based on number of lamps. It's based on

7 lamp shape. It's based on the lamp wattage, on lamp

8 diameter, and also has some issues with different input

9 voltages.

These are for all the F40 one­lamp and two11 lamp four­foot lamps and also for two F96 T12 lamps and

12 also F96 T12 HO lamps and the particular ballast

13 efficacy factors as they stand today.

14 I will comment that at least in the framework

document there are additional standards for replacement

16 ballasts, and they're held under a separate category.

17 So they are discussed separately.

18 In 2005, as part of EPACT, they also added

19 product classes for the 34­watt one­lamp and two­lamp

systems, T12s, and also the energy­saving versions of

21 the eight­foot lamps as well. These are the associated

22 ballast efficacy factors as they stand today.

23 So going on to look forward on how we develop

24 product classes as we're trying to address additional

coverage, how we will try and separate out product

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 98

1 classes, the Department is currently considering using

2 lamp length, base type, and the number of lamps

3 operated as categories at this point. Other areas to

4 consider are lamp diameter, lamp wattage, starting

method, harmonic distortion, ability for universal

6 input voltage with varying input voltages, and the

7 ability to operate multiple types of lamps.

8 Here's an example showing some ballast

9 efficacy factor products on the market today. We're

showing lamp wattage along the X­axis of what the rated

11 wattage of the lamps operating on those ballasts are,

12 and the ballast efficacy factor on the Y­axis. We have

13 the split there showing T8 lamps are lower than the

14 roughly 33 watts, where T12s are greater than 33 watts.

The boxes in there represent the average of

16 the ballast efficacy factors, and the error bars

17 represent the max and min within that category.

18 These data were generated based on gathering

19 data from manufacturers' literature. At this point,

this is just a sampling of what we've gathered so far.

21 It's not a complete list.

22 The orange bars for the T12 show where those

23 efficacy factor standards are today. The one for the

24 40­watt went into effect in 2005 and the one for the

34­watt goes into effect in 2009.

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 99

1 Any questions on this information?

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Bob.

3 MR. EHRHARDT: Yeah, just a general comment.

4 BEF is not an appropriate metric for comparing

different lamp types. I'm very curious how you

6 reconciled that.

7 MR. O'ROURKE: Well, the attempt here was to

8 show that maybe you could establish a relationship

9 between lamp types. Here you have some relationship at

least using the means, you could have somewhat of a

11 linear relationship across wattages of lamps. If you

12 could establish a relationship you could use an

13 equation in the standard and I'm going to get into this

14 a little bit later when we talk about scaling to other

product classes, is there a way to do it.

16 Because the opposite is, if we follow this

17 guideline of how is it done today, just for four­foot

18 lamps we would have over 36 product classes just for

19 four­foot lamps. It would probably be on the order of

100 to 120 for other classes. We're looking at ways it

21 is possible to reduce the number of product classes

22 down into smaller numbers.

23 This was just meant as an illustration. It

24 may be possible that there's a way to go across lamp

types if you could establish a relationship for those

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 100

1 lamps.

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Let's let Howard continue, and

3 then back to you, Bob.

4 MR. WOLFMAN: Thank you. First of all, I

concur with Bob's statement. Secondly, Conan, I think

6 you just presented an opportunity as a great straw man

7 because the application of ballast efficiency would

8 address exactly what you're talking about. That would

9 be applicable across product lines.

MR. O'ROURKE: Obviously, all this changes if

11 you have the different metric and how this graph may

12 look.

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Go ahead, Bob.

14 MR. EHRHARDT: Yeah. In broad terms, I think

RSE is the first step in addressing this very issue

16 that you're talking about, Conan. If you factor in the

17 lamp power as RSE does, then you'll find that you get a

18 much straighter line here. Ballast efficiency we feel

19 is a step further in that direction.

There will be some allowances that we would

21 suggest in between lamp types because, depending on a

22 lamp's characteristics, you may be able to better

23 exploit the efficiency of a ballast for a lamp with

24 lower total BAs than one with higher total BAs. So

there's some technical detail that we may wish to bring

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 101

1 up in the future, but generally speaking, a ballast

2 efficiency metric would be much more applicable across

3 broader product lines.

4 Talking about classes, I don't know if you

wish to talk about your previous slide or if you want

6 to wait for comments later.

7 MR. O'ROURKE: There's going to be a comment

8 a little bit later that will look for comments on

9 product classes.

MR. EHRHARDT: Okay.

11 MR. O'ROURKE: Going on to the next slide

12 this is to follow up on that last graph. You could

13 establish different product classes based on lamp

14 wattage or try and find a relationship across those

lamp wattages and say, if I know this, then I can

16 extend that to performance of another wattage.

17 So this is probably in its simplest form

18 what, say, a product class discussion could be for the

19 lamps that would be considered to be covered. If you

looked at this region it is showing a four­foot and

21 two­foot U­shaped lamps, medium bi­pin together.

22 That's similar to what the lamp categories would be.

23 You would have a separate product class for one­lamp,

24 two­lamp, three­lamp, and four­lamp.

And then you would also have product classes

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 102

1 for eight­foot single­pin slim­line fluorescent lamps

2 with one­ or two­lamp configurations and for recessed,

3 double­contact, high output, also in one­lamp or two4 lamp.

What would be expressed in each one of these

6 cells is a function that would allow you to extend

7 based on wattage what the ballast efficacy requirement

8 would be based on that wattage. And it would apply to

9 all different input voltages.

So this is the extreme on one end, probably

11 the simplest form. At least, the fewest number of

12 product classes that could be compared to something on

13 the order of over a hundred. So I guess this is the

14 point now where we add comments on product classes. I

guess comments now, Bob.

16 MR. BROOKMAN: So of course, product classes

17 are really important for how this analysis proceeds.

18 So your comments now on this representation and other

19 possible ones. Ed.

MR. THOMAS: I just wanted to start out with

21 a question. When you referred to lamp wattages, are

22 you talking about nominal wattage like we would call a

23 32­watt lamp?

24 MR. O'ROURKE: Correct, correct.

MR. THOMAS: But the reality of the industry

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 103

1 is nobody actually operates that lamp at 32 watts.

2 MR. O'ROURKE: That's correct.

3 MR. THOMAS: I think that might add some

4 confusion to the general sub­classifications.

MR. BROOKMAN: Closer to the microphone.

6 MS. ENGLISH: It's a quiet mic.

7 MR. THOMAS: Yeah, okay. I guess my comment

8 was the fact that nobody operates a 32­watt lamp

9 specifically at 32 watts. Everybody operates it at a

lower wattage or a higher wattage in order to tailor

11 the light output that one might expect to receive. So

12 I think there might be some confusion based on a

13 nomenclature that says it's a 32­watt lamp.

14 MR. O'ROURKE: And that's just done for

categorical purposes. It doesn't represent its

16 performance in application. When we do later analyses,

17 we'll actually be using the real wattage of the system

18 in place, not just this wattage of the lamp.

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Go ahead, Bob.

MR. EHRHARDT: Yeah. I think everybody's

21 volume just went up. With my mouth, I don't think we

22 need it.

23 (Laughter.)

24 MR. EHRHARDT: In general terms, I think that

you can have ballast metrics that can be applied over

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 104

1 broad classes, but NEMA's position is that the DOE

2 should also be taking into account the overall system

3 that these different categories are being used in. To

4 give some examples, a programmed start ballast may have

slightly lower BEF but it can be used in conjunction

6 with occupancy sensors with a very fast cycling time,

7 which can save much more energy than the small

8 incremental difference in ballast losses that are

9 included when you have the programmed start feature.

Similarly, we would recommend you take into

11 account the relative efficacy of the light sources

12 themselves. You may wish to promote the use of one

13 light source over another if it does result in a higher

14 total system efficacy.

We caution against writing one­size­fits­all

16 requirements that may actually hinder new technologies

17 that could have overall higher system efficacies.

18 I'll give an example. I was involved in

19 metal halide ballast efficiency requirements. Well,

our company is working on a new, highly efficacious

21 metal halide system that has the highest system

22 efficacy of any metal halide system. But its ballast

23 efficiency is lower than typical.

24 So we recommend that in developing product

classes the DOE look at how the products are used in

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 105

1 overall systems.

2 MR. BROOKMAN: So those comments are very

3 helpful in terms of general guidance. I mentioned the

4 Department would really like to have your best guesses

of how to configure these product classes, everything

6 from, as Conan suggests, the simplest way of doing it

7 on Slide 47 to, as was referenced, perhaps a hundred or

8 so product classes, which are what the manufacturers'

9 recommendations would be.

MR. EHRHARDT: We've had some initial

11 discussions within NEMA. We were not prepared to make

12 proposals at this meeting. We do hope to have further

13 written comments by the March 7th, I believe it is,

14 cutoff date.

MR. BROOKMAN: Michael Scholand.

16 MR. SCHOLAND: Mike Scholand here from

17 Navigant Consulting. I just wanted to add, going back

18 to my first slide on the scope of coverage, obviously

19 as the Department looks at expanding its scope to

additional lamps it would also be interested in putting

21 those new, additional lamps into product classes that

22 are appropriate for analysis. So as you prepare your

23 response, keep in the back of your minds as well your

24 opinions and positions on the Department's scope of

coverage when you make recommendations on these product

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 106

1 classes.

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Any additional comments on

3 possible product classes? Give you another chance.

4 Bob.

MR. EHRHARDT: Just to give some input on our

6 preliminary discussions in asking about light source

7 types, I believe we have consensus that we recommend

8 against writing specific requirements for T5 lamps, for

9 instance, because this is an emerging market and lamp

specifications are still in flux. We consider that T8

11 can be appropriate if allowances are made for ballast

12 type characterizations of, again, programmed start

13 versus instant start ballasts.

14 I believe we have consensus on that much, but

we'll try to provide further input.

16 MR. BROOKMAN: I know the Department would

17 welcome that information as soon as you can provide it.

18 MR. DeLASKI: Doug?

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Andrew.

MR. DeLASKI: I think this is a time to sort

21 of come back to this issue of scope since product class

22 and scope are linked so closely together. I did want

23 to come back to this issue because I told Ron that I'd

24 look at the law again. I did look at the law again,

and it is our take that the Department is not prevented

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 107

1 from looking at products that were excluded from the

2 initial standards.

3 If you look at the law again, it's pretty

4 clear the law said that those products are excluded

from the initial standards legislation. The law also

6 instructs the Department to look at regulating

7 additional ballast types, and those ballast types are

8 additional ballast types.

9 I think the Department is taking a far too

constrained view of its authority in saying that it

11 can't look at ballasts that were excluded from the

12 initial legislative standards. In fact, Congress told

13 you quite explicitly to look at additional ballast

14 types that were not included in the standards specified

in that particular paragraph.

16 So go back to that paragraph again. I urge

17 you to go back and look at that paragraph again and

18 take a closer look at your authority.

19 I guess it's a question perhaps for Eric.

Has the Department come to a final conclusion on that

21 or is that an issue that you see as still being open?

22 MR. STAS: I think we'll have to examine that

23 issue further.

24 MR. BROOKMAN: That was Eric Stas.

MR. STAS: Eric Stas, DOE.

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 108

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Yeah. Thank you.

2 MR. DeLASKI: And in light of that, we'll

3 consider what our comments will be with respect to

4 product class and we'll give you more comments in our

written comments.

6 Again, as I mentioned earlier, some of those

7 products are the dimming products, the low power factor

8 products. The T5 products were just mentioned as

9 something that, in my view, should be investigated.

And again, the Department should take a broader look

11 than just the products that were identified in the

12 earlier part of the presentation.

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Bob.

14 MR. EHRHARDT: In response to this comment

and elaborating on my previous comment, NEMA is of the

16 opinion that it is not a time to be making requirements

17 for dimming product. The dimming ballast lamp

18 compatibility is still being defined, and it is

19 inappropriate to use today's BEF numbers from

commercially available product today for rulemaking as

21 these are subject to change as lamp ballast

22 compatibility is developed into a standard.

23 There is a NEMA activity done in conjunction

24 with LRC and the DOE to define lamp ballast

compatibility in dimming systems because we understand

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 109

1 that this is a limiting factor for market acceptance,

2 and indications at this time are that the overall BEF

3 of systems may be going down as standards are defined

4 to ensure compatibility between lamps and ballasts.

We also would like to point out that the

6 types of energy savings capable ­­ possible with

7 dimming systems, as evidenced by the DOE's Commercial

8 Lighting Initiative, can be on the order of 30 to 50

9 percent and far outweigh any incremental gains of a few

percent that can be realized by setting component

11 standards on dimming ballasts.

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Yes, Eric.

13 MR. STAS: Eric Stas, DOE. While DOE is

14 considering this issue further and reaching its own

conclusion, everybody should please comment on this

16 issue and give your suggestions for ballasts that you'd

17 like to see covered and why, the ones that you think

18 shouldn't be covered and why, so that we don't slow the

19 process down, that no one is waiting for that decision.

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Let me offer one

21 more time an opportunity for anybody that wishes to say

22 anything additional about product classes, since this

23 is a really central issue here, how this gets

24 configured.

MR. DeLASKI: I'd like to respond to Eric's

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 110

1 comment because I think at this point what we're

2 commenting on is not what should be covered, which, as

3 I understood it earlier in the discussion, will be

4 decided in the final rule published in 2011, but rather

what should be evaluated. I think that's the question

6 as I understood that's being posed today. The

7 framework stage of the rulemaking is what is going to

8 be part of the Department's analysis, not what is the

9 Department going to regulate, which won't be decided

for a while based on the kind of input that we just

11 heard from Bob, that's a different question. I think

12 at this point the question is what should be evaluated.

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Okay. Final

14 comments before we move on? Yes, Cheryl.

MS. ENGLISH: Cheryl English, Acuity Brands.

16 I guess continuing on the what should not be covered,

17 if in fact DOE believes that it's under their authority

18 to cover products that were previously excluded, the

19 area of residential lighting, residential ballasts will

need to be addressed separately with separate studies

21 because it's a very different market and a different

22 set of stakeholders.

23 I was kind of surprised that these are

24 actually posted on the DOE site under residential

products, and I don't think it really is intended to be

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 111

1 residential products, so.

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Okay.

3 MR. O'ROURKE: Okay. Continuing on, the next

4 phase of the market and technology assessment is

looking at technology options. There's a list of some

6 preliminary technology options you could consider on

7 how could you make a fluorescent lamp ballast more

8 efficient.

9 With the magnetic systems, what was employed,

at least commercially available product, was to use a

11 cathode cutout or a hybrid type of system which would

12 remove cathode heating after the starting phase and

13 would make the system, at least at steady state

14 operation, more efficient.

Electronic ballasts themselves, as mentioned

16 already, are more efficient and losses within the

17 ballast are less compared to magnetic systems.

18 The ability to take and integrate more of the

19 discrete components in a ballast into one piece of

silicon in an integrated circuit has also an

21 opportunity to improve the efficiency of a fluorescent

22 lamp ballast, and also using higher­grade components

23 with less losses in them.

24 The last phase of looking at potentially

improved designs could also have better efficiency

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 112

1 compared to other designs as far as technology options.

2 So Item 9, we have some comments on at least

3 any additional potential technology options or comments

4 on the ones we've listed.

MR. BROOKMAN: Yeah, I wanted to cycle back,

6 before I forget, to Eric. Eric, you wanted to comment

7 on Cheryl's question with respect to residential

8 products.

9 MR. STAS: Eric Stas, DOE. The reason for

what seems like the strange placement is that this was

11 in Part 430. Congress put it in the consumer products

12 section, so.

13 MS. ENGLISH: I assumed it was probably one

14 of the regulatory, procedural things.

MR. STAS: Right.

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So Bob, you were the

17 first person that wanted to comment as prompted by

18 Slide 48.

19 MR. EHRHARDT: Yes. I apologize. For some

reason I haven't my power source. Well, I believe I

21 can comment. We had a meeting and we brought out notes

22 and a draft.

23 MR. BROOKMAN: Sure.

24 MR. EHRHARDT: But I can comment on these

directly. Cathode cutout or hybrid ballasts. We

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 113

1 recognize that this is a technology, even for high2 frequency electronic ballasts, that can be considered

3 in determining appropriate rulemaking.

4 Electronic ballasts. It's the NEMA position

that electronic ballast efficacy levels are appropriate

6 to set rulemakings. We recognize that the

7 electromagnetic market, due to the cost of commodities,

8 is almost becoming a non­issue moving forward. I think

9 we can supply some data indicating that. So we think

it is appropriate to set system efficacy levels based

11 on electronic ballast performance.

12 Integrated circuits. We have a comment that

13 integrated circuits on their own have no direct impact

14 on system efficacy. While the use of integrated

circuits can allow some improvements in one manner or

16 another, there is no direct correlation. Whether or

17 not a product contains an integrated circuit should not

18 be used as a criteria for setting regulations.

19 Higher­grade components. We recognize that

the use of higher­grade components can affect system

21 efficacy, but we caution that we must also look at the

22 cost benefit analysis in specifying levels that require

23 premium components.

24 And improved circuit design. There was some

reference to power factor correction having an

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 114

1 influence on system efficacy, or total system

2 efficiency. We question if there is any improvement to

3 be gained by using a higher power factor. Certainly

4 within the ballast design itself increasing or

improving power factor lowers the ballast efficiency.

6 It does not improve it. We question if distribution

7 system gains can offset the increase in power losses

8 within the ballast.

9 And we are unaware of any emerging

technologies that have the potential to fundamentally

11 improve upon the existing state of the art in ballast

12 design.

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Additional

14 comments on these ­­ one, two, three, four ­­ five

elements on Slide 48?

16 (No response.)

17 MR. O'ROURKE: Okay. Moving on to the next

18 phase of the ANOPR process is going to be looking at

19 the screening analysis related particularly to those

technology options.

21 This is just a slide to explain the basic

22 process of what the screening analysis does.

23 Basically, it's going to look at the technological

24 feasibility of actually producing a product that may

have that higher efficiency, the practicability to

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 115

1 manufacture and install it as well as service it, also

2 looking at impacts on product utility and availability

3 to consumers and impacts on health and safety.

4 So through this process, the particular

design options or variations of these design options,

6 some of them will get filtered out if they do not meet

7 these criteria.

8 Any comment on the screening criteria or how

9 it will be used, Item 10?

MR. BROOKMAN: Bob.

11 MR. EHRHARDT: Technology feasibility. It's

12 NEMA's position that only currently available

13 commercial technology be used for consideration in

14 setting standards. This has a direct impact on the

practicability to manufacture, install, and service

16 because we feel that only product that has had time in

17 the marketplace can you make a proper determination on

18 its manufacturing impact and its reliability and impact

19 on the marketplace.

MR. BROOKMAN: So, a definition for that

21 would be that it would be in some sort of a catalogue

22 or something?

23 MR. EHRHARDT: I'll even caution against that

24 because what’s in a catalogue may not be currently

available.

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 116

1 (Laughter.)

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Could you say a little more,

3 though? "Currently available," how would you go

4 further in defining it?

MR. EHRHARDT: I would say that it would be a

6 problem that the industry has, and this is a broad

7 term, I recognize, but commercial experience with. You

8 can find things in the catalogue. And again, I had

9 this with metal halide. My own company's catalogue was

my worst enemy in arguing metal halide requirements

11 because we had an item in our catalogue for some time,

12 and we are still re­releasing that product. Just

13 because a product is on the Internet or in a catalogue

14 does not mean it has successful market and commercial

experience.

16 MR. BROOKMAN: So I know the Department would

17 appreciate your guidance on how they might come to

18 understand what you think is currently available.

19 MR. EHRHARDT: Certainly, if we're talking

about T8, T8 instant start systems are quite mature in

21 the marketplace. They are appropriate to look at.

22 NEMA has a program for premium products that you might

23 look at. There are other factors too, well, again, the

24 maturity of ANSI standards, for instance, standards

availability. These are factors.

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 117

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Howard.

2 MR. WOLFMAN: This is Howard. Building on

3 Bob's comment for a moment, the Lighting Systems

4 Division would very much like to work with the

Department in further addressing this and providing as

6 much information as we can. We do some data collection

7 work, and maybe that would be something that would be

8 very useful in this situation.

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So there are three

other criteria listed here: practicability to

11 manufacture, install, and service; impacts on product

12 utility and availability to consumers; impacts on

13 health or safety. Comments on those three additional

14 criteria?

MR. EHRHARDT: Only that NEMA agrees that we

16 should not consider anything that has a negative impact

17 on health or safety.

18 (Laughter.)

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Priscilla.

MS. RICHARDS: Yeah, Priscilla Richards,

21 NYSERDA. It does seem to me that some of Bob's

22 comments on the commercial experience with including

23 that in the technological feasibility also is partly in

24 the practicability to manufacture, install, and

service. So I wouldn't want to see us narrow down that

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 1 18

1 technological feasibility too much if it's going to be

2 captured in those other technology options because

3 lighting industry does move so fast, and we're talking

4 about standards seven years out. There might be some

emerging technologies that are worthy of at least

6 capturing in that technological feasibility assessment.

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Bob.

8 MR. EHRHARDT: My comment would be that in

9 the area of fluorescent lighting I'm not sure there are

any new innovations that are going to turn the industry

11 upside down. So I'm not sure there's something here

12 that we have to be overly concerned with. In other

13 areas, certainly. Like I say, with metal halide

14 there's many advances, it's the Wild West over there

and we have to be more careful.

16 But we will comment on technology as the

17 matters come up.

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Final comments on

19 these criteria before we move on? These aspects of the

screening analysis. Cheryl.

21 MS. ENGLISH: I guess I want to add in with

22 Bob on technological feasibility. One thing we may

23 want to look at is history of that product in the

24 marketplace so that we have some understanding of the

reliability.

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 119

1 MR. BROOKMAN: That is to say, an increase in

2 market share or something like that?

3 MS. ENGLISH: Well, an increase in market

4 share as well as how long has it been in the market, so

that we have enough data to understand that there's not

6 going to be failures of those products a year or two

7 years after a consumer purchases it.

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Andrew.

9 MR. DeLASKI: I think the Department

historically has done a pretty good job of getting

11 technological feasibility right, looking at what is

12 just on terms and technically feasible. It's a

13 different question than is it being accepted by the

14 marketplace.

This is not to determine whether something

16 will be a standard, it's whether it should be screened

17 out of technical analysis early in the process. I

18 would just caution the Department against screening

19 things out based on criteria that are more about

whether or not something could be the basis for a

21 standard applied to the entire marketplace. Two

22 different questions, I think, not to screen out

23 technologies based on whether or not some

24 presupposition about whether or not you could have it

apply to every single unit in the marketplace.

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 120

1 MR. O'ROURKE: Just a comment on this as far

2 as being technologically feasible, if it's commercially

3 available today, it's probably met most of these

4 criteria.

MR. DeLASKI: That's right.

6 MR. O'ROURKE: And if you're talking about

7 new design options that aren't commercially available,

8 you would then use this process to help screen it out.

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Do the assessment. Yes.

MR. DeLASKI: I think I agree.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Conan, are you going to

12 continue with Slide 53?

13

14 Engineering Analysis

Conan O'Rourke

16 (PowerPoint presentation.)

17 MR. O'ROURKE: Yes. Moving on to the next

18 phase of the ANOPR analysis is the engineering

19 analysis. Engineering analysis is used in conjunction

with the product price determination to try and

21 establish an efficiency gain with a product cost to get

22 that efficiency gain. Those feed back into life­cycle

23 cost and payback period analysis, the manufacturer's

24 impact analysis, and the national impact analysis.

The main steps of the engineering analysis

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 121

1 deal with choosing representative product classes. So

2 once we've decided on all the product classes that we

3 are going to at least have our boundary of what's going

4 to be considered and analyzed, within that we may pick

representative product classes as a starting point to

6 do the analysis.

7 Within those representative product classes

8 we need to define what a baseline model is, and that

9 will serve as a reference point for all the analysis

within that product class.

11 And then the next phase is identifying

12 efficient substitutes to that baseline model and

13 looking at alternative technologies and this is key, I

14 guess, when considering the comments on additional

metrics and the impact of changing the metric on how

16 we'll look at maintaining light output and looking at

17 overall system performance when you're comparing the

18 systems. This is to Bob's comment earlier about

19 looking at system performance as a whole.

Once we've identified the efficient

21 substitutions, we will work on developing candidate

22 standard levels and try and compare that to the

23 baseline model. An important part is having the

24 maximum technology feasible as far as the upper end.

You shoot for that. What's maximum efficacy you can

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 122

1 get. Then you compare that with where you are and all

2 the candidate standard levels in between.

3 And then the last would be to try and scale

4 these results from these particular representative

product classes to the other product classes that may

6 not be analyzed as part of this rulemaking.

7 MR. BROOKMAN: There's a lot in that slide.

8 Questions?

9 MR. O'ROURKE: My following slides will be

going over each one of those chevrons individually.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Great. Okay.

12 (Laughter.)

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Keep going.

14 MR. O'ROURKE: So choosing representative

product classes. We've already had that discussion

16 already about this. There are going to be many ways we

17 could slice or dice this whole market of fluorescent

18 lamp ballasts. Then, once you've done that, trying to

19 pick representative ones would be key.

So, about deciding which ones get chosen to

21 be analyzed and then the engineering analysis and life22 cycle cost will be done on those products. Again,

23 called representative product classes. These will

24 generally be based around the high­volume products in

the market.

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 123

1 The baseline models. They'll usually be ones

2 with the lowest performance within the representative

3 product classes, they'll be the ones at the lowest

4 efficiency within that product class and that just

meets existing standard or, for ones that are newly

6 covered, they'll be at the lowest­performing efficiency

7 levels for that product class.

8 This slide shows an example at least of

9 showing what representative product classes. This is

showing four­foot and two­foot U­shape lumped together

11 and showing you different wattages of lamps and

12 different numbers of lamps. It's kind of a matrix.

13 What we're illustrating here is to say the two­lamp 32­

14 watt may be the representative product class and also

have a 32­watt T8 baseline model, excuse me, and also

16 have maybe another baseline model for the 34­watt T12.

17 And through the analysis, you may be able to compare

18 how this would scale across lamp types or also scale

19 against wattages as an attempt not to analyze every

single product class but try and find relationships

21 between product classes.

22 So we have an opportunity for some comments

23 on the use of representative product classes in

24 selecting baseline models, Item 11. We also added Item

14 in here commenting on how ballast efficacy factor

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 124

1 varies as a function of lamp wattage, and also, in Item

2 12, comments on scaling these results to other product

3 classes.

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Bob. Thank you.

MR. EHRHARDT: As I commented earlier, we

6 have our initial comments on some lamp types. We will

7 attempt to have a more detailed recommendation before

8 the comment period ends. We have some comment on

9 product classes. I'm a little mixed up in order there,

but a little comment on generic requirements across

11 multiple lamp types because we think that lamp efficacy

12 should be taken into consideration in writing

13 standards, or writing regulations for the total system

14 impact. Some lamp types may not lend themselves to as

efficient a ballast as others but may have a better

16 impact on the total system efficacy.

17 So while we think that it may be possible to

18 have a broad generic metric, we would caution against

19 setting the bar too high to not stifle technological

development of new, high­efficiency, high­efficacy

21 light sources.

22 I think that goes into No. 12 as well.

23 And BEF. I think we've talked this horse

24 into the ground already. I think we've had comments

that that is lamp­dependent. We will follow up with

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 125

1 formal written comments later this month.

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Other comments on

3 Nos. 11, 12, and 14? Yes, Howard.

4 MR. WOLFMAN: This is Howard. This may be

beating a dead horse again. But just to illustrate

6 what Bob was saying, the rulemaking of 2000 established

7 BEF performance levels for systems containing 40­watt

8 T12 lamps, as an example, and in 2005 the legislation

9 passed by Congress had different BEFs for energy­saving

versions of those same lamps. So again, BEF is lamp11 dependent. It cannot be used across lamp types.

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you.

13 MR. O'ROURKE: I just will provide an

14 additional comment, Howard. In where we had the

product classes and it had those spaces for what the

16 BEF would be, it's not a number. It would be an

17 equation that would allow you to scale to those

18 different wattages. It wouldn't be one number fits

19 all. It would be an ability to try and scale it to the

appropriate wattage, would be the attempt.

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Bob.

22 MR. EHRHARDT: I don't know if it was the

23 intent on this slide, but Item 13 asked about input on

24 various ballast types. One statement that NEMA would

like to make very strongly is that the DOE be careful

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 126

1 about not using just commercially available data

2 because it can be optimistic. We feel that the DOE

3 should only be using electrical data from accredited

4 laboratories when they're doing their analysis.

MR. BROOKMAN: So you're jumping ahead to

6 Slide 63. We'll be there in a moment, but thanks.

7 MR. EHRHARDT: Oh, okay. Well, you're at 11

8 and 14 and 12. You skipped 13.

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Thanks for looking ahead,

though.

11 MR. EHRHARDT: We do feel pretty strong about

12 No. 13.

13 MR. BROOKMAN: And that's getting us on

14 towards the lunch hour, for those of you that are

curious where we are.

16 (Laughter.)

17 MR. BROOKMAN: We'll be going shortly to our

18 lunch. Why don't you keep going?

19 MR. O'ROURKE: Okay. Next slide. No. 60 is

looking at identifying more efficient substitutes.

21 This kind of gets to your point, Bob, where we are

22 utilizing catalogue data and what's commercially

23 available. It's not necessarily clear in there what

24 data is coming from accredited laboratories or not in

those catalogues, so we're using that at its face

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 127

1 value.

2 Substitutions can be made when you're looking

3 at performance when you're comparing the baseline

4 system to other systems, you have this issue of

different light outputs potentially of these systems or

6 combination of systems. So the substitution method

7 could be done in a couple of ways, looking at

8 maintaining the baseline systems light output and

9 scaling its performance, or as to the previous ballast

rulemaking, there was some attempt to normalize the

11 base candidate standard levels or the other system

12 being analyzed to that baseline system based on input

13 wattage. So those are the methods that are being

14 considered for comparing the different systems

together.

16 And the attempt is, when you're comparing

17 systems, you're going to pick systems that have equal

18 or better performance when you're making those

19 comparisons. We use the example here of THD.

Developing candidate standard levels. The

21 Department is required to analyze the max

22 technologically feasible option. We realize that

23 what's in the catalogues may represent what the maximum

24 available efficiency option is and there might be some

gap in between. So we are looking for some comment on

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 128

1 the resultant discrepancy between max tech feasible

2 versus max tech available.

3 So here's an example draft. This is just

4 putting out there a possible way to do these analyses.

Say we have these product classes where this is

6 showing two different tables with two different

7 baselines. The top is showing a 32­watt T8 baseline,

8 so it's a baseline or also Candidate Standard Level 1

9 in the first row in the first table. It's showing what

the starting method would be, the lamp diameter, the

11 ballast efficacy factor, ballast factor, the total

12 wattage, the fixture wattage, and then a system mean

13 light output and the percent difference in that light

14 output.

So the various candidate standard levels

16 change to different instant start systems with higher

17 ballast efficacy factors and while holding light output

18 constant. Those would be considered as potential

19 candidate standard levels.

The next one is looking at a 34­watt T12. If

21 you started out with a T12 system, looking at the

22 possibility of using T8s as possible substitutions to

23 that T12 system to still provide the same overall mean

24 light output in evaluating its performance. I will

note that for the T8s in the fixture wattage category,

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 129

1 the fixture wattage has been normalized to make the

2 system lumens be equal, realizing the fact that right

3 out of the box with these particular ballast factors

4 you will not have necessarily the same light output.

So there has to be some method in order to scale the

6 light outputs to show equal performance.

7 And now we come to Item 13.

8 MR. BROOKMAN: We've already received one

9 comment on Item 13. Additional comments?

(No response.)

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Comment on commercially

12 available fluorescent lamp ballasts for each of the

13 baseline models with incrementally increasing BEF all

14 the way to max tech ballast and perhaps the spread

between them.

16 (No response.)

17 MR. BROOKMAN: No additional comments? Okay.

18 So then let's take lunch. It's now 12:10. We're

19 almost caught up, I believe, in terms of where we're

supposed to be.

21 MR. O'ROURKE: I have two more slides.

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Oh, you have two more slides?

23 MR. O'ROURKE: Two more small slides.

24 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Do it, then. Sorry.

Two more slides and then we'll take lunch.

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 130

1 MR. O'ROURKE: The next slide is talking

2 about proprietary designs. The Department will look at

3 design options that are potentially working prototypes

4 that are covered by patent literature. These designs

will be only considered if they are not the only way to

6 reach that efficiency. So say there's a patent, and

7 there's only one way to do it. That would not

8 necessarily be considered. But if other manufacturers

9 have the opportunity to achieve those efficacies, that

would be considered.

11 And through this process, the confidentiality

12 of the manufacturers would be maintained through this

13 analysis.

14 MR. BROOKMAN: So, Bob, you already made one

comment on proprietary design.

16 MR. EHRHARDT: Yeah. I guess we have a

17 general comment that we caution against requirements

18 that require proprietary technology just as a general

19 restraint of trade issue. Even if there are two

patents out there that allow you to reach an efficacy

21 level, we question if the DOE wishes to write

22 requirements that will affect market share and will put

23 one company at advantage over another.

24 MR. O'ROURKE: The intent here is just to

look at the possibility of those higher efficacy

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 131

1 levels. They're just going to be used for

2 consideration in the evaluation. We're not saying that

3 the standard levels will be written to those

4 proprietary designs. That would happen after the lifecycle cost analysis, and that would look at the

6 economic impact and all the factors that would play

7 into that, say, more expensive potential option.

8 So what is analyzed here is not what gets set

9 later on. It's just something to compare it to say,

okay, if I did consider that as my highest level, how

11 does that affect the analysis of the life­cycle cost

12 and payback period.

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Bob.

14 MR. EHRHARDT: I guess just a general

comment, and this isn't something I've vetted with NEMA

16 but just a general comment. We're on an accelerated

17 path here and we have limited resources and we question

18 how many paths we should be going down in doing

19 analysis. I guess it would be our recommendation that

you stay as close to the commercially available product

21 as possible as the most direct route in getting to your

22 goal of end legislation.

23 If you start chasing after every new

24 innovation that someone is claiming, it's going to take

resources. If it's unlikely that it's going to affect

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 132

1 the analysis or have major market impact in the near

2 term, we question if you should be expending resources

3 on it.

4 MR. O'ROURKE: I guess the only response to

that is just that the Department is required to look at

6 them.

7 MR. EHRHARDT: Okay.

8 MR. BROOKMAN: You can see the other segment

9 of that question in Item 15 is about cost data.

Thoughts on how DOE should acquire the cost data?

11 MR. EHRHARDT: NEMA will work with you to the

12 best of our ability, but we wish to point out that we

13 are very limited on our ability to provide cost data

14 due to trade antitrust requirements.

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Other comments on Item

16 15?

17 (No response.)

18 MR. O'ROURKE: All right. Last slide is

19 looking at outside regulatory changes. DOE takes into

consideration the effects that it has on manufacturers

21 and other regulatory changes outside the standard

22 rulemaking process. The only example I could think of

23 is potentially with impacts on lead­free solder. How

24 does that affect this ballast rulemaking and this

analysis. That could be considered as an outside

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 133

1 regulatory change.

2 So, Item 16. DOE welcomes comment on the

3 regulatory burdens and changes that should be

4 considered in the engineering analysis.

MR. BROOKMAN: Bob.

6 MR. EHRHARDT: Yeah, this is Bob Ehrhardt

7 again. We've discussed this, and without having

8 product classes defined it's a little difficult to

9 respond. But in general there are some areas where

there could be considerations that could impact

11 rulemaking. In the area of safety, for instance, there

12 are system interconnect concerns that could result in

13 new ballast requirements that could impact ballast

14 efficiency and also affect payback calculations.

Environmental. As hazardous material

16 regulations are implemented, it could affect component

17 availability and affect payback calculations.

18 Materials. As commodity prices change,

19 payback analysis can be affected.

EMF. Electromagnetic field concerns could

21 require ballast redesign if current international

22 acceptance levels are modified. There's some emergence

23 in recognition of EMF as a possible health concern.

24 Analysis done by our industry at this time shows that

our products would not have much issue with current

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­0064134

1 recognized levels that are considered with safe. If

2 that changes, it could have some impact on our ballast

3 design.

4 And again under safety, lamp end­of­life

5 requirements. If there are new lamp end­of­life

6 requirements that need to be implemented in a ballast,

7 it could impact ballast efficiency and payback

8 calculations.

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. So I guess you

10 addressed in part Item 17, which is about engineering

11 issues that could impact engineering analysis.

12 MR. EHRHARDT: Yeah. We have no other

13 comments.

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Other comments on Items

15 Number 16 and 17, regulatory burdens and also

16 engineering issues as might affect the engineering

17 analysis?

18 (No response.)

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So, thank you very

20 much, Conan. It's now 12:20, almost. Let's take a

21 lunch break.

22 (Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the meeting was

23 adjourned for lunch, to reconvene at 1:25 p.m., the

24 same day.)

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 135

1 A F T E R N O O N S E S S I O N

2 1:25 p.m.

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thanks for being back

4 here on time so we can resume. We are going to proceed

with the agenda as we had laid it out. Does anybody

6 have any additions or supplements that they want to

7 call out, things that came forward at lunch that you'd

8 like to address that does not fit in the agenda as

9 written?

(No response.)

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Then we'll proceed.

12 Diana Burk.

13 Product Price Determination

14 Diana Burk

(PowerPoint presentation.)

16 MS. BURK: My name is Diana Burk. I'm with

17 Navigant Consulting, and I'll be talking about the

18 product price determination. Product price

19 determination, along with the engineering analysis,

feeds into both the life­cycle cost analysis and the

21 national impact analysis.

22 The purpose of the product price

23 determination is to establish a relationship between

24 the price of a ballast and its efficiency. For this

analysis DOE will be using available pricing lists such

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 136

1 as manufacturer price lists or procurement contracts.

2 To characterize the variability found in the market,

3 DOE could develop a high­, medium­, and low­range

4 price. The medium­range price would serve as a

reference price whereas the high­ and low­range price

6 would serve as a sensitivity to that price for the

7 life­cycle cost analysis.

8 States typically receive a fixed discount off

9 of a manufacturer price list, for example. The lowrange price could be based on this price. Of course, a

11 contractor markup would not be applied. For the

12 medium­range price, typically consumers or commercial

13 institutions buying a large volume of ballasts, the

14 medium­range price would be developed to be consistent

with prices experienced by commercial institutions.

16 Finally, the high­range price could be developed to be

17 consistent with those prices encountered by small18 quantity purchasers such as people buying ballasts on

19 the Internet. These prices, the medium­range and highrange price, would also incorporate contractor markup.

21 So the next slide. DOE requests comments on

22 final end­user prices for ballasts. That's Item 19.

23 And Item 20, DOE welcomes comment on typical contractor

24 and distributor markups for ballasts.

MR. BROOKMAN: Howard.

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 137

1 MR. WOLFMAN: I think we're probably starting

2 to sound a little bit like a broken record, but as much

3 as we truly desire to assist and work and provide

4 pricing information, number one, we are limited by the

consent decree in terms of what NEMA can do on pricing.

6 As a matter of fact, we're not even allowed to use the

7 word.

8 And number two, we don't sell directly to the

9 end user. We sell to distribution chains or through

OEM chains who go to distributors, et cetera. So there

11 is a limited amount of pricing information that we can

12 provide.

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. However, having

14 said that, the pricing data, information you do have

available you would be willing to supply?

16 MR. WOLFMAN: At this point, I don't know.

17 We would have to talk about that.

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay.

19 MR. WOLFMAN: And again, any decisions of

that nature would have to be made in consort with

21 NEMA's attorney.

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. Thank you. Bob, follow

23 on.

24 MR. EHRHARDT: Yeah. Just following up on

what Howard said, I think NEMA is going to have a good

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 138

1 deal of difficulty trying to give you industry price

2 information because of our structure. It may be that

3 you may need to solicit ­­ your approaches of using

4 government contracts I think is quite valid. Otherwise

you may have to solicit from individual companies if

6 that's going to be willing to be made available on a

7 confidential basis.

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Michael Scholand.

9 MR. SCHOLAND: Mike Scholand from Navigant

Consulting. As a follow­on for that, that was actually

11 what I wanted to ask you. Would manufacturers be

12 willing to provide their list prices that they have,

13 their sort of published list prices that they give to,

14 say, contractors or wholesalers that show the ballasts

that would be considered by the Department? The blue

16 book pricing. Do you know what I mean? The product

17 price schedules, I think they're called.

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Howard.

19 MR. WOLFMAN: There are ­­ I don't know. I'm

not colorblind, fortunately, but ­­ because otherwise

21 they would all look the same. There are a multiplicity

22 of different price lists, and I think we all have very

23 convoluted methods of figuring out what pricing really

24 is. So I'm not sure what use those lists would be to

you.

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 139

1 MR. SCHOLAND: Mike Scholand again from

2 Navigant. If you go to the Web and you look at the

3 procurement contract, for example, for the State of

4 California or the State of New York, it specifies that,

for example, X Company is offering products available,

6 and it gives a very specific reference to a certain

7 price schedule. And then it says "At a discount of."

8 They're very large, like 80 percent or 85 percent

9 discount off of list. That's what Diana's referring to

in her low­price scenario.

11 This is a methodology, actually, that was

12 proposed by NEMA in the lamps rulemaking for

13 fluorescent and incandescent reflector lamps, which the

14 ANOPR is forthcoming from the Department. List prices

were provided and state procurement discounts off of

16 those list prices were used to develop one of the

17 pricing scenarios that was considered by DOE. So

18 that's really the basis for the issue that Diana is

19 raising here.

MR. BROOKMAN: Howard.

21 MR. WOLFMAN: Howard again. I can only speak

22 to my own situation. I have an understanding with our

23 sales folks who say keep out of technology and I keep

24 out of pricing.

(Laughter.)

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 140

1 MR. WOLFMAN: So personally, I have no

2 knowledge of any of this. Jeff, do you have any

3 comments?

4 MR. PLASKON: Jeff Plaskon with GE. If you

use that method with our book prices, it would be very

6 misleading and not consistent to market prices, a

7 standard discount. So I would not recommend using that

8 alternative.

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Can you recommend an

alternative or can you characterize how that level of

11 divergence could be surmounted?

12 MR. PLASKON: Perhaps GE would be willing to

13 submit some of that data for the study independent and

14 confidential.

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Cheryl?

16 MS. ENGLISH: Cheryl English, Acuity Brands.

17 I guess what you described from the lamp rulemaking

18 probably doesn't equate to what we're doing here

19 because those are primarily maintenance components and

purchased in large volumes. When you're talking about

21 a ballast, it's very low percentage of the time being

22 purchased for maintenance. So it's a new construction

23 type of component, slightly different.

24 I'm not aware of those kinds of price

reductions, although I agree with Howard that the

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 141

1 published price sheets are essentially meaningless and

2 probably not the best way.

3 I would just encourage, as we get into this

4 in more detail, that NEMA is very interested in

providing data. We may have to craft how we can

6 sanitize it or how we want to group things together.

7 There are a lot of sensitive issues. But we've learned

8 in the past that we'd rather give you our information

9 rather than having you go off and create something

because it oftentimes, when you're creating it from

11 going to distributors, is not realistic information as

12 well.

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Yes, Bob.

14 MR. EHRHARDT: Yeah. Again, NEMA has

­­

every time we've brought up the issue in the past about

16 trying to come up with such a metric, it's ­­ given our

17 structure at NEMA and the constraints that we are

18 organized under, we just don't have a way of talking

19 about price. If the consultants that you're working

with wish to take a lead, then you can perhaps contact

21 our individual companies and we can see if we can

22 provide some data on a confidential basis. But it's

23 very difficult for us to talk about pricing.

24 MR. BROOKMAN: Howard.

MR. WOLFMAN: Yeah, thank you. One of the

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 142

1 things that we will try to do is when we get a written

2 understanding of exactly what you want, we will go to

3 our NEMA staff and to our NEMA attorney and say, "How

4 can we do this?" They may come back and say, "You

can't," but we'll give it an honest effort.

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Mike, maybe you or Eric or

7 Linda, one of the three of you, could just say briefly

8 the ­­ there have been a whole bunch of different

9 things DOE has done over time to provide

confidentiality to try and obtain the kind of data that

11 you're looking for.

12 MR. SCHOLAND: Sure. I guess ­­ Mike

13 Scholand again from Navigant. Navigant, as a private

14 company ­­ actually, we're a public company, but

­­

enters into non­disclosure agreements, confidentiality

16 agreements, with companies. Like, we have one with GE

17 or with Philips right now for the lamps rulemaking.

18 They're providing confidential input to us for the

19 analyses that we're conducting.

And so by being a third party, it's a little

21 bit easier, or being an independent party from the

22 Department, it's a little bit easier and there's a

23 greater degree of trust between the companies and my

24 own.

So my understanding of the pricing is exactly

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 143

1 as Bob has described, that for NEMA to do this would be

2 very difficult. And so if it is a one­to­one with each

3 ­­ because when it comes down to it, our analysis,

4 we're going to be looking at commercially available

ballasts. And so talking to those companies about

6 particular skew numbers and getting an indication of

7 pricing, we can't obviously publish that pricing but we

8 may be able to get a relative idea of the delta

9 increase in cost relative to the performance

improvement in efficiency.

11 Jeff, that's what I was getting to with the

12 idea of the schedule pricing. As you look at those

13 list prices, there is ­­ it's the delta between the

14 unit that you consider as your baseline model, the unit

you consider as your next more efficient, the unit you

16 consider as your next more efficient and your max

17 efficient. The delta increases in price in those list

18 prices are a reflection of the technologies

19 incorporated into those ballasts. That gives the

Department an idea of delta first cost, and then they

21 compare that with delta savings on the operating cost

22 side, and then look at whether that standard is

23 justified.

24 So the deltas are important, and if the

schedules by some factor can't get there, then maybe we

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 144

1 need to talk about confidential disclosure of pricing.

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, please.

3 MR. PLASKON: A couple comments.

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Say your name again. I'm

sorry.

6 MR. PLASKON: Jeff Plaskon. Sorry.

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Thanks, Jeff. Yes.

8 MR. PLASKON: The delta difference is what

9 we'd want to get versus the market reality of what we

do get. So that's the first comment. So I don't think

11 it's accurate in that reflection.

12 But whatever ­­ I can say a second comment.

13 Whatever you've agreed upon with the lamp section we

14 would agree to in terms of GE submitting data in that

same manner.

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Howard.

17 MR. WOLFMAN: Maybe we can put this point to

18 bed.

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Yeah.

MR. WOLFMAN: The key thing is put in writing

21 what it is you'd like to get, what it is you're going

22 to want to do with it, and the fact that you can

23 maintain the confidentiality. And I suspect we're in

24 the same situation. Our company on the lamp side is

executing an agreement. So I don't suspect there's

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 145

1 going to be any issue about doing it.

2 But I can't go back and say, hey, this, this,

3 this. I need a document that says this is the

4 information that the guys are looking for, this is what

they're going to do with it, and here's a

6 confidentiality agreement that they're willing to sign.

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Okay.

8 MS. BURK: All right. And then, Mike, I

9 believe you're going to talk about the

Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis

11 Mike Scholand

12 (PowerPoint presentation.)

13 MR. SCHOLAND: So, Mike Scholand again from

14 Navigant. This section we're going to discuss is the

preliminary manufacturer's impact analysis. As I

16 mentioned earlier this morning, the manufacturer's

17 impact analysis is a requirement of EPCA, the Energy

18 Policy and Conservation Act. There are seven factors

19 that DOE takes into consideration when it sets the

standard, and one of them is economics impacts on the

21 country. There it looks at both impacts to consumers,

22 which is the life­cycle cost assessment, and impacts to

23 manufacturers, which is what I'm talking about now, the

24 manufacturer's impact analysis.

There's two aspects of the MIA. One is an

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 146

1 economic impact of the standards on manufacturers.

2 That's both a qualitative and a quantitative

3 assessment. So for example, the quantitative side

4 would be a cash flow analysis of a typical ballast

manufacturer in the U.S. and a qualitative would be

6 discussion around retraining of staff, employment

7 impacts, other things that are harder to quantify but

8 are impacts that are a result of the Department's

9 regulation.

The second thing would be impacts on any

11 lessening of competition in the industry. If you start

12 to set mandatory standards, that can remove some of the

13 differentiation in the market and have an impact on

14 competition.

One of the reasons we're talking about a

16 preliminary manufacturer's impact assessment now as

17 opposed to when it's normally done in the NOPR phase is

18 because of the 2006 Report to Congress, which there's a

19 Web link for here. In essence, it was a decision

agreed between the Department and Congress that by

21 having some discussion of manufacturer impacts earlier

22 in the analytical process it might facilitate more

23 consensus agreements between stakeholders that might

24 accelerate rulemaking.

So by having some discussion ­­ we do a much

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 147

1 more detailed version later, but having some discussion

2 about manufacturer impacts, it puts it on the table

3 along with the consumer impacts. Then the parties, the

4 stakeholders, can sit together and come up with a

recommendation, perhaps, to the Department. DOE may be

6 in a position to simply adopt and move the rule

7 forward. So that was part of the reason for that

8 methodological change.

9 Here is the complete flow diagram, on Slide

71, of the manufacturer's impact analysis. The

11 preliminary part of this is just the first two

12 chevrons, phase one. That's going to be conducted

13 between now and the ANOPR. Navigant Consulting will be

14 visiting ballast manufacturers around the U.S. to

conduct interviews and discuss the impacts. And then

16 later I'll talk about phase two and phase three of the

17 MIA.

18 The purpose of the manufacturer's impact

19 analysis is to provide initial discussion on any

potential impacts of standards on manufacturers of

21 ballasts and to provide an opportunity to verify DOE's

22 market information, its understanding and

23 characterization of the ballast market, and the

24 engineering design options that are under

consideration. That's really the purpose of this.

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 148

1 So in Slide 73, I just have a couple cards to

2 show you. Phase one, the preliminary MIA, consists of

3 the industry profile and the preliminary impact

4 interview results. There's a few bullets in each of

those. The profile is evaluating current and past

6 industry structure, producing an industry profile

7 report which will be published as part of the technical

8 support document, and identifying critical issues that

9 require special consideration in the next phase of the

manufacturer's impact analysis, such as types or groups

11 of manufacturers, access to technology ­­ we talked

12 earlier about patent issues, for example ­­ and

13 potential regulatory scenarios.

14 The manufacturer interviews. They occur

during our engineering analysis process so we can also

16 have the benefit of your design engineers when we talk

17 about improving the efficiency of ballasts. Topics

18 here typically include shipment projections, conversion

19 costs, product mix profitability, market shares, and

the cumulative regulatory burden issue, which was also

21 discussed a little bit today.

22 So, are there any questions on the

23 preliminary MIA? This is done under a confidentiality

24 agreement with Navigant. The write­up protects the

identity of the companies when it's published, but the

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 149

1 idea is that you characterize, in general, impacts to

2 the industry that would be a result of the Department's

3 regulation.

4 Okay. Back to Diana for LCC.

Energy Use and End­Use Load Characterization

6 Diana Burk

7 (PowerPoint presentation.)

8 MS. BURK: I'm going to be talking about the

9 energy use and end­use load characterization. This

feeds into the life­cycle cost and payback period

11 analyses as well as the national impact analysis.

12 The purpose of the energy use and end­use

13 load characterization is to develop the energy use of

14 fluorescent lamp ballasts. There are two basic

components: the system power of the fluorescent lamp

16 ballast as well as operating hours. First I'll talk

17 about operating hours.

18 DOE plans on developing a distribution of

19 operating hours for fluorescent lamp ballasts by sector

and census division. The data sources DOE may include

21 are the 2002 U.S. lighting market characterization,

22 which gives you operating hours by specific building

23 types, and the 2003 and 2002 Commercial Building Energy

24 Consumption Survey, the 2002 Manufacturer Energy

Consumption Survey, which gives you the probability a

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 150

1 certain building type is in a certain census division.

2 DOE then plans on correlating the operating

3 hour distribution with an electricity price

4 distribution and a sales tax distribution in the lifecycle cost analysis.

6 Finally, DOE would calculate the energy use

7 of fluorescent lamp ballasts by multiplying the

8 operating hours by the system power. DOE may conduct a

9 sensitivity analysis in the life­cycle cost and payback

period analyses using estimates of high and low

11 operating hours, which would give you estimates of high

12 and low energy use.

13 Again, there are two inputs to the energy use

14 calculation system, input power and operating hours.

The following figure is an example of a commercial

16 sector distribution for fluorescent lamp ballasts. The

17 operating hours are on the bottom and the probability

18 is on the Y­axis.

19 Finally, DOE welcomes comment on the use of

this planned operating hour profile for fluorescent

21 lamp ballasts and whether end­use operating profiles

22 would be different for various types of ballasts within

23 a certain sector.

24 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Howard.

MR. WOLFMAN: Looking at Slide 76, you've got

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 151

1 a couple of bumps on it. I suspect that's because

2 there are different sectors of usage.

3 MS. BURK: Yeah. The

­­

4 MR. WOLFMAN: Commercial, institutional,

educational.

6 MS. BURK: Yes. The operating hours are

7 actually associated with a certain building type.

8 Certain building types have very low operating hours

9 whereas others would have high operating hours.

MS. RICHARDS: Priscilla Richards, NYSERDA.

11 What's included in your system here when you say

12 "system input power"?

13 MS. BURK: System input power? That would be

14 the input power given in the catalogue. So that would

include the lamp power as well.

16 MS. RICHARDS: Another question. Priscilla

17 Richards. Are you going to take any kind of controls

18 into account somehow in your modeling?

19 MS. BURK: I'm unsure what you mean by

"controls."

21 MS. RICHARDS: Lighting controls.

22 MS. BURK: Oh, lighting controls.

23 MS. RICHARDS: Different ballasts that might

24 be more appropriate to be used with lighting controls

versus not

­­

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 152

1 MS. BURK: Whether that would affect

2 operating hours.

3 MS. RICHARDS: ­­ how it would affect energy

4 use. That's the question.

MR. BROOKMAN: Michael Scholand.

6 MR. SCHOLAND: Mike Scholand from Navigant.

7 I think we appreciate any comments on how we might

8 structure an analysis around that. But typically, it's

9 the system performance that will be analyzed. So if

there's an existing system that has a control ­­ I

11 guess the Department would want its analysis as it

12 considers more efficient options to always provide the

13 same utility as the baseline system.

14 So the baseline system is a steady state, F34

T12 system. The lumen output of that would be compared

16 to other systems that were more efficient, perhaps

17 including F32 T8s or 30­watt equivalents or otherwise.

18 So as you move up in system efficiency, you've got to

19 be maintaining system performance.

I guess stakeholders can provide comments to

21 the Department whether controls should be brought into

22 that scenario and what sort of energy savings the

23 Department should consider on what basis. That might

24 be even greater because, really, the assessment is kind

of in a steady state. That's how it's been done in the

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 153

1 past. But if you guys have some ideas about controls

2 should be brought into the fold, we'd be all ears.

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Other comments? Yes,

4 Priscilla, another? No? Other comments on energy use

and end­use load characterization.

6 (No response.)

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay.

8 Life­Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

9 Diana Burk

(PowerPoint presentation.)

11 MS. BURK: Okay. Next I'll be talking about

12 the life­cycle cost and payback period analysis. This

13 is an important analysis in the standards rulemaking.

14 This analysis uses results from the engineering and

product price determination, which will give you

16 consumer price of a ballast by its efficiency level, as

17 well as results from the energy use and end­use load

18 characterization, which would give you customer energy

19 use at a certain efficiency level.

The purpose of the life­cycle cost and

21 payback period analysis is to assess the payback period

22 and net life­cycle cost impacts of different efficiency

23 standards. This analysis is done from the perspective

24 of the consumer as opposed to the manufacturing impact

analysis, which is done from the perspective of a

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 154

1 manufacturer. Basically, DOE wants to assess how

2 particular consumers will be affected economically by

3 certain efficiency standards.

4 Life­cycle cost itself is the consumer's cost

of both owning and operating a fluorescent lamp ballast

6 over its lifetime. It consists of consumer ballast

7 prices, which includes both the consumer price of

8 purchasing the ballast and of installation costs, as

9 well as operating expenses, which would consist of

electricity costs and the cost of replacing the lamp on

11 that ballast over its lifetime.

12 For transparency, the life­cycle cost

13 analysis will be implemented in Microsoft Excel. The

14 life­cycle cost analysis tools will be available to

stakeholders and will include the ability to explore

16 variability in some key inputs.

17 The results of the life­cycle cost will be

18 expressed as the difference between the life­cycle cost

19 of the baseline system and the standard system. In

addition, the life­cycle cost analysis will show the

21 simple payback period at each candidate standard level.

22 MR. SCHOLAND: Can I interrupt there at one

23 point, Diana?

24 MS. BURK: Yes.

MR. SCHOLAND: This is Mike Scholand again.

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 155

1 Just to Howard's point about confidentiality and

2 pricing earlier, what Diana has basically just said is

3 the inputs that are inputs to the life­cycle cost

4 assessment will be part of that spreadsheet. So how

much the Department considers as the price of the

6 ballast it's looking at this level or the next level

7 will need to be part of that spreadsheet.

8 That's something to bear in mind when we talk

9 about confidentiality. You might need to identify

three equivalent ballasts, or more ballasts, and then

11 take the average of the pricing information that's

12 provided. There would be ways to noise it out so it's

13 not disclosing any individual company but still gives

14 the Department the delta that it needs to have for the

analysis.

16 So I wanted to just add that point here where

17 we're talking about the transparency of the analysis

18 where it has to be made public.

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Howard.

MR. WOLFMAN: This is Howard. Please include

21 that in the written information you give us on your

22 request.

23 MR. SCHOLAND: Absolutely, Howard. Thank

24 you.

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay.

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 156

1 MS. BURK: In the life­cycle cost and payback

2 period analysis, DOE will incorporate a Monte Carlo

3 simulation. This simulation allows the Department to

4 characterize the variability in certain inputs, like

operating hours or discount rates or electricity

6 prices. DOE will be able to correlate inputs where

7 necessary. For example, electricity prices in the

8 industrial sector will be different than electricity

9 prices in the commercial sector, and so will discount

rates and operating hours.

11 This is a draft concept of how the life­cycle

12 cost analysis will be ­­ how we will structure the

13 life­cycle cost analysis. We've talked a bit about

14 total installed cost. This includes both the price of

the ballast, which will be determined in the product

16 price determination, as well as ballast installation

17 costs.

18 Operating costs are another key input to the

19 life­cycle cost analysis. This includes both the cost

of operating the ballast in terms of energy use and

21 paying for its electricity as well as the cost of

22 maintenance and repairs of the ballast. That is,

23 replacing the lamp over the ballast's lifetime.

24 Lifetime operating costs will include both an

electricity price trend and discount rate.

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 157

1 Finally, to calculate the life­cycle cost,

2 one would add the total installed cost with the

3 lifetime operating cost, and payback period would

4 include the operating cost of the ballast in one year

and the total installed cost of that ballast.

6 I'll be talking about some of these inputs

7 later in the presentation.

8 Annual energy costs are a very important

9 input to the life­cycle cost analysis. DOE will

develop electricity prices from the Energy Information

11 Administration's Form 861 data. Projections will be

12 based on the Annual Energy Outlook to estimate how

13 electricity prices will change in the future. DOE may

14 conduct a sensitivity analysis using high and low

electricity prices to determine the impact on economic

16 feasibility.

17 DOE welcomes comments on electricity prices.

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Bob.

19 MR. EHRHARDT: Actually, this is taking a

step back, and it's on the ballast prices. While

21 ballast manufacturers may be able to give you some

22 prices on a confidentiality basis, what the DOE might

23 want to consider is the impact on the finished product

24 that the consumer will actually see. We can tell you

what our component costs would be going to an OEM, but

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 158

1 we can't tell you what impact that has on the final

2 product because there's carrying costs and costs to

3 stock, et cetera, et cetera, that we're not privy to.

4 We can give you information perhaps on

distributor costs and if someone wants to do a

6 retrofit, but you may need to include OEM luminaire

7 manufacturers to get some indication of impact on the

8 end user for luminaires.

9 MR. SCHOLAND: Thanks for that comment, Bob.

Mike Scholand again. That's definitely something

11 that's done in the markup analysis. So there will be a

12 ­­ the engineering analysis is meant to output your, as

13 a ballast manufacturer, your cost efficiency, your

14 manufacturer's selling price. You sell into different

channels, maybe 90 percent into a channel of fixtures

16 and 10 percent into a replacement market. DOE will

17 attempt to develop the appropriate markups in the value

18 chain through those distribution channels and weight

19 them appropriately.

So the ultimate life­cycle cost where we're

21 talking about the consumer impact, it would be weighted

22 proportionately by the distribution chain.

23 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Andrew?

24 MR. SCHOLAND: Excuse me. And any comments

you have on what you think the appropriate markups are

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 159

1 in that distribution chain, the volume going through

2 the channels, that is very much appreciated. Thank

3 you.

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Andrew.

MR. DeLASKI: I'm responding to the question

6 here ­­ this is Andrew DeLaski, Appliance Standards

7 Awareness Project ­­ on the slide. Electricity prices

8 for commercial lighting, clearly commercial customers

9 pay demand charges. A significant portion of their

overall electricity costs. How does the Department

11 anticipate taking into account demand charges?

12 MS. BURK: Typically for lighting, demand

13 charges for ­­ the average electricity price for

14 lighting is typically higher than what a consumer would

pay for lighting itself in terms of marginal energy

16 prices. The Department

­­

17 MR. DeLASKI: Say that again? I'm sorry. I

18 didn't follow you.

19 MS. BURK: In the 2000 ballast rule ­­ here.

I have a slide to show you.

21 (Pause.)

22 MS. BURK: This is a marginal price

23 electricity price for lighting in the 2000 ballast rule

24 as compared to average electricity price in the 2000

ballast rule. So typically, the marginal is less than

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 160

1 average for most consumers. Yeah, and those would

2 include demand charges.

3 MR. WOLFMAN: Let's see if I can translate it

4 into something I understand.

MR. BROOKMAN: Howard, please.

6 MR. WOLFMAN: This is Howard. Thank you.

7 Are you saying that when you complete your calculations

8 you have thrown in an adjustment factor that accounts

9 for the demand charge?

MS. BURK: The 2000 ballast rule did this

11 calculation. It's a very complicated calculation and

12 involves like profiles of the loads of commercial

13 buildings. Right now the Department does not know if

14 it has the resources to do this, so we're planning on

just using average electricity pieces. However, we

16 welcome comment on this approach.

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Did you find Howard's

18 characterization ­­ did you like what he said?

19 MS. BURK: He asked if we were doing marginal

­­ developing these electricity prices for this

21 rulemaking. Is that correct?

22 MR. WOLFMAN: Basically, I asked did you put

23 a fudge factor in there to account for the demand

24 charge.

MS. BURK: We plan on not accounting for

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 161

1 demand charges and using average electricity prices.

2 MR. WOLFMAN: Because when you reduce the

3 base load by using more efficient product, you're also

4 going to hopefully reduce the demand, the peak demand

charge as well.

6 MS. BURK: I think typically lighting, since

7 it's on typically 12 hours a day, the peak to non­peak

8 time is ­­ it just ends up being lighting isn't a very

9 peaky sort of appliance.

MR. WOLFMAN: I agree that it doesn't peak

11 during that 12 ­­ well, there is some variation. But

12 what I'm talking about is the fact that you're reducing

13 the overall load and therefore you're going to reduce

14 the overall peak and therefore you're going to reduce

the overall peak demand charge. Priscilla is shaking

16 her head yes.

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Go ahead, Priscilla.

18 MS. RICHARDS: Priscilla. Yeah, I would

19 agree with Howard that lighting would have a ­­ could

have a potentially large impact on capacity and peak

21 could be an issue worth looking at.

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Andrew.

23 MR. DeLASKI: Just to follow on, I mean,

24 clearly the value of this peak savings has to be

characterized in some way. Historically, the

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 162

1 Department has calculated peak demand reductions from

2 rulemakings ­­ from a whole host of rulemakings. I

3 anticipate that will happen in this rulemaking as well.

4 So if it's not ­­ so the value of that peak

reduction, if it's not reflected in prices, needs to be

6 calculated by the Department in some other manner. So

7 that speaks to, I think, a need for some way to value

8 that peak demand reduction. The Department should look

9 at that question and how can it be added to the

rulemaking if it's not reflected in pricing.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Howard, go ahead.

12 MR. WOLFMAN: Because then looking at life13 cycle costing, this consideration of the peak demand

14 charge and the reduction of that is going to improve

the life­cycle costing analysis for more energy16 efficient products and reduce the total cost.

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Michael.

18 MR. SCHOLAND: Just as a point of

19 information, I mean, the Department welcomes all of

these comments and will be looking at the transcript as

21 well as the written comments that you want to provide.

22 I was talking with our boss, Mike Rivest,

23 earlier and he apologized for having to leave for

24 another meeting. But he's coming back, and maybe he

can speak to this issue later if this answer isn't

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 163

1 satisfactory.

2 The peak coincidence factor for lighting is

3 100 percent, right, because it's on during the peak,

4 it's before, after, during, et cetera. But the

coefficient of utilization that Diana is talking to

6 here, that it's on 12 hours a day in most cases. And

7 so the coefficient of utilization is 0.5.

8 So we are aware of an internal study that was

9 done by Berkeley National Lab that looked at the peak

coincidence factor and a bunch of distributed end uses,

11 and they compared ­­ because of the coefficient of

12 utilization being what it is for lighting, they

13 compared whether you would come out to a different

14 result using marginal or average prices. The answer

was no. The answer was it's basically the same, which

16 is, I think, what Diana is showing on this slide from

17 the ballast 2000 rule.

18 More recent analysis Berkeley has done, but

19 again has not published, has shown that in fact you

would come to the same result.

21 So from an analytical perspective, using

22 average pricing, which does include demand charge as

23 part of that average, right, because we're looking at

24 the total bill paid out, defining it by the kilowatthours taken in, that average pricing includes some

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 164

1 consideration of demand charge. You are going to

2 capture that in this analysis using average pricing.

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Bob.

4 MR. EHRHARDT: This is Bob Ehrhardt again. I

think I agree if you're talking about fixed light

6 output ballasts and they're on 12 hours. There's no

7 peak considerations. And we are ­­ well, NEMA has

8 assumed at this time that we are not including dimming

9 ballasts. If you are including dimming ballasts with

daylight harvesting, then that equation might change as

11 you would be lowering efficiency during peak hours of

12 the day.

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you.

14 MS. BURK: Do we have any more questions on

electricity cost?

16 (No response.)

17 MS. BURK: Okay. On the installation,

18 maintenance, and repair costs, DOE typically includes

19 installation, maintenance, and repair costs for

ballasts. The impacts of these costs are prominent

21 when there's a difference between the installation or

22 maintenance cost between the base case, or the baseline

23 ballast, and the more efficient substitutes.

24 For installation cost, DOE does not believe

that the installation costs will change from the

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 165

1 baseline ballast with more energy­efficient

2 substitutes. Maintenance costs, however, might change.

3 Maintenance costs will include the cost of relamping

4 over the ballast lifetime. If the standard results in

a shift from T12 to T8 ballasts, the equipment costs of

6 the T12 or T8 lamp will change. However, the labor

7 cost of installing those lamps may not change. The

8 lifetime between the T12 and T8 lamps may not be

9 different.

Repair costs are also typically included.

11 However, DOE right now does not believe ballasts are

12 typically repaired. So right now we think that these

13 costs may not have to be part of the analysis.

14 DOE welcomes comment on how to develop these

costs and appropriate fluorescent lamp ballast

16 lifetimes.

17 MR. BROOKMAN: So, in 83 they list what

18 amount to a series of assumptions, and the Department

19 would welcome ­­ appreciate your comments on those, and

others.

21 MR. WOLFMAN: I agree with the observation

22 about installation costs being identical. This is

23 Howard. I'm sorry. And maintenance costs. I agree

24 with the wording you've got down there, too.

My own opinion is that the use of more

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 166

1 energy­efficient ballasts should not materially affect

2 the life of the lamp.

3 MS. BURK: Okay.

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Yes, please.

Cheryl.

6 MS. ENGLISH: Cheryl English, Acuity Brands.

7 You may also want to, in the maintenance area, look at

8 disposal costs.

9 MS. BURK: Disposal costs? Okay.

MR. SCHOLAND: Excuse me. Cheryl, would you

11 like to say a little more about that?

12 MS. ENGLISH: Well, if your analysis is going

13 to be based on an assumption of a certain percentage of

14 the ballasts being sold going in and replacing existing

buildings, retrofitting buildings, there will be a cost

16 of disposal of the existing ballasts in that place. In

17 some cases it may have hazardous types of ­­ or,

18 undesirable types of substances such as going into

19 asbestos ceilings and things like that in older

facilities, which could be an incremental cost.

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Andrew.

22 MR. DeLASKI: I'd encourage the Department to

23 thoroughly investigate this question of whether or not

24 more efficient ballasts have a longer life or not. If

the life is six months or a year longer than a

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 167

1 conventional ballast, that's important to know. I

2 respect what Howard just said as an expert who's

3 thought about this question perhaps some, but I would

4 urge you guys as the Department to investigate it

thoroughly because it clearly is going to impact the

6 life­cycle cost of the end user.

7 It stands to reason, at least intuitively,

8 that if there's less heat ­­ less energy waste is less

9 heat in the product. Less heat, it stands to reason

that there's going to be a longer life. How much

11 longer? That's a question that I think I can't answer

12 sitting here today, but the Department, I think, should

13 investigate.

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Bob.

MR. SCHOLAND: Could I just ­­ excuse me.

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Yeah, Michael. Follow on.

17 MR. SCHOLAND: Just a point of clarification.

18 Andrew, Howard's comment was that an energy­efficient

19 ballast should not materially affect the life of the

lamps. I do not believe he made a comment about the

21 life of the ballast. But I'm interested in that.

22 Would you like to elaborate?

23 MR. EHRHARDT: Well, I was going to exactly

24 say that, that Howard's comment reflected the

­­

MR. BROOKMAN: So Bob's first. Go ahead.

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 168

1 MR. DeLASKI: Thanks for that clarification.

2 MR. EHRHARDT: ­­ was the life of the lamp.

3 We might want to consider and make statements at a

4 later time on the life of the ballast because some

­­

it's not clear the impact of ­­ I agree that in

6 principle a cooler ballast will have a longer life.

7 However, some types of ballasts are used in more

8 restricted, smaller luminaires, which makes them run

9 even hotter. I would say that the trend in the

industry is for ballasts to run hotter, not cooler,

11 given miniaturization in the industry. And that does

12 not help plant life ­­ ballast life.

13 MR. SCHOLAND: We'll look at it.

14 MR. DeLASKI: And I think ­­ this is Andrew

DeLaski. To follow on, we have to sort of separate out

16 trends that are happening independent of a standard and

17 what would happen with the standard. What's the delta

18 due to a potential standard.

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Howard.

MR. WOLFMAN: This comment has nothing to do

21 with the current discussion, but just FYI. Those of

22 you who haven't heard, Chicago is not having the best

23 of weather today. Bob and I are going to have to leave

24 at about 3:15.

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay.

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 169

1 MR. WOLFMAN: Unless my pager goes off and

2 tells me that United has canceled all the flights to

3 Chicago.

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So we will go as

quickly as we can. And in the service of that, do you

6 wish to queue up ­­ did we do them both?

7 MS. BURK: No, we're not finished.

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Yeah, I didn't think so.

9 MS. BURK: The next item for discussion is

discount rates. Discount rates are used to convert

11 streams of annual operating expenses to present value

12 in the life­cycle cost analysis. DOE will derive a

13 distribution of discounts for both the commercial and

14 industrial sectors. These will be based on a weighted

average cost of capital, which will include both

16 financial cost of any debt incurred and the opportunity

17 costs of any equity to purchased products.

18 DOE welcomes comment on discount rates.

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Hasn't DOE developed a fairly

standard approach to discount rates previously? Do you

21 want to say what they are?

22 MS. BURK: They include basically these two

23 concepts. We've developed discount rates for the lamps

24 rule and the lamp ANOPR will be published.

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Other ­­ so, additional

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 170

1 comments on discount rates?

2 SPEAKER: It's a crap shoot.

3 (Laughter.)

4 Shipments Analysis

Diana Burk

6 (PowerPoint presentation.)

7 MS. BURK: Great. Finally, I'm going to talk

8 about the shipments analysis. The shipments analysis

9 and the life­cycle cost and payback period analysis

feed into the national impact analysis, which

11 determines the effects of energy conservation on the

12 nation. The purpose of the shipments analysis is to

13 quantify any changes in product shipments due to

14 potential new or amended energy efficiency standards.

The shipments model will rely on a range of

16 data sources, as this model typically projects

17 shipments for 30 years. For ballasts, this would be

18 from 2014 to 2043. The model will also only consider

19 shipments of covered product and covered product

shipped to U.S. consumers.

21 There are two possible approaches to the

22 shipments analysis. One is based on historical data,

23 where a shipments projection ­­ say historical data

­­

24 there's a growth rate of X percent each year. DOE

would apply that growth rate for the next 30 years.

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 171

1 Shipments projections could also be based on modeling

2 the installed base of fluorescent lamp ballasts

3 nationally. This approach would allow DOE to analyze

4 the turnover of the ballast inventory in a very

quantitative manner. It has the advantage of being

6 able to capture market dynamics but the disadvantage of

7 being complex and possibly difficult to calibrate.

8 So DOE welcomes input on these two

9 approaches.

(Pause.)

11 MS. BURK: So I'm assuming nobody has

12 comments on the two approaches for shipments?

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Two alternatives there at the

14 bottom of 87.

MS. BURK: Shipments projection based on

16 historical data. So, to quantify the effects of a

17 standard, one must first know how shipments would be

18 projected without a standard. So a base case shipments

19 forecast approach will be developed. This shipment

forecast will include the current mix of ballast

21 efficiencies and how those will improve in the market

22 over time. The shipment forecast will also designate

23 what ballasts are being sold to, for example, new

24 construction, what ballasts are replacements, and what

ballasts are retrofits.

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 172

1 There are many data requirements for the

2 shipments analysis. These include historical shipments

3 and a breakdown of shipments by market segment. For

4 example, new construction, replacements, and retrofits

by end­use sector and by product class.

6 DOE welcomes recommendations on the sources

7 of data it would use for the shipments analysis, as

8 well as an accounting methodology for the fluorescent

9 lamp ballast shipments analysis and a breakdown of

fluorescent lamp ballast shipments by market segment

11 and sector.

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Bob.

13 MR. EHRHARDT: Yeah. Only we don't have any

14 input at this time, but NEMA will work to assist the

Department of Energy as they can in this area.

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Is it pretty well broken out

17 by what is listed here on the bottom of Slide 88? New

18 construction, replacements, and retrofits.

19 MR. EHRHARDT: Not exactly. It's not clear

to me that we're going to be able to give ­­ answer

21 these questions directly, but we would like to work

22 with you to try to get you meaningful information that

23 could help your analysis based on the breakdown of our

24 different census­taking on product types, et cetera.

So we'll try to work with you and get you

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 173

1 information that we can, but we don't have a clear

2 answer on what we will and what we will not be able to

3 give you at this time.

4 MS. BURK: Okay. Should we go on?

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. Did you list the

6 accounting methodology?

7 MS. BURK: Yeah. The accounting methodology,

8 how DOE would establish an accounting methodology of

9 how ­­ what ballasts are shipped and what their

qualities are.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, okay.

12 MS. BURK: So now we're going to talk about

13 standards impacts on ballast shipments. Once the base

14 case forecast is developed, DOE develops standards case

forecasts. Those forecasts use the same data ­­ DOE

16 would use the same data to develop the standards case

17 forecast as it did the base case forecast. The main

18 difference between the base case and standards case is

19 that the purchase price of ballasts in the standards

case will increase and the operating costs will go

21 down.

22 Typically, consumers may be impacted by these

23 changes. However, these changes may affect consumers

24 mostly in the residential sector with non­lighting

products and this may not be as much of an impact in

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 174

1 the commercial sector with lighting products.

2 In addition, DOE will consider impacts from

3 market pull programs such as tax incentives or rebates

4 for fluorescent lamp ballasts and the total amount of

light produced by these ballasts in the commercial and

6 industrial sector. If the engineering analysis does

7 not normalize the light output. There is a range in

8 light output. Light output might be impacted by a

9 standard.

DOE welcomes comment on how new energy

11 conservation standards would affect fluorescent lamp

12 ballast shipments.

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Your chance to be forecasters.

14 MR. EHRHARDT: Yeah, this is Bob Ehrhardt

again. The companies that knew all these forecasts

16 would be very happy and very wealthy indeed.

17 (Laughter.)

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Get it just right.

19 MR. EHRHARDT: To some extent ­­ I've been in

this industry 25 years and I've seen a lot of

21 projections. I was on the first SL18 compact

22 fluorescent development and we were projecting 1

23 million units a year after three years. Ten years

24 later we still weren't at 1 million units a year. So

I'm not so confident in giving you forecasts.

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 175

1 Now, we can tell you of relative ballast

2 efficiencies and current trends and we can try to

3 supply you this information, but we'll have to take

4 this back under advisement about where we expect trends

to be.

6 It actually may be NEMA's ­­ what do they

7 call it? Business Systems Unit? NEMA Biz? We may

8 need ­­ we may wish to consult with NEMA Biz. There

9 are some attempts at NEMA to give industry reports, and

we can look at this and see if this section of NEMA has

11 the ability to provide some forecast to the DOE, and

12 we'll take that back under advisement.

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Yeah. I thought you were

14 starting with saying perhaps the data would be best

collected from individual companies but now perhaps

16 aggregated in some form?

17 MR. EHRHARDT: Well, that's quite possible,

18 too. But also, until we define our product classes and

19 exactly what it is we're asking for, it's difficult to

answer the question.

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Howard.

22 MR. WOLFMAN: Thank you. A question. Is

23 this a 30­year projection?

24 MS. BURK: Yes, it's 30 years. So it goes

from 2014 to 2043.

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 176

1 MR. WOLFMAN: That's one heck of a crystal

2 ball.

3 MS. BURK: Yeah.

4 (Laughter.)

MR. EHRHARDT: Also, there are other market

6 factors that will influence this heavily. Solid state

7 lighting is an emerging technology.

8 MS. BURK: Right.

9 MR. EHRHARDT: And depending on who you talk

to, if you go on the Department of Energy's website,

11 they've taken over the market already.

12 (Laughter.)

13 MR. EHRHARDT: When this will occur, how fast

14 this will occur is going to influence the fluorescent

market. So there are a number of factors out there

16 that make it difficult to give some, with any

17 certainty, the direction that things will go. We also

18 ­­ as former chairman until quite recently of the NEMA

19 Lighting Control Section, we're expecting growth of

lighting control systems. But we've been expecting

21 that for 20 years now, too.

22 So it's difficult to give you a 20­year

23 crystal ball.

24 MR. BROOKMAN: Cheryl, do you want to provide

a fearless forecast?

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 177

1 MS. ENGLISH: Yeah. I know that Michael had

2 mentioned in some of your analysis of distribution

3 channels that this really is a ballast area that you're

4 studying. But when we did this back in 2000 and Mike

Rivest came down to our facility, at that time we had

6 already had market plans to offer a major class of

7 products with electronic ballasts.

8 So I think if that makes sense, we would be

9 more than glad to entertain some confidential

discussions about some of our business plans as well as

11 some of the channel distributions as well.

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Andrew.

13 MR. DeLASKI: One part of this question I

14 think is what's happening to the overall ballast

market. The other part of the question is what happens

16 in a base case and in a standards case. It strikes me

17 that there's likely to be little difference between the

18 two in terms of shipments.

19 If you think about the marketplace for

ballasts as being driven by new construction, as being

21 driven by major build­outs or retrofits of building

22 space or commercial building space, the incremental

23 cost of a more efficient ballast is not going to affect

24 whether or not those build­outs happen or that new

construction happens, it strikes me.

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 178

1 So it seems to me that the shipments is

2 likely to be the same, whatever the shipments are.

3 That's the real crystal ball. But whether they're

4 different in the standards case and the base case to me

strikes me as being unlikely.

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Yes, Howard.

7 MR. WOLFMAN: If I look at the fourth bullet,

8 impacts of total amount of light produced by these

9 ballasts, if I understand that correctly, that should

be zero impact on the total amount of light produced,

11 regardless of the efficiency level of the ballast

12 itself.

13 MS. BURK: Right. And that would be the

14 idea. We would try to minimize the impact on the total

amount.

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Bob.

17 MR. EHRHARDT: I thought Howard was going to

18 point out that ballasts don't produce light.

19 (Laughter.)

MR. BROOKMAN: Thanks for bringing us back.

21 Okay.

22

23

24

National Impact Analysis

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 179

1 Diana Burk

2 (PowerPoint presentation.)

3 MS. BURK: So now we'll talk about the

4 national impact analysis. The national impact analysis

estimates the impacts of the standard on the nation.

6 It takes inputs from the life­cycle cost and payback

7 period analysis and the shipments analysis.

8 More specifically, the national impact

9 analysis determines the projected national energy

savings and the consumer net present value of an energy

11 conservation standard. To estimate this, DOE will

12 utilize the shipments models to estimate the total

13 stock of ballasts in service and the qualities of those

14 ballasts.

From the life­cycle cost analysis, DOE will

16 obtain the estimate of cost and energy use per unit.

17 Finally, DOE will aggregate the cost and energy use

18 over a 30­year analysis period. This report will give

19 energy savings in quads, which is about 293 terawatt

hours of electricity. These energy savings will also

21 take into account HVAC interactions, which will

22 typically increase energy savings of more efficient

23 ballasts, and the rebound effect, which would typically

24 decrease energy savings as consumers may use lighting

more often because they're paying lower operating

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 180

1 costs.

2 The report will also give estimates of the

3 economic impact of the standard in constant­year

4 dollars and will also account for the time value of

money through discount rates. Currently, the

6 Department uses a 3 and 7 percent discount rate in the

7 analysis.

8 So the following two slides are diagrams of

9 how national energy savings and net present value are

calculated. This is the national energy savings flow

11 diagram. Inputs from the shipments analysis help us

12 estimate base case and standards case energy

13 consumption each year from 2014 to 2043. Finally, base

14 case cumulative energy use is calculated and standards

case cumulative energy use is calculated. These are

16 for site energy used. These are converted to source

17 energy used, how much energy the power plant is saving,

18 to give you the national energy savings.

19 Again, the HVAC interactions and rebound

effect will be taken into account in this calculation.

21 The national consumer net present value is

22 also calculated. Again, the shipments analysis feeds

23 into this calculation. The shipments analysis allows

24 the Department to calculate the cumulative operating

cost savings, which depends on the energy cost and

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 181

1 maintenance and installation costs in both the base and

2 standards case, and cumulative total equipment cost

3 increases are also calculated. These depend on the

4 product costs in both the base and the standards case.

Finally, these are discounted using a

6 discount rate to give you the national net present

7 value.

8 DOE welcomes comment on the data sources it

9 anticipates using to develop inputs for the national

impact analysis, as well as the net spreadsheet model

11 it proposes on using.

12 MR. BROOKMAN: So you can see those two

13 diagrams on 93 and 94. Comments on those? Andrew.

14 MR. DeLASKI: Andrew DeLaski, Appliance

Standards Awareness Project. What's the methodology

16 that you anticipate using to characterize the HVAC

17 interaction?

18 MS. BURK: We would look at the methodology

19 used by the 2000 ballast rule, which took into account

where buildings were located and the efficiency of the

21 HVAC units and how this would be affected by the

22 efficiency of ballasts.

23 MR. DeLASKI: Okay. One thing I would urge

24 you to look at is, you said it in ­­ but, where

buildings are located going forward over the analysis

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 1 82

1 period as we see building ­­ the emphasis on new

2 construction happening in the Sun Belt states, the

3 Western states.

4 MS. BURK: Right.

MR. DeLASKI: Where construction happens may

6

­­

7 MS. BURK: So those would ­­ right. Those

8 would impact the

­­

9 MR. DeLASKI: ­­ would impact part of the

analysis.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Other comments on these two

12 flow diagrams and particularly the data sources and

13 nuanced applications of the data sources?

14 (No response.)

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay.

16 MS. BURK: So we're going to be talking about

17 the NOPR Analysis now. Mike Scholand.

18 MR. DeLASKI: Doug, I don't know if this is

19 an appropriate time. Maybe the Department is going to

solicit this comment later. But there was ­­ earlier

21 in the day there was a comment about whether or not we

22 would talk about how the Department might take

23 advantage of the new authority to dispense with a

24 formal ANOPR. Now that we're moving off the ANOPR, is

this the time to bring that up?

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 183

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Do you want to do that now,

2 before

­­

3 MR. DeLASKI: Or is that going to come up

4 later?

MS. GRAVES: We also wanted to cycle back to

6 some input from Michael Rivest on Slide 81.

7 MR. SCHOLAND: Just to refresh everyone's

8 memory, Mike Rivest has had some discussions with

9 Berkeley about the difference between marginal versus

average so ­­ electricity prices. Go ahead, Mike.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Andrew, they'll make a note

12 and we'll cycle back to that as well. Go ahead. Mike

13 Rivest.

14 MR. RIVEST: Yes. So the issue is energy

savings due to lighting, how should they be valued.

16 And most analyses typically use average utility rates

17 and value of the energy savings based on the average

18 utility rates. Previous analyses for ballasts had a

19 more comprehensive analysis where building load shapes

were actually procured from a proprietary database

21 called MAZIE (ph), and a database of utility rates was

22 put together into something called the Bill Calculator.

23 So based on actually load shapes in

24 commercial buildings, looking at reductions in

kilowatts and kilowatt­hours the lighting ­­ on the

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 184

1 building system due to lighting reductions, the actual

2 marginal rates were calculated for lighting. And

3 during that study, done in about 1999, 2000, it was

4 found that lighting was less peaky than a typical load

shape. So the marginal rate of lighting energy savings

6 was slightly lower, 5.2 percent less.

7 In 2004, LBNL, in the context of the

8 commercial unitary air conditioner rule, redid the

9 analysis. This time, rather than procuring existing

load shapes from a proprietary database, the analysis

11 was done using the BLAST model. I think it's a

12 derivative of the DOE­2 model. So hour­by­hour

13 simulations of buildings was conducted, including

14 lighting and A/C, and a Bill Calculator again was

created.

16 I've recently been in conversations with

17 LBNL, and they in fact have a draft paper that shows

18 how each end use can be characterized as contributing

19 to average and peak power and how that ratio of average

to peak can be used to characterize a load shape.

21 Therefore, from that study, it came out that the

22 lighting marginal cost was about the same as the

23 average.

24 So we'll be looking to publish that study.

But the nice thing about it is it will have more

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 185

1 universal application than just lighting because of

2 being able to reduce a load shape into an average and

3 the peak power and each application having its own

4 characteristics. So we'll be able to quickly translate

from average to marginal for different end uses.

6 I don't know if that's helpful.

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Some questions or comments

8 following Mike Rivest's comments here?

9 (No response.)

MR. BROOKMAN: I think you stumped them.

11 MR. RIVEST: Well, I think that's a very

12 long­winded way of saying it's not going to make a

13 difference for this rule.

14 (Laughter.)

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. And Andrew, you

16 appropriately raised again the issue that you raised

17 this morning. We touched on it just very lightly. I

18 would refer ­­ maybe we'll do that right now, talk

19 about that since you raised it.

For those of you that want to flip back to

21 Slide 18 in your packet, this is where the typical flow

22 that includes the ANOPR is shown on those chevrons in

23 the top bar. Andrew, do you wish to comment first on

24 the new authority that DOE has with respect to the

ANOPR?

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 186

1 MR. DeLASKI: Yes. Ron's back, so Ron, you

2 raised the question this morning. I think you

3 appropriately made the point this morning that the

4 Department get valuable input as to what has

historically been the ANOPR stage of the rulemaking,

6 input which allows you to advance through the NOPR into

7 the final rule stage more smoothly, perhaps.

8 It strikes me that the Department has an

9 opportunity here with the new authority that Congress

has given to get rid of the formal ANOPR to find

11 approaches maybe to get that input that take out some

12 of the administrative steps that have held up prior

13 rulemakings.

14 As a formal ANOPR, my understanding is that

you have a set of hurdles to move through as an office

16 in the Department within a government that are time17 consuming and often slow down the process. So it

18 strikes me that this is an opportunity to make up some

19 of the time that will help you to meet your deadlines

under the consent decree and that the Department should

21 be looking very hard at how can you get that input

22 without perhaps the formal ANOPR publication.

23 MR. LEWIS: Were you looking for a response

24 or you just wanted to make your suggestion?

MR. DeLASKI: Sure. That's my suggestion.

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 187

1 I'd love to hear a response.

2 MR. LEWIS: Okay. First of all, I want to

3 say I would not be disappointed if there were fewer

4 hoops to jump through or fewer obstacles in our path,

so I share the objective there. The considerations

6 internally that have to go through with a lot of

7 parties, all those people that are responsible

8 ultimately, later on down the stream. If we don't do

9 it at the ANOPR stage, we do it later on and there's

less room for correction or adjustments if there are

11 concerns at higher levels.

12 So it's a matter, where it seems ­­ and

13 simplistically and philosophically I agree with you 100

14 percent. If we can streamline the process, that would

help me a lot. The point of how we do that so that we

16 don't experience a problem or somebody becomes aware of

17 something that they're concerned about much later in

18 the process where we don't have time to thoroughly

19 handle it, that becomes a bigger issue. So there's

also another side to that in trying to find a way that

21 we can accomplish that.

22 So I agree with your desire. We fully

23 recognize the new authority that we are not required to

24 do it. If we can find a way that we can get the

advantages of the interactions with stakeholders and we

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 188

1 have a way of not having surprises even internally in

2 the flow of all the people that have to approve it,

3 that would be to my liking as well.

4 So we're trying ­­ we're attempting to find

that balance and trying to find a way that helps us

6 with the time. We're not there yet. So people can ask

7 the question all they want. We don't have an answer to

8 deliver today. We're open for suggestions. We're open

9 for, if there's something that you've observed in

another government process, if there's something that's

11 helpful to support a streamlined process that's worked,

12 boy, we would love to get that input.

13 Right now we're considering it. We are in

14 parallel with you of desiring to reduce the wear and

tear, but we haven't got specifics to give you today.

16 So no matter how the question is asked, we don't have

17 an answer for you today.

18 MR. DeLASKI: I realize this law just passed

19 a little over a month ago so it's fresh information and

it's fresh, I know. But I guess I would point out that

21 in the January 2006 Report to Congress it explains why

22 the Department had missed 20­odd deadlines over 15

23 years for various appliance standards, including this

24 one. The various approvals was given as one of the

reasons for why the Department had missed so many

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 189

1 deadlines. And here Congress is now responding to your

2 complaint, so please take advantage of it.

3 I also would encourage you to look at some of

4 the EPA proceedings, Department of Transportation

proceedings. There are other proceedings. An ANOPR is

6 not standard practice in every single major proceeding

7 that the government does. NOPRs, yes, but ANOPRs are

­

8 ­ you can look to other agencies for examples of very

9 important, very high­profile, very controversial in

some cases, rulemakings that don't entail an ANOPR but

11 yet the agencies find ways to get the input that they

12 need to advance their process.

13 MR. LEWIS: Thank you for your input, and we

14 are pursuing that.

MR. BROOKMAN: Any other comments while we're

16 here on this ANOPR authority? Bob.

17 MR. EHRHARDT: Actually, I want to take a

18 small step back and amend my comment from earlier on

19 shipment projections and market projections.

While we have not had an opportunity to

21 review this within NEMA, if we are looking out 30 years

22 I think it is important the Department of Energy take

23 into consideration influence of other technologies on

24 its analysis of especially fixed light output ballasts

over the next 30 years because I think, while it's

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 190

1 difficult to give you a year­by­year projection, I

2 think most of us would agree that certainly 30 years

3 from now the market for fixed output product is going

4 to be significantly lower than it is today, fixed

output fluorescent product, due to the influences of

6 solid state lighting and controls.

7 I haven't had a chance to discuss this with

8 my NEMA colleagues, but we might want to look at coming

9 up with best case and worst case projections on what

could happen to this market due to the influence of

11 solid state lighting and controls. Certainly I think

12 some of our member companies would be willing to give

13 you input on that.

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Mike Rivest.

MR. RIVEST: So just the fixed output versus

16 dimmable; is that the ­­ so, are you saying that some

17 of these ballasts would become

­­

18 MR. EHRHARDT: Well, yeah, what I'm saying is

19 there are ­­ if you're going out 20 and 30 years, I

think the industry and I think the people that are

21 involved in energy understand that the next big gains

22 in energy efficiency are going to be through systems

23 controls and daylight harvesting, et cetera. ASHRAE.

24 There's ASHRAE activities along these lines. I

mentioned the Commercial Lighting Initiative from the

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 191

1 Department of Energy.

2 Certainly Department of Energy is heavily

3 promoting solid state lighting. Solid state lighting

4 will cannibalize some of the fluorescent market as

people recognize that they can get as much as 50

6 percent energy savings from controlled fluorescent

7 systems that will take away from the fixed output

8 market. If you're going out 20 and 30 years, you

9 should be taking this into consideration as you look at

your projections.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Ron Lewis.

12 MR. LEWIS: Is it Bob?

13 MR. EHRHARDT: Bob.

14 MR. LEWIS: Yeah. And Mike, the Mikes, if

I'm wrong, then just jump right in. But my

16 understanding is we do evaluate substitution analysis

17 of what are choices that people have to make in part of

18 the analysis. But I think the projection on shipments

19 was what is the impact of this rule on the base case

that's in existence today.

21 So you're ­­ I don't want to diminish in any

22 way the influence that you're talking about, but I

23 think that's put into a specific portion of the

24 analysis, not in the forecast of shipments as

influenced by this rulemaking.

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 192

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Mike Rivest.

2 MR. RIVEST: Mike Rivest. Well, for example,

3 there were how many ballasts shipped this year? Any

4 idea? I know there are 400 million lamps, but I don't

know how many ballasts. So say there were 10 million

6 ballasts. A simplistic analysis

­­

7 MR. EHRHARDT: The number is higher than

8 that.

9 (Laughter.)

MR. EHRHARDT: Right. Ballpark, I would say

11 more like 40 or 50 million.

12 MR. RIVEST: So a simplistic analysis would

13 have that growing one or two percent a year based on

14 the stock of buildings, whereas if other products

cannibalize it, instead of going up one to two percent

16 it may be going down one or two percent per year,

17 looking at that. So it would affect the magnitude of

18 the energy savings generated by the rule.

19 MR. EHRHARDT: Yes.

MR. RIVEST: And as Andrew pointed out, it

21 wouldn't ­­ the difference between the base case and

22 the standards case would not be affected by that. It

23 would just ­­ this is all about the base case we're

24 talking about now.

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Howard.

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 193

1 MR. WOLFMAN: If I remember my business

2 school days, the further out you're looking, and you

3 take into account the time value of money, the less of

4 an impact it's going to have upon the present value.

MR. RIVEST: That's also true. But if the

6 energy savings are not discounted then it does make a

7 significant difference.

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Bob.

9 MR. EHRHARDT: Yes. Something, though, as

I'm sitting here, and I was thinking ­­ my first

11 comments perhaps were a little flippant. If I look

12 today and you ask me what's going to happen in the next

13 five years, we can't give you a good answer. But if

14 you ask me starting in 2013, is it, or 2014 when this

rule takes effect, these other factors are going to be

16 significant and they will be impacting your payback

17 analysis.

18 MR. RIVEST: Certainly in the point sources

19 in the lamps analysis we're already starting to see

some influence in point sources. But this market is a

21 little hard to ­­ it's still evolving, so there's less

22 data there to project.

23 MR. BROOKMAN: Howard.

24 MR. WOLFMAN: Yeah. I think what Bob is

talking about is going to be a function of a couple of

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 194

1 things, and that's, number one, the efficacy of the new

2 light sources, the solid state lighting, and number

3 two, the declining cost curve. Without really knowing

4 what those two are, it's hard to predict how the market

is going to react.

6 MR. BROOKMAN: So we're going to press on

7 now. Back to Slide 97. Just as a footnote, several

8 people approached me at the end of lunch talking about

9 bad weather, the requirement to try and catch an

earlier plane. A couple people have mentioned that

11 already. So we're going to press on and we're going to

12 go from here to the finish, I believe, because we

13 didn't start back from lunch until 1:30. If you need

14 to excuse yourself for a moment, we'll understand.

So, Michael Scholand.

16 NOPR ANALYSIS

17 Life­Cycle Cost Subgroup Analysis and Manufacturer

18 Impact Analysis

19 Mike Scholand

(PowerPoint presentation.)

21 MR. SCHOLAND: Okay. Thank you, Doug. Mike

22 Scholand from Navigant Consulting. Slide 97. We're

23 going to discuss now the NOPR analyses. This is the

24 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking where the Department is

actually going to be publishing its proposed standard

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 195

1 level for fluorescent lamp ballasts.

2 One of the first tasks that the analytical

3 team and DOE will undertake is to revise the ANOPR

4 analyses, and we've sort of pulled out three sort of

key ones that are part of the ANOPR: the engineering

6 analysis, the life­cycle cost, and the national impact.

7 Those revisions will be based on comments the

8 Department receives in the ANOPR process.

9 And then the chevrons that go on from there

essentially are new analyses that the Department

11 conducts as part of the NOPR phase. All of these

12 analyses will be presented at the NOPR in a technical

13 support document and discussed in the Federal Register

14 notice so everyone has a chance to look at what was

done.

16 So I'm just going to talk first about the

17 life­cycle cost subgroup analysis. I just have one

18 slide on this. The purpose of the subgroup analysis of

19 life­cycle cost is to look at economic impacts of

standards on consumers, particularly actually subgroups

21 of consumers who may be disproportionately impacted

22 compared to the aggregate of consumers that the LCC

23 analyzes.

24 So the method will be to conduct an LCC

analysis and to run the LCC spreadsheet using the

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 196

1 economic characteristics of a subgroup of consumers of

2 ballasts.

3 We have an issue here. We invite comment

4 from stakeholders on appropriate subgroups that it

might consider. You can provide those now, or you can

6 also provide those at the ANOPR stage because this

7 analysis will be done in the NOPR phase.

8 Okay. Should I go to the next slide? Okay.

9 The manufacturer's impact analysis, which I

had sort of alluded to earlier when we talked about the

11 preliminary manufacturer's impact analysis. The MIA,

12 again, fulfills a legislative requirement to look at

13 impacts on manufacturers. DOE has moved part of it

14 into the ANOPR phase, but the majority of it is

conducted in the NOPR phase of the analysis. It's,

16 again, assessing impacts on manufacturers. It's

17 looking at cumulative regulatory impacts.

18 There's going to be both a cash flow analysis

19 that looks at the net present value of the industry in

the base case and in the standards case. That

21 spreadsheet model, the cash flow model, that the

22 Department publishes is called the Government

23 Regulatory Impact Model, or GRIM. That's the

24 quantitative assessment.

And then the qualitative assessment is coming

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 197

1 from interviews with manufacturers who discuss other

2 issues associated with the impacts on their businesses.

3 The output from the manufacturer's impact

4 includes, as I mentioned, the industry net present

value impact. There will also be subgroups of

6 manufacturers who are considered. For example, small

7 manufacturers of ballasts, "small" being defined by the

8 Small Business Administration. And then, other impacts

9 that are discussed.

You've seen this slide earlier this morning.

11 Phase one of the MIA is conducted for the ANOPR,

12 phases two and three at the stage I'm talking about

13 now, the notice of proposed rulemaking. So I'll just

14 jump right into phase two, the strawman GRIM, the

government regulatory impact model. I mentioned is the

16 cash flow model for the industry. It's a starting

17 point.

18 Navigant will create a strawman version of

19 the GRIM based on estimates of inputs or SEC10K

reports, what we can cobble together to say, okay,

21 here's a strawman, a starting point. We send that to

22 the companies who are participating with us under a

23 non­disclosure agreement to talk about the impacts on

24 their own organization. The strawman gives us a

starting point and then up or down on these inputs.

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 198

1 Let's change that. No, change that. Eventually we'll

2 come up with a model that is specific to that company.

3 We go around to several companies. We get

4 enough information and we aggregate to create a GRIM

that is representative of the industry for the United

6 States.

7 There's an interview guide which is prepared

8 for this and distributed looking at topics such as the

9 engineering analysis, shipments, cost structure and

financial parameters, cumulative burden, import/export,

11 direct employment, a range of issues.

12 In the phase three of the MIA ­­ excuse me.

13 This is the point where we conduct the interviews where

14 we have discussion with manufacturers directly about

obsolescence of existing assets, tooling, and

16 investment. Then that characterization is combined

17 into a final government regulatory impact model for the

18 country.

19 This is just an example, this slide, on

cumulative regulatory burden that the Department is

21 aware of, for example. There is, of course, the 2000

22 standard for fluorescent lamp ballasts, new standards

23 that came out of EPACT 2005 for the energy­saving

24 versions of fluorescent lamps, medium screw­base

fluorescent lamps that companies being regulated may

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 199

1 also be affected by the compact fluorescent lamp

2 standards. Mercury vapor lamp ballasts is another one.

3 EISA 2007 prescribes standards for

4 incandescent lamps and metal halide lamp fixtures, et

cetera, et cetera.

6 These are just some examples of some of the

7 cumulative regulatory aspects that the Department was

8 able to think of for the framework document and

9 publish. Of course the Department invites comment on

those and any others that stakeholders may be aware of.

11 So that's what this slide is about.

12 Item 31 is, if appropriate, what would be

13 some potential subgroups of manufacturers DOE should

14 consider in the MIA. And then secondly, are there any

other regulations or pending regulations DOE should

16 consider in its examination of cumulative regulatory

17 burden.

18 MR. BROOKMAN: So we had some comment this

19 morning on the regulatory burden question, a little

bit. Any additional comment related to subgroups

21 affected or considered? Yes, please. Cheryl.

22 MS. ENGLISH: Cheryl English, Acuity Brands

23 Lighting. Certainly the luminaire manufacturers will

24 be impacted by this and should be evaluated. If the

scope does include residential lighting, I would

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 200

1 suggest that you coordinate with the American Lighting

2 Association and manufacturers that control the largest

3 volume of the residential lighting production.

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Other subgroups for special

consideration?

6 (No response.)

7 MR. BROOKMAN: And then, Item 32, pending

8 regulations, issues that will result in a cumulative

9 regulatory burden?

MR. SCHOLAND: I can put the list back up if

11 that helps.

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Yeah.

13 MR. SCHOLAND: From Slide 106. We mentioned

14 the fourth bullet down, existing or proposed state

standards.

16

17

18 Lighting.

19 whirlwind

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Cheryl, go ahead.

MS. ENGLISH: Cheryl English, Acuity Brands

Certainly, we ought to be considering the

of regulatory activities in California.

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Yes, Bob.

MR. EHRHARDT: Yeah, just expounding on

22 Cheryl's comment, California is of course very

23 aggressive and very active in writing legislation for

24 energy efficiency for lighting products. When you talk

about manufacturer's burden, we do look for federal

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 201

1 legislation to keep the same standards across all 50

2 states. So keeping abreast of ­­ trying to track or

3 somehow keep abreast of California regulations I think

4 is something to keep in mind.

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you.

6 MR. SCHOLAND: Okay. Should we go to utility

7 impact analysis? The lady coming to speak now, her

8 name is Frances Wood from On Location.

9 Utility Impact Analysis, Employment Impact Analysis,

and Environmental Assessment

11 Frances Wood

12 (PowerPoint presentation.)

13 MS. WOOD: Hi. I'm going to talk about the

14 next three segments of analyses that will be helping

Navigant conduct the first of the utility impact

16 analyses, which looks at the overall impacts on the

17 electric utility industry from the proposed standards.

18 We'll be using a model that's a variation of the

19 National Energy Modeling System, which was developed by

EIA and is used in their annual energy reports and is

21 also used as a basis for a lot of other studies we'll

22 be using here. We call it NEMS­BT. It's a slight

23 variation. It's very similar, but EIA asked other

24 people to change the name of the model when other

people use it.

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 202

1 We'll be looking at ­­ it's a multi­region

2 model, and the utility sector is obviously a big part

3 of that. The utility impact analysis will include

4 forecasts of electricity generation, sales, price, and

avoided capacity by type, and resulting from the impact

6 between a reference case and a case with a standard.

7 So essentially, we run the baseline, which

8 would be like the AEO, and we decrement the lighting

9 electricity demand by the electricity savings that are

estimated out of the national energy spreadsheet work.

11 That way we get to see how do you deal with utility

12 impact, will be from that.

13 Do you have any questions or any comments

14 about the use of NEMS­BT for this analysis?

MR. BROOKMAN: Andrew.

16 MR. DeLASKI: I'll just reprise a comment I

17 made earlier. The Department solicited comments about

18 external benefits, and part of that solicitation was

19 the terms of energy security benefits. The document

specifically raised the benefits of saving natural gas.

21 So I would urge the Department to report what

22 are the natural gas savings resulting from reduced

23 natural gas use in power generation to power ballasts,

24 an important consideration that I think has not

historically been calculated. But it would be valuable

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 203

1 for understanding the benefits of potential rules.

2 MS. WOOD: Okay. The next analysis is the

3 employment impact analysis, which assesses the impact

4 on employment, looking again at the efficiency

standards at different levels. There are both direct

6 and indirect effects. The direct employment effects

7 are already going to be incorporated in the

8 manufacturing impact analysis that Michael just

9 described.

The indirect employment impacts come from the

11 change in energy consumption and capital expenditures

12 that result from the standards. There are two effects.

13 One is the substitution effect, the switch between

14 goods and services. The other is an income effect, how

the standard affects overall consumer expenditures,

16 taking into account both the expense of the ballasts as

17 well as the electricity savings.

18 The model use for that is called ImSet. It's

19 an update of the ImBuild model, for those of you who

are familiar with it from other, previous standards.

21 It's used to evaluate these employment impacts using

22 information again from the other analyses.

23 If you have any comments on that, they are

24 very welcome by the Department.

And then finally, the last analysis is the

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 204

1 environmental assessment. This is to look at the

2 overall national environmental impact from the

3 standards. The primary impact will be looking at the

4 CO2 emissions. Again, this is very tied to the utility

impact analysis where we're seeing how generation is

6 affected by the standards, what kind of generation is

7 displaced that has ­­ determines basically what the CO2

8 emissions are.

9 The reason for focusing on CO2 rather than

other emissions is that at this point in time SO2, NOx,

11 and mercury are all capped by national regulation, the

12 Clean Air Act, the Clean Air Mercury Rule, and the

13 Clean Air Interstate Rule. So changes in generation

14 may change where the emissions occur, but it's not

likely to change the overall emission level because of

16 the existing legislation that controls those emissions.

17 So if there's any questions or you want to

18 make comments on that environmental impact analysis

19 proposed, you're welcome to do so.

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, please. Your name for

21 the record.

22 MR. BALLARD: Tim Ballard (ph) with Earth

23 Justice. Just to correct one thing you said, the NOx

24 emissions are not subject to a nationwide cap. The

Clean Air Interstate Rule, which does cap NOx

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 205

1 emissions, only applies in the eastern states. I

2 encourage the Department to look at physical emission

3 productions that do occur in the western states that

4 are not subject to CAIR.

MS. WOOD: Right. I did overstate that. The

6 impact ­­ you're right. The west is not covered. We

7 expect the impact to be relatively small. Hence the

8 near zero. But I'll certainly look at that.

9 MR. PLASKON: Doug?

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, please, Andrew. Oh, I'm

11 sorry. Jeff.

12 MR. PLASKON: Jeff Plaskon.

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes.

14 MR. PLASKON: I would also advocate that the

environmental impact take in consideration a disposal

16 cost, as Cheryl mentioned earlier, into the analysis as

17 well.

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Does it include that?

19 MS. WOOD: It hasn't traditionally, is my

understanding. It hasn't been looking at that.

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Howard and then we'll come

22 back to Andrew.

23 MR. WOLFMAN: In the case of disposal costs,

24 would it be the disposal cost of any change in

efficiency in the ballast versus the baseline?

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 206

1 MS. WOOD: We're always looking at

2 incremental impacts

­­

3 MR. WOLFMAN: If you dispose of an old

4 ballast or

­­

MS. WOOD: Right.

6 MR. WOLFMAN: Yeah. Because you've got to

7 dispose of a ballast one way or the other, so I suspect

8 the net is zero.

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Andrew.

MR. DeLASKI: I had a couple of comments on

11 this as well as the prior slide on the employment

12 impacts. In the document, in the framework document,

13 talking about the Department indicates that it plans

14 not to modify its SO2 benefits, NOx benefits, and

mercury benefits, there seems to be a predetermined

16 outcome here at the framework stage that we would say

17 is premature.

18 I was struck in reading that document that

19 for each of these paragraphs on page 43 to 44 of the

framework document the Department writes that "Since

21 the impact of any one standard on the allowance price

22 is likely small and highly uncertain, DOE does not plan

23 to monetize the SO2 benefit." That's repeated each

24 place.

What I'm struck by is that I've got nothing

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 207

1 with which to evaluate that statement. It's simply an

2 assertion made by the Department without any data

3 provided. My understanding is the NEMS­BT does provide

4 some sort of estimate of impact on credit prices for

reductions of emissions. So I think that it's

6 something that it's incumbent on the Department to

7 explain a bit more why it's concluding that it's likely

8 small and highly uncertain.

9 Just because something is ­­ we just heard a

lot about uncertainty about this marketplace going out

11 30 years. People characterized it as a crystal ball.

12 If the Department has to do a lot of crystal ball

13 development in figuring out how to make decisions in

14 this and other rulemakings, it doesn't allow you to

simply say, well, it's uncertain, therefore we're going

16 to throw up our hands, we're not going to evaluate it.

17 I think in this case we've got a model that

18 can be used to come up with estimates. If they're

19 small, show us. Let's do the analysis so we can see

what the impacts are.

21 I also want to come back to the employment

22 impact analysis. Again, I want to point to some

23 phrasing in the framework document which I found

24 troubling. This is on page 42 of the framework

document where the document says "There is a general

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 208

1 presumption against any CSL that would directly cause

2 plant closures or significant loss to domestic

3 employment unless specifically identified expected

4 benefits of the standard would outweigh the adverse

effects."

6 Now, certainly I think that the loss of

7 domestic manufacturing jobs is a major concern for all

8 of us. It's not something that people want to see

9 happen in terms of loss of good­paying manufacturing

jobs. I looked at the Department's citations here and

11 I couldn't find anyplace in the statute or in the

12 guidance where there is a general presumption. It's

13 not in the process rule docket, finally.

14 So it is a consideration but a general

presumption I think is a pretty strong way to

16 characterize that. I think the way I want to

17 characterize it in terms of this particular proceeding,

18 and other proceedings as well, is that it is certainly

19 a factor but the difficult thing is that when you're

talking about industries that are looking at trying to

21 compete on price where they have manufacturing fully

22 loaded labor costs in this country of, say, $40 an hour

23 versus the chance to manufacture elsewhere at $2 to $3

24 an hour, the driver there is most often I'm going to

say not going to be energy efficiency standards but

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 209

1 cost of production, manufacturing costs of production

2 and labor costs.

3 When you start drawing a specific ­­ result

4 of a specific standard to a plant being closed, there

are presumptions being made that I think we need to be

6 very careful about going forward. I know of no

7 instance in this particular rulemaking where this is

8 being raised, but this characterization here I think is

9 one that we need to be very careful of and very careful

going forward about linking a particular standard to

11 its impact on a plant.

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you, Andrew. No

13 additional comment, Andrew, at this time?

14 MR. DeLASKI: No.

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Other

16 comments as they relate to environmental assessment and

17 perhaps the underpinning assumptions here?

18 (No response.)

19 Regulatory Impact Analysis

Mike Scholand

21 (PowerPoint presentation.)

22 MR. SCHOLAND: Okay. Excuse me. The

23 regulatory impact, the last of the NOPR analyses that

24 we'll discuss this afternoon. The purpose of this

analysis is to explore the potential for non­regulatory

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 210

1 alternatives to new mandatory efficiency standards.

2 This analysis is based on an assessment of actual

3 impacts. The analysis is kind of extrapolated from

4 existing programs that are looking at transforming the

market and projecting them forward, and we'll consider

6 how those programs might change in the future because

7 of other factors.

8 Programs considered here are things you're

9 familiar with: the Energy Star program, the NEMA

Premium program, and so on. These are market­pull

11 programs that may transform the market and encourage

12 use of more energy­efficient product in the absence of

13 standards. So that's the purpose of the regulatory

14 impact analysis.

Excuse me. I forgot to advance my slide.

16 On 118, it's our closing remarks. This is

17 the opportunity for folks to make their closing

18 remarks. I think, Linda or Ron, if you want to come up

19 and say something. I'm going to leave with Slide 119,

which is how to submit written comments. I want to

21 make sure everybody knows how to submit their input.

22 Other Issues and Comments

23 MR. BROOKMAN: Before we turn to Linda for

24 closing remarks, we want to provide one more time the

Department, and me as your facilitator, an opportunity

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 211

1 for anybody to say any other things they feel compelled

2 to say at this time, any other business that they think

3 is relevant that didn't get covered sufficiently, and

4 that sort of thing, briefly, at this time. Howard.

MR. WOLFMAN: Very briefly, I would like to

6 thank the Department for holding today's session and

7 the opportunity to walk us all through the framework

8 document. We have many, many folks around the table

9 who have not been through the process before, and the

process has been fine­tuned since we went through it

11 the last time.

12 I think everybody will walk out of here with

13 a much better understanding of the number and magnitude

14 of the tasks that are ahead of us in a relatively short

time frame.

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Appreciate that.

17 Bob, yes?

18 MR. EHRHARDT: Yes. I too would like to

19 thank the Department of Energy for allowing us to

speak. I also have, in closing comments and your

21 comment on alternatives to rulemaking, while we

22 understand the time frame allowed for this set of

23 rulemaking does not allow expansion of the scope beyond

24 component requirements, I have been part of the

Department of Energy's Commercial Lighting Initiative

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 212

1 looking at systems approaches to energy savings. As a

2 comment, I think the Department of Energy is right to

3 be exploring that area moving forward.

4 When you start looking at control systems and

daylight harvesting, there are some, again, very large

6 energy savings to be had, and I encourage the

7 Department to look further in that direction.

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Additional closing

9 comments from anybody? Yes, Howard.

MR. WOLFMAN: Shame on me forgetting this,

11 but in the framework document, is this section covered

12 in the framework document?

13 MR. BROOKMAN: The environmental assessment?

14 MR. WOLFMAN: No, the how to submit written

comments? Because it's not ­­ there's no slide in the

16 packet.

17 MR. BROOKMAN: I'll let Linda address that in

18 her closing remarks.

19 Closing Remarks

Doug Brookman

21 MR. BROOKMAN: My closing remark is thanks to

22 all of you for a very, very, I think, focused and

23 direct day of communication. Many thanks to all of you

24 for your diligence and your intelligence.

There's an evaluation form at the very back

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­00645

10

15

20

25 213

1 of your packet. The Department is always looking for

2 ways to improve these meetings and suit the needs of

3 stakeholders and the Department as well, so please take

4 30 seconds to a minute to fill it out.

And then, Linda Graves, the floor is yours.

6 Closing Remarks by Linda Graves

7 MS. GRAVES: On behalf of the Department and

8 my team especially, I want to really thank all of you

9 for your participation. We got a lot of excellent

feedback today. We will be back to you, for those of

11 you who have volunteered to give us confidential

12 information for sure, regarding giving us more formal

13 written comments.

14 Yeah, if you look at your Federal Register

notice, it spells out in complete sentences how to go

16 about giving us that input. The basics are up on this

17 slide of three main approaches. Obviously, you can

18 send it to us electronically or by snail mail, or even

19 courier to our building, if you like. It is important

to us if you could try to get it to us before the

21 comment period ends, which is March 7th.

22 That's all I have. Ron, do you have anything

23 you want to add?

24

Closing Remarks by Ron Lewis

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­0064214

1 MR. LEWIS: I want to add my thanks to the

2 long list of thanks. I'm thrilled that we're ending

3 early, hearing that there's bad weather, so everybody

4 can get home safely. There were a lot of lively

5 discussions this morning. I was out for a little bit,

6 but I was highly encouraged and impressed by the

7 exchange of thoughts this morning.

8 I did try to give you the message early, and

9 I'd like to end with it, of time is of essence in that

10 we barely have time, with all the things we have to do,

11 to get everything done. We don't have the ability to

12 go back and redo things after the fact and still meet

13 deadlines. So if you would take it serious, the need

14 for data and input and your thoughts early on, because

15 if you miss that train and we have to go back and redo

16 things, it's very, very difficult to accommodate that.

17 So we appreciate your attitudes of

18 volunteering to supply stuff, but we urge you, please,

19 to follow through and do that in a prompt manner

20 because otherwise it may be tough to absorb it.

21 Thanks, everybody, and a safe journey back.

22 Wish you all well with the weather that's coming in.

23 (Whereupon, at 3:05 p.m., the meeting was

24 concluded.)

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­0064215

1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

2

3 This is to certify that the attached proceedings

4 before:

5 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

6 In the Matter of:

PUBLIC MEETING ON FRAMEWORK DOCUMENT FOR ENERGY

CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR FLUORESCENT LAMP BALLASTS

7

8

9 Were held as herein appears and that this is the

10 original transcript thereof for the file of the

11 Department, Commission, Board, Administrative Law Judge

12 or the Agency.

13 Further, I am neither counsel for or related to

14 any party to the above proceedings.

15

16

17 

### D e

b

r

a D e

r

r

18 Official Reporter

19 Dated: February 12, 2008

20

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565­0064