The MagneTek
, Inc. Statement for the April 18, 2000 DOE Public Hearing on the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts, Docket No. EE-

-97-500

I am Michael Stein, Director of Global Standards for MagneTek
, Inc., Vice

-chairman of the Lighting Systems Division of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) and past Chairman of NEMA' s Ballast Section. Today, I am here representing MagneTek.

MagneTek believes that the current Proposed Rule satisfies all of the legal requirements and adequately addresses all of the stakeholder concerns. MagneTek strongly supports and requests that the Department of Energy adopts the proposed Ballast Rule as submitted by the Joint Stakeholders and, as spelled out in the DOE NOPR in the Federal Register notice of March 15, 2000.

MagneTek also supports the statement of the Ballast Section of NEMA presented earlier in this hearing by Norm Grimshaw.

My comments today will focus more on the process than on the details of the analysis or the final rule. I am in the unique position of having participated in the development of the proposed law for ballast efficiency in 1987 and 1988, which was approval by Congress and signed by President Reagan in June of 1988. I have also been involved in the ballast rulemaking process since the aborted NOPR of March 4, 1994 through to the negotiations of last October by the Joint Stakeholders.

In 1986 and 1987, the ballast industry worked with many states that were developing ballast efficiency standards similar to the original one published in California in 1982. The problem was that each state had their own variation of the original, and that would have required special products or marking in many states for the ballast types that were being regulated. The industry welcomed the suggestion of Howard Geller of the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy to have a U. S. requirement for ballast efficiency modeled after the California requirements. The 1988 amendment to the appliance law of 1987 was passed and it included the ballast efficiency requirements discussed above and superceded state requirements. We did not fully understand, however, the consequences of being part of the energy efficiency program for consumer products until the NOPR was published in 1994.

The notorious eight appliance NOPR published March 4, 1994 failed because DOE and its contractors developed the requirements and the supporting analyses without input from the stakeholders, particularily the manufacturers of the products being regulated.

Page 1 04/11/00 

### TheMagneTek, Inc. Statement for theApril 18, 2000 DOE Public Hearing on the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts, Docket No. 

### EE-RM-97-500

I am Michael Stein, Director ofGlobal Standards for MagneTek, Inc., Vice-chairman of the Lighting Systems Division oftheNational Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) and past Chairman ofNEMA'sBallast Section. Today, I am here representing MagneTek.

MagneTekbelieves thatthe currentProposed Rule satisfies all ofthe legal requirements and adequately addresses all ofthe stakeholder concerns. MagneTek strongly supports and requests thatthe Department ofEnergy adopts the proposed Ballast Rule as submitted by the Joint Stakeholders and, as spelled out in the DOENOPRin the Federal Register notice ofMarch 15, 2000.
MagneTek also supportsthe statement ofthe Ballast Section ofNEMApresented earlier in this hearing byNorm Grimshaw.

My comments today will focus more onthe process than on the details ofthe analysis or the final rule. I am in the unique position ofhaving participated in the development ofthe proposed law for ballast efficiency in 1987 and 1988, which was approval by Congress and signed by President Reagan in June of 1988. I have also been involved in theballast rulemaking process since the aborted NOPR ofMarch 4, 1994 through to the negotiations oflast October by the Joint Stakeholders.

In 1986 and 1987, theballast industry worked with many states that were developing ballast efficiency standards similar to the original one published in California in 1982. The problemwasthat each state had their ownvariation ofthe original, and that would have required special products ormarking in many states for the ballast types that were being regulated. The industry welcomedthe suggestion ofHoward Geller ofthe American Council for an EnergyEfficient Economy to have a U.S. requirement for ballast efficiency modeled after the California requirements. The 1988 amendment tothe appliance law of 1987 was passed and it includedthe ballast efficiency requirements discussed above and superceded state requirements. We did not fully understand, however, the consequences ofbeing part ofthe energy efficiency program for consumer products until the NOPRwas published in 1994.

The notorious eight applianceNOPRpublished March4, 1994 failed because DOE and its contractors developed the requirements and the supporting analyses without input from the stakeholders, particularily the manufacturers ofthe products being regulated.

Page 1 04/11100 

# BNEMA and the ballast industry began the process to change the way the analyses are

done by working with DOE's contractor, LBNL, by the end of 1994. We also set the stage for the 1996 Process Improvement Rule by working through Congress in 1995 to get a moratorium on the consumer product rulemaking. Most of the revised analyses and processes outlined in the Process Improvement Rule were tried on the ballast industry first.

When published in 1999 in the Technical Support Document (TSD), the Life Cycle Costs (LCC) analysis had differences in opinion between industry and DOE on some issues. Some of these were a result of the ballast, a component of a lighting system, being analyzed like a finished consumer product like a refrigerator. We understand that for consumer products the end user price is important because the purchasing decision is very price sensitive. Ballasts are a component of a lighting system, which is purchased by a commercial or industrial consumer. They make purchasing decisions based on functionally, energy consumption and return on investment which could be based on simple payback or life cycle costs. Consumer ballast prices are not accessible and are imbedded in the costs of the luminaire and the costs of the installation. This would also be true for other component products like motors or power supplies that are only sold to consumers as part of other finished products.

The LCC also tried to compare different lighting systems, particularily four foot T12 vs. T8 lighting systems. The marketplace certainly does this and that is the reason for the success of the electronic T8 ballasts. In the case of the ballast rule, some of the benefits of the T8 system are attributable to the lamps and the luminaire. Although an attempt was made to compensate for these factors they were done in error. DOE does not compare different systems for consumer appliances using gas or electricity even though consumers make this comparison.

My recommendation would be for different efficiency laws or regulations for commercial and industrial products than for consumer products like appliances. Also the energy efficiency of components such as ballasts, motors, and power supplies should be analyzed as part of the complete system or product. For lighting efficiency the best measure for the commercial and industrial user is unit power density (watts per square foot) as specified in ASHRAE/IESNA 90.1. This allows the users flexibility to meet their lighting requirements within a specific power budget.

The Manufacturers Impact Analysis (MIA) when it was published in 1999 met the ballast industry's expectations. This may be because the DOE contractor on the MIA also worked on the Process Improvement Rule, so they understood what was not done right in the original TSD and earlier revisions. In the MIA, the ballast industry had input through the entire process. DOE listened and considered the impact on the ballast industry suppliers and others manufacturers in the lighting industry. The ballast rule MIA should serve as a model for the MIA's for other product rulemakings.

Page 2 04/11/00 NEMAand the ballast industry began the process to change the way the analyses are done by working with DOE's contractor, LBNL, by the end of 1994. We also set the stage for the 1996 Process Improvement Rule by working through Congress in 1995 to get a moratorium on the consumer product rulemaking. Most ofthe revised analyses and processes outlined in the Process Improvement Rule were tried onthe ballast industry first.

When published in 1999 in the Technical Support Document (TSD), the Life Cycle Costs (LCC) analysis had differences in opinionbetween industry and DOE on some issues. Some ofthese were a result ofthe ballast, a component ofa lighting system, being analyzed like a finished consumerproduct like a refrigerator. We understand that for

consumerproducts the end user price is important because the purchasing decision is very price sensitive. Ballasts are a component ofa lighting system, which is purchased by

a commercial orindustrial consumer. They make purchasing decisions based on functionally, energy consumption and return on investment which could be based on simple payback orlife cycle costs. Consumer ballast prices are not accessible and are imbedded in the costs ofthe luminaire and the costs ofthe installation. This would also be true for other component products like motors orpower supplies that are only sold to

consumers as part ofotherfinished products.

The LCC also tried to compare different lighting systems, particularily four foot T12 vs. T8 lighting systems. The marketplace certainly does this and that is the reason for the

success ofthe electronic T8 ballasts. In the case ofthe ballast rule, some ofthe benefits ofthe T8 system are attributable tothe lamps and the luminaire. Although an attempt was made to compensate for these factors they were done in error. DOE does not compare different systems for consumer appliances using gas or electricity even though consumers make this comparison.

My recommendation would be for different efficiency laws orregulations for commercial and industrial products than for consumer products like appliances. Also the energy efficiency ofcomponents such as ballasts, motors, and power supplies should be analyzed

as part ofthe complete system orproduct. For lighting efficiency the best measure for the commercial and industrial user is unit power density (watts per square foot) as specified in ASHRAE/IESNA90.1. This allows the users flexibility to meet their lighting requirements within a specific powerbudget.

The Manufacturers Impact Analysis (MIA) when it was published in 1999 met the ballast industry's expectations. This may be because the DOE contractor onthe MIAalso worked onthe Process Improvement Rule, so they understood what was not done right in the original TSD and earlier revisions. Inthe MIA, the ballast industry had input through the entire process. DOElistened and considered the impact onthe ballast industry suppliers and others manufacturers in the lighting industry. The ballast rule MIA should

serve as a model for the MIA's for otherproduct rulemakings.

Page 2 04/11100The development of the range of electricity prices was done more with 20/20 hindsight

rather than 20/20 foresight. We are rapidly becoming deregulated in the electric utility industry. The DOE EIA estimates for electricity prices barely considered this deregulation. Variable electricity prices were used for sensitivity analysis, but this was based on history rather than future expectations. Further DOE did not recognize the fact that the magnetic ballast purchaser had a lower average electricity price than the average electronic ballast purchaser. As the electric utility industry deregulates more in the future, DOE must rethink how it forecasts electricity prices for future rulemakings.

These comments have been made as an overview of the process and MagneTek is not requesting that any changes be made to any of the analyses. We support the proposed rule and urge its adoption as a final rule.

Page 3 04/11/00 The development ofthe range ofelectricity prices was done more with 20/20 hindsight ratherthan 20/20 foresight. We are rapidly becoming deregulated in the electric utility industry. The DOEEIA estimates for electricity prices barely considered this deregulation. Variable electricity prices were used for sensitivity analysis, but this was based onhistory ratherthan future expectations. FurtherDOE did not recognize the fact thatthe magnetic ballast purchaser had a lower average electricityprice than the average electronic ballast purchaser. As the electric utility industry deregulates more in the future, DOE must rethink how it forecasts electricity prices for future rulemakings.

These comments have been made as an overview ofthe process and MagneTek is not requesting that any changes be made to any ofthe analyses. We supportthe proposed rule and urge its adoption as a final rule.

Page 3 04/11/00