Revised on 4/2 7/2010

9-i 

### CHAPTER 9. SHIPMENTS ANALYSIS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

9.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 9-2 9.2 SHIPMENTS MODEL METH ODOLOGY ....................................................................... 9-2 9.2.1 Analyzed Product Classes, Market Sectors, and Market Segments ..................... 9-2

9.2.1.1 Ballast Failure .................................................................................................. 9-3 9.2.1.2 New Construction/Renovation ......................................................................... 9-4 9.3 BASE

- CASE INPUTS AND FORECASTS ...................................................................... 9-6 9.3.1 Base

- Case Scenarios Analyzed ............................................................................ 9-6 9.3.2 Base

- Case Scenarios ............................................................................................ 9-8

9.3.2.1 Historical Shipments ........................................................................................ 9-9 9.3.2.2 Calculation of Installed Stock in 2006 ........................................................... 9-10 9.3.2.3 Base

- Case Market

- Share Apportionment ...................................................... 9-11 9.3.2.4 Base

- Case Forecast Results ........................................................................... 9-14 9.3.2.5 Base

- Case Forecast by Market Segment ........................................................ 9-18 9.4 STANDARDS

- CASE INPUTS ........................................................................................ 9-21 9.4.1 Shipments Scenarios .......................................................................................... 9-21 9.5 RESULTS ......................................................................................................................... 9-22 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 9-29

LIST OF TABLES

Table 9.2.1. Product Classes and Market Sectors Analyzed in the Shipments Analysis ............. 9-3 Table 9.2.2. Modeled Fluorescent Lamp- and

- Ballast Replacement Trends ................................ 9-4 Table 9.3.1. Total Historical Fluorescent Ballast Shipments (millions) ...................................... 9-9 Table 9.3.2. Historical Fluorescent Ballast Shipments by Estimated Life Event (millions) ..... 9-10 Table 9.3.3. 2006 Ballast Stocks (millions) ............................................................................... 9-11 Table 9.3.4. Weighted Apportionments for Standard- and High- Efficiency 4 -Foot T8 MBP Ballasts ..................................................................................................... 9-12 Table 9.3.5. Base- Case Initial Market

- Share Apportionmen ts for Two -Lamp RS and IS Ballasts Operating 4 -Foot MBP and 2-Foot U-Shaped Lamps (F34T8 Baseline) ............................................................................................................ 9-12 Table 9.3.6. Base- Case Initi al Market -Share Apportionments for Two- Lamp PS Ballasts Operating 4 -Foot MBP and 2-Foot U- Shaped Lamps ....................................... 9-12 Table 9.3.7. Base- Case Initial Market -Share Apportionments for Two-Lamp RS and IS Ballasts Operating 4 -Foot MBP and 2-Foot U-Shaped Lamps (F34T12 Baseline) ............................................................................................................ 9-12 Table 9.3.8. Base- Case Initial Market -Share Apportionments for Four-Lamp RS and IS Ballasts Operating 4 -Foot MBP and 2-Foot U-Shap ed Lamps ......................... 9-13 Table 9.3.9. Base- Case Initial Market -Share Apportionments for Four- Lamp PS Ballasts Operating 4 -Foot MBP and 2-Foot U- Shaped Lamps ....................................... 9-13Revised on 4/2 7/2010

9- ii 

### Table 9.3.10. Base- Case Initial Market -Share Apportionments for Two-Lamp RS and IS Ballasts Operating 8

- Foot RDC HO Lamps (F96T12HO/ES Baseline) ............ 9-13 Table 9.3.11. Base- Case Initial Market -Share Apportionments for Two-Lamp RS and IS Ballasts Operating 8 -Foot RDC HO Lamps (F96T8HO Baseline) ................... 9-13 Table 9.3.12. Base- Case Initial Market -Share Apportionments for Two- Lamp IS Ball asts Operating 8

- Foot Slimline Lamps (F96T12/ES Baseline) ................................. 9-13 Table 9.3.13. Base- Case Initial Market -Share Apportionments for Two- Lamp IS Ballasts Operating 8

- Foot Slimline Lamps (F96T8 Baseline) ........................................ 9-13 Table 9.3.14. Base- Case Initial Market -Share Apportionments for Two- Lamp PS Ballasts Operating 4 -Foot T5 MiniBP SO Lamps ........................................................... 9-14 Table 9.3.15. Base- Case Initial Market -Share Apportionments for Two- Lamp PS Ballasts Operating 4 -Foot T5 MiniBP HO Lamps .......................................................... 9-14 Table 9.3.16. Base- Case Initial Market -Share Apportionments for Two-Lamp RS and IS Ballasts Operating 4 -Foot MBP and 2-Foot U-Shaped Lamps (Low Power Factor, F34T12 Baseline) ................................................................................... 9-14 Table 9.3.17. Base- Case Initial Market -Share Apportionments for Two-Lamp RS and IS Ballasts Operating 4 -Foot MBP and 2-Foot U-Shaped Lamps (Low Power Factor, F34T8 Baseline) ..................................................................................... 9-14 Table 9.3.18. Base- Case Initial Market -Share Apportionments for Four-Lamp RS and IS Ballasts Operating 8 -Foot RDC HO Lamps (Cold Temperature/Sign Ballasts) .............................................................................................................. 9-14 Table 9.5.1. Cumulative Ballast Shipments Impacts by Standard Level, 2014–2044 (Existing Technologies, Shift Scenario) ............................................................ 9-26 Table 9.5.2. Cumulative Ballast Shipments Impacts by Standard Level, 2014–2044 (Emerging Technologies, Roll-up Scenario) ..................................................... 9-27

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 9.3.1. 4-Foot MBP Base- Case Forecasted Ballast Shipments (Existing and Emerging Technologies Scenarios) ................................................................... 9-15 Figure 9.3.2. 8- Foot RDC HO Base

- Case Forecasted Ballast Shipments (Existing and Emerging Technologies Scenarios, Excluding Sign Ballasts) ........................... 9-16 Figure 9.3.3. 8- Foot Slimline Base

- Case Forecasted Ballast Shipments (Existing and Emerging Technology Scenarios) ...................................................................... 9-16 Figure 9.3.4. 4-Foot MiniBP SO and HO Base- Case Forecasted Ballast Shipments (Existing and Emerging Technologies Scenarios) ............................................. 9-17 Figure 9.3.5. Base- Case Forecasted Shipments for Ballasts Operating 4 -Foot MBP Lamps in the Residential Sector (Existing and Emerging Technologies Scenarios) ..... 9-17 Figure 9.3.6. Base- C ase Forecasted Shipments for Sign Ballasts Operating 8 -Foot RDC HO Lamps .......................................................................................................... 9-18 Figure 9.3.7. 4-Foot MBP Base- Case Ballast Shipments Forecast by Market Segment ........... 9-19 Figure 9.3.8. 8- Foot RDC HO Base

- Case Ballast Shipments Forecast by Market Segment .... 9-19 Figure 9.3.9. 8- Foot Slimline Base

- Case Ballast Shipments Forecast by Market Segment ...... 9-20 Figure 9.3.10. 4-Foot MiniBP SO and HO Ballast Shipments Forecast by Market Segment .............................................................................................................. 9-20Revised on 4/2 7/2010

9- iii 

### Figure 9.5.1. 4- Foot MBP Base Ca se and Standards- Case Ballast Shipments Forecasts (Emerging Technologies, Roll- Up Scenario) .................................................... 9-22 Figure 9.5.2. 4- Foot MBP Base Case and Standards- Case Ballast Shipments Forecasts (Existing Technologies, Shift Scenario) ............................................................ 9-23 Figure 9.5.3. 8-Foot RDC HO (including Cold Temperature/Sign) Base Case and Standards- Case Ballast Shipments Forecasts (Existing Technologies, Shift Scenario) ............................................................................................................ 9-23 Figure 9.5.4. 8-Foot RDC HO (including Cold Temperature/Sign) Base Case and Standards- Case Ballast Shipments Forecasts (Emerging Technologies, Roll- Up Scenario) .............................................................................................. 9-24 Figure 9.5.5. 8- Foot Slimline Base Case and Standards

- Case Ballast Shipments Forecasts (Existing Technologies, Shift Scenario) ............................................................ 9-24 Figure 9.5.6. 8- Foot Slimline Base Case and Standards

- Case Ballast Shipments Forecasts (Emerging Technologies, Roll- Up Scenario) .................................................... 9-25 Figure 9.5.7. 4-Foot MiniBP SO and HO Base Case and Standards- Case Ballast Shipments Forecasts (Existing Technologies, Shift Scenario) .......................... 9-25 Figure 9.5.8. 4-Foot MiniBP SO and HO Base Case and Standards- Case Ballast Shipments Forecasts (Emerging Technologies, Roll- Up Scenario) .................. 9-26Revised on 4/2 7/2010

9-2 

### CHAPTER 9. SHIPMENTS ANALYSIS

9.1 INTRODUCTION

Shipments of fluorescent lamp ballast s ( hereafter “ballasts”) are key inputs to the national energy savings (NES) and net present value (NPV) calculations. Shipments are also a necessary input to the manufacturer impact analysis (MIA), which the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) conducts for its n otices of proposed rulemaking (NOPRs). This chapter describes DOE’s methodology for projecting annual shipments and presents initial inputs and results for ballast s.
In the shipments analysis, DOE develops a base

- case shipment forecast for each ballast type to depict what would happen to energy use and consumer costs for the purchase and operation of lamp- and

- ballast system s in the absence of amended Federal energy conservation standards. In determining the base case, DOE considers historical shipments, emerging technologies, the mix of efficiencies sold in the absence of amended standards, and how that mix might change over time. To evaluate the impacts of standards on ballast s, DOE then compares the base

- case projection with forecasts of what could happen if DOE promulgates amended standards (the standards case ). DOE considers multiple shipments scenarios to characterize both the base - and standards- case shipments. To determine the cumulative NES and NPV of standards , DOE compares forecasted shipments of a base to a standards case over the national impact analysis ( NIA ) analysis period, 2014–2044.

The shipments model and the n ational i mpacts model are integrated into a single Microsoft Excel spreadsheet accessible at www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/fluorescent_lamp_ballasts.html

. Appendix 9 A discusse s how to access the spreadsheet and provides basic instructions for its use

. This preliminary technical support document ( TSD ) chapter explains the shipments models. Section 9.2 presents the shipments model methodology for ballast s ; section 9.3 describes the data inputs, historical shipments, base

- case scenarios , and shipments forecasts; section 9.4 discusses the impacts of proposed amended standards on the mix of ballast designs; and section 9.5 presents the shipments results for the different candidate standard levels (CSL s).

9.2 SHIPMENTS MODEL METH ODOLOGY

In general, DOE follow ed a three -step process to forecast ballast shipments . First, DOE used 1990 to 2005 historical shipment data from U.S. Census Bureau data to estimate the total historical shipments of each ballast type analyzed. Second, DOE calculate d an installed stock for each ballast type in 2005 based on the average service lifetime of each ballast type . Third, by modeling ballast purchasing events, suc h as replacement and new construction, and applying growth rate, replacement rate, and emerging technologies penetration rate assumptions , DOE developed annual shipment projections, 2006–2044.

9.2.1 Analyzed Product Classes, Market Sectors, and Market Segments

DOE forecasted annual shipments for the ballast and ma rket sectors presented in Table 9.2.1 . The shipments model analyzes all ballast types at CSLs that assign efficiency levels for each product class.Revised on 4/2 7/2010

9-3 

### Table 9.2.1. Product Classes and Market Sectors Analyzed in the Shipments Analysis
Product Class Baseline Market Sectors Two

- L amp Rapid

- s tart (RS) and Instant

- S tart (IS) Ballasts Operating 4

- F oot Medium Bipin (MBP) and 2

- F oot U

- Shaped Lamps F32T8 Commercial

Two

- L amp Programmed

- Start (PS) Ballasts Operating 4

- F oot MBP and 2

- F oot U- Shaped Lamps F32T8 Commercial

Two

- L amp RS and IS Ballasts Operating 4

- F oot MBP and 2

- F oot U

- S haped Lamps F34T12 Commercial Four

- L amp RS and IS Ballasts Operating 4

- F oot MBP and 2

- F oot U

- S haped Lamps F32T8 Commercial Four

- L amp PS Ballasts Operating 4

- Foot MBP and 2

- F oot U

- Shaped Lamps F32T8 Commercial Two

- L amp RS and IS Ballasts Operating 8

- F oot Recessed Double Contact (RDC) High

- O utput (HO) Lamps F96T12HO/ ES Industrial

Two

- L amp RS and IS Ballasts Operating 8

- F oot RDC HO Lamps F96T8HO Industrial Two

- L amp IS Ballasts Operating 8

- F oot Single Pin Slimline (Slimline) Lamps F96T12ES Commercial Two

- L amp IS Ballasts Operating 8

- F oot Slimline Lamps F96T8 Commercial Two

- L amp PS Ballasts Operating 4

- F oot T5 Miniature Bipin (MiniBP) Standard Output (SO) Lamps F28T5 Commercial

Two

- L amp PS Ballasts Operating 4

- F oot T5 MiniBP HO Lamps F54T5HO Industrial Two

- L amp RS and IS Ballasts Operating 4

- F oot MBP Lamps (Residential, Low

- P ower Factor) F34T12 Residential

Two

- L amp RS and IS Ballasts Operating 4

- F oot MBP Lamps (Residential, Low -P ower Factor) F32T8 Residential

Four

- L amp RS and IS Ballasts Operating 8

- F oot RDC HO Lamps (Cold Temperature/Sign Ballasts) F96T12HO Commercial Industrial



### In its shipments model , DOE consider s specific market segments (“ ballast purchase events”) to develop estimates of annual shipments. These two market segments correspond to th e ballast purchase events that DOE uses in the life

- cycle cost ( LCC ) and payback period ( PBP ) analys e s (preliminary TSD c hapter 8). These include ballast failure (Event I) and new construction/renovation (Event II ). For each market segment, DOE makes certain assumptions about how consumers are likely to purchase new ballasts or lamp

- and

- ballast systems. DOE uses these purchasing assumptions to develop the ballast shipment forecasts.

9.2.1.1 Ballast Failure

For those consumer purchase s triggered by a ballast failure, DOE assumes that the consumer will purchase a ballast identical to the one that has retired, if it is available. If in the standards case , the base

- case ballast design is not standards-compliant (and therefore unavailabl e as a replacement option ), then DOE assumes consumers will purchase anew, standardscompliant lamp

- and

- ballast system from the same product class such that the system light output, if possible, never drops below 10 percent of the baseline system. In some instances this means a single ballast is replaced with two ballasts ( e.g. , replacing one two -lamp, 8- foot slimline lamp

and

- ballast system with two two -lamp, 4-foot MBP lamp

- and

- ballast systems)

. Table 9.2.2 below presents a full listing of the modeled lamp

- and

- ballast system replacement trends.Revised on 4/2 7/2010

9-4 

### Table 9.2.2. Modeled Fluorescent Lamp -and- Ballast Replacement Trends Retired Lamp

- and

- Ballast System Replacement Lamp

- and

- Ballast System 4

- f oot T12 e lectronic MBP (commercial sector) 87.5% 4

- f oot T8 MBP 12.5% 4

- f oot T5 MiniBP SO 4

- f oot T12 e lectronic MBP (residential sector) r eplace in kind 4

- f oot T8 MBP (commercial sector) 87.5 % r eplace in kind 12.5% 4

- f oo t T5 MiniBP SO 4

- f oot T8 MBP (residential sector) r eplace in kind 8

- f oot T12 s limline 10% 8

- f oot T8 s limline 10% r eplace in kind 80% two 4

- f oot T8 MBPs 8

- f oot T8 s limline r eplace in kind 8

- f oot T12 RDC HO 80% two 4

- f oot T5 MiniBP HO s ystems 20% 8

- f oot T8 RDC HO 8

- f oot T8 RDC HO 80% two 4

- f oot T5 MiniBP HO s ystems 20% r eplace in kind 4

- f oot T5 MiniBP SO r eplace in kind 4

- f oot T5 MiniBP HO r eplace in kind 8

- f oot T12 m agnetic RDC HO ( c old t emp erature / s ign b allasts) r eplace in kind



### DOE establishes the timing of ballast replacements in response to ballast failure by tracking ballast shipments and then predicting when these ballasts are expected to retire based on their service lifetime. DOE recognizes that ballast lifetimes vary , but was unable to identify an industry consensus on failure distribution s for different ballast designs. For the preliminary analyses, DOE modeled ballasts as having zero failures until the last three years of their service lifetime, in which failure s were dis tributed as follows:

**•** 

### Second

- to

- last year: 25 percent of ballasts fail

**•** 

### Next

- to

- last year: 33 percent of remaining ballasts fail

**•** 

### Last year: all remaining ballasts fail.

DOE invites additional comment on the distribution of expected failure rates throughout b allast lifetime s.
DOE calculated average commercial and industrial ballast service lifetime s by dividing the average ballast lifetime in hours (established in the LCC) by average annual operating hours. As noted in the preliminary TSD chapter 8, t he service life in the commercial

, residential , and industrial sectors is assumed as approximately 15 years , 15 years

, and 10 year s , respectively

.
9.2.1.2 New Construction /Renovation

For consumer purchases triggered by new construction and renovation, DOE begins by assuming that consumers may purchase new lamp- and

- ballast systems to service their particular lumen demand from within their current product class. DOE therefore produces initial shipment estimates due to new construction and renovation by deriving growth rates for each product class. The growth rates are based on EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 2009 ( AEO2009 ), 1

, 2 

### which estimates annual commercial floor space and residential building growth. Because the AEO2009 considers future trends in economic growth, DOE incorporated macroeconomic conditions in itsRevised on 4/2 7/2010

9-5 

### growth forecasts. However, because the AEO does not provide industrial floor space forecasts, DOE used historical MECS floor space values to establish a growth rate for the industrial sector. For the commercial and industrial sector, DOE assumes that the intensity of ballasts per unit of floor space remains constant ( i.e. , sector growth rates are assumed to be the only source of overall growth in the ballasts market). For the residential sector, DO E assumes a slight growth rate in intensity over time. DOE invites further comment on future growth rates for the ballasts industry overall.

However, for several product classes DOE research indicates that the ballasts market is moving in a particular direction. In such instances, DOE adjusts its forecasted growth rates for particular ballast types accordingly. In almost all cases DOE’s approach is to make these adjustments by substituting growth in one product class for another, without adjusting the ov erall number of forecasted shipments. The only exception is that wherever ballasts operating 4-foot lamps replace ballasts operating 8-foot lamps , DOE assumes this occurs at a 2:1 ratio. In determining what shipment trends to assume for this rulemaking, DO E references its previous analysis of fluorescent lamp

- and

- ballast shipments , performed as part of its proposed rulemaking for general service fluorescent and incandescent reflector lamps (GSFL/IRL; hereafter “the lamps rulemaking”).

For the commercial se ctor, h istorical lamps shipment data and manufacturer interviews indicate significant growth for only 4-foot T8 MBP and 4- foot T5 MiniBP SO systems; consequently, DOE models all purchases due to new construction in the commercial sector as being one of the se two lamp

- and

- ballast systems. DOE model s commercial sector 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO and HO shipment growth based on a migration from other product classes. DOE’s research indicate s that shipment growth of 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO ballasts is primarily driven by a migration from the 4 -foot MBP market. As this migration requires the purchase of a new fixture, to establish 4 -foot MiniBP T5 SO shipments, DOE allotted a portion of what would otherwise be the 4 -foot MBP fixture new construction/renovation market to 4-foot T5 MiniBP systems. In the proposed lamps rulemaking , DOE first calculated the size of this potential market for new 4 -foot T5 MiniBP SO systems in each year. DOE then determined the portion of this market that would be serviced by 4

- foot T5 MiniBP SO systems by calculating the share that resulted in T5 shipments consistent with 2006 and 2007 data. For the ballasts shipments model, DOE holds th e resulting percentage—approximately 12.5 percent of the new construction/renovation market— constant throughout the analysis period.

In the industrial sector, confidential historical shipments show a declining number of 8-foot RDC HO lamps. Therefore, DOE assumes all system purchases due to new construction in the industrial sect or are 4 -foot T5 MiniBP HO systems (another rapidly growing market). In the proposed lamps rulemaking, DOE developed 4- foot T5 MiniBP HO ballast shipments by modeling a migration from two different lighting markets. Similar to 8

- foot RDC HO systems, market ing literature indicates a large portion of 4 -foot MiniBP T5 HO systems serve high- bay applications due to their highly concentrated light output. Historical shipment data for 8-foot RDC HO lamps shows substantial declines in 2006 and 2007, indicating T5 H O systems may be rapidly displacing 8-foot RDC HO systems. In addition, DOE’s research indicated that a significant portion of 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO growth can be attributed to their penetration into the high intensity discharge (HID) lamp high- and low- bay markets. Therefore, to calculate the growth in 4- foot MiniBP T5 HO ballast shipments, DOE assumed that these systems wereRevised on 4/2 7/2010

9-6 

### penetrating both the 8- foot RDC HO and HID markets. Similar to its analysis for T5 SO systems, DOE established that the new constructi on/renovation market segment represents the available market for 4 -foot MiniBP T5 HO systems. DOE obtained HID shipment data from the HID determination, from which DOE calculated the total lumens servicing low bay and high bay applications. C onsistent with historical 4 -foot T5 MiniBP HO and 8-foot RDC HO shipments, DOE assumed 4

- foot T5 MiniBP HO systems fully penetrate the 8

- foot RDC HO new construction/renovation market segment as well as the HID new construction/renovation market segment. These same assu mptions are applied in the proposed ballast rulemaking.

For the residential sector, m anufacturer interviews indicate that the majority of new residential 4-foot MBP fixtures use T8 MBP systems. Consequently, DOE models only 4-foot T8 MBP lamp

- and

- ballast s ystems for new construction in the residential sector and, based on the proposed lamps rulemaking analysis, assumes a 1 percent annual growth rate in floorspace intensity for these shipments.

9.3 BASE

- CASE INPUTS AND FORECASTS

This section describes the two ba se

- case scenarios DOE employs in its analysis and the base

- case input market

- share apportioning for ballast s and presents the base

- case forecasts for each ballast type along with historical ballast shipments data

.
9.3.1 Base- Case Scenarios Analyzed

DOE reco gnizes that rapidly emerging new lighting technologies could penetrate the fluorescent lighting market and significantly affect ballast shipment forecasts. These technologies, such as ceramic metal halide (CMH) and light

- emitting diodes (LEDs) already are or eventually will be significantly more efficacious and longer lasting than the sources they replace. If these emerging technologies achieve their potential, they may significantly affect the benefit calculations from efficiency standards. However, to calculate NES and NPV change d ue to emerging technologies, DOE would need to accurately forecast the anticipated price and performance points of each emerging technology, a difficult and highly speculative task. Because of th is high degree of uncertainly, DOE considered two base- case scenarios for ballast s : e xisting technologies and e merging technologies. DOE believes evaluating two base- case scenarios will more completely and transparently characterize the uncertainty in estimating emerging technologies’ market penetration and the consequent impact on NPV and NES. Incorporating emerging technologies in the base case does not affect the relative benefits of each CSL and prevents uncertain projections of market share, price, or performance from obscuring the benefits derived from more efficient ballast designs alone.

The assumptions and methodology that drive these scenarios and the details specific to each are described in section s 9.3.2 and 9.3.3 , respectively. In general, DOE calculated the market penetration of each of the analyzed emerging technologies annually 2006–2045, assessing each sector separately. DOE determined the market penetration of the technology option that achieved the highest level of penetration in each year in each secto r. DOE then decreased the analyzed market size in each year in each sector by th e amount that corresponded to the highest level of market penetration achieved by a technology.Revised on 4/2 7/2010

9-7 

### For its base- case analysis, DOE estimated the market penetration of two specific technologies into the projected installed stock: LED systems and CMH systems . In general, the Existing Technologies scenario considers only the market penetration of technologies that have reached maturation in terms of price and efficiency

. Because LED and CMH systems are assumed to have not yet reached maturation , no technologies outside those covered by this rulemaking were analyzed in the e xisting technologies scenario.

In the e merging technologies scenario, DOE attempts to forecast the market penetration of both mature technologies and those technologies that are still undergoing significant changes in price and efficiency . Specifically, DOE considered the market penetration of LED syste ms and CMH systems in the e merging technologies scenario.

DOE generally followed a five

- step process for each scenario to estimate the market penetration of the analyzed emerging technologies and account for their impact on NES and NPV. First, DOE develop ed price, performance, and efficiency forecasts for each of the analyzed emerging technologies. Second, using those estimates, DOE calculated the PBP of each technology in the relevant sector using the difference between its purchase price, annual electric ity cost, and annual r eplacement cost relative to the fluorescent lamp

- and

- ballast system it replaces. Specifically, DOE uses the following formula to calculate simple PBP:

($/klm/yr) Costt Replacemen A nnual ($/klm/yr) Costy Electricit Annual ($/klm) Price Purchase Payback Simple **∆+ ∆**  **∆−**

**=**



### Where:

Δ = the difference between the two technology optio ns compared

, Purchase Price = includes the lamp price and fixture price

, Annual Electricity Cost =
a function of the mean annual operating hours and efficiency for each technology option, the electricity price, and the lumen demand

, and Annual Replacement Cost = a function of the mean ballast li fe, annual operating hours, ballast price, and labor charge.

Third, DOE used the relationship between PBP and market penetration to predict the market penetration of each technology in the relevant sector annually 2006–2044. The relationship, which was used to estimate the penetration of solid- state lighting in a DOE report, predicts the market penetration based on the PBP of a technology. DOE assumed this relationship is valid for other emerging lighting technolog ies ( i.e. , given a PBP duration, a technology will achieve a certain market penetration ; the gr eater the PBP, the greater the expected market penetration ). DOE used a 5- year average of the market penetrations predicted by the relationship as its final mark et penetration. The 5

- year average represents the time DOE assumed it takes products with lower PBPs to penetrate the market.

Fourth, when necessary, DOE applied a scaling factor to the predicted market penetration to account for observed market trends. Fifth, as stated above, DOE reduced the projectedRevised on 4/2 7/2010

9-8 

### installed stock of covered products in each year by the value that corresponded to the highest level of market penetration achieved in each year by one of the analyzed technologies. Thus, emerging technologies have the effect of lowering the energy savings of a potential new standard. For those covered ballasts remaining, the cost effectiveness of LCC savings (and thus the relative cost effectiveness of each C SL ) is not impacted

.
9.3.2 Base- Case Scenarios

For the e xisting t echnologies scenario, DOE analyzes only the fluorescent ballast technologies covered by the rulemaking because it believes that no mature technologies in the current market show the potential to penetrate the fluorescent ballast market significant ly

. (A rapidly growing market, T5 systems are considered in the analysis as covered products ). In the e merging technolog ies scenario, however, DOE separately considered the potential market penetration of two technologies: LED (into the commercial, residential, and industrial sectors ) and CMH (into the commercial and industrial sectors).

This rulemaking references DOE’s previous analysis of LED market penetration, performed as part of the proposed lamps rulemaking. In its analysis, DOE found a commercially available retrofit kit that included a LED replacement for a 4 -foot MBP lamp

- and

- ballast system. DOE used the retrofit kit as a current baseline from which to project future cost, efficiency and price points. DOE interviewed an integrated circuit manufacturer to develop cost estimates for LED driver circuits. For cost estimates of other components, DOE used prices of existing LED products already on the market, which it modified in accordance with cost data and efficiency projections from DOE’s Solid State Lighting Multi

- Year Program Plan. 3 

### A fter applying a markup based on currently available LED lamps, DOE arrived at price and efficiency projections for the LED luminaire in the retrofit kit

. Because they are based on an existing LED retrofit kit, DOE’s projections did not consider innovations in form factor or OLED technology t hat could improve the possible P BP for solid

- state lighting technologies

. For further detail on DOE’s price and efficiency forecasts of potential LED replacements, see appendix 10C of the GSFL/IRL NOPR TSD. 4



### In this rulemaking, DOE also analyzed the potential penetration of CMH into the fluorescent lighting market. DOE first estimated current CMH prices using a methodology similar to the methodology it used to estimate GSFL and IRL prices . Industry experts informed DOE that CMH efficiencies and lifetimes would increase over the next several years while prices would remain constant. Applying these lifetime and efficiency projections, DOE compared CMH replacements to GSFL systems. As a result , DOE assumed no market penetration of CMH into T5 systems because it found that T5 lamp systems (standard output and high output) would always be less costly and more efficacious than projected CMH replacements. Given this information, DOE believes that it is likely that migration to CMH (from the GSFL market) will be instead dominated by the migration to standard and high output T5 lamps. Following the five

- step process described above, DOE calculated a 41 percent market penetration rate of LED lamps into the 4 -foot fluorescent system commercial sector by 2044. In the residential sector, the LED option did not have a low enough PBP to result in any market penetration. DOE assumed LED systems penetrated only the new construction/renovation market because these systems would require their own specific fix tures.Revised on 4/2 7/2010

9-9 

### 9.3.2.1 Historical Shipments

DOE used U.S. Census Bureau Current Industrial Reports (CIR) for ballast s to estimate historical shipments for affected ballast design s. 5

, 6



### DOE estimated historical ballast shipments for 1990–2005. T his time period encompasses the longest ballast service life considered in the shipments analysis ( i.e. , 15 years for ballasts in the residential sector) and ends with the last full year of shipments data from Current Industrial Reports for fluorescent ballasts (CIRs for ballasts were discontinued in 2006). For those reporting years for which specific shipments data were not available, DOE extrapolated historical shipments based on trends within the availabl e data, and/or market trends identified in ballast manufacturer interviews, the proposed lamps rulemaking

, and the Fluorescent Ballasts Energy Conservation Standards Final Rule published on September 19, 2000 (hereafter “the 2000 Ballast Rule” ). 65 FR 56740; 10 CFR 430.23(m)(4). Where shipments data were aggregated and not available for specific ballast designs , DOE es timated historical shipments based on apportionment estimates and market trends identified in ballast manufacturer interviews , the proposed lamps rulemaking and the 2000 Ballast Rule. To validate these estimation methods, DOE requested historical ballast and residential fixture shipments from NEMA but was un able to obtain this data. T he census data contain NEMA shipments for individual ballast designs ( e.g ., 2- lamp F96T8 ) as well as aggregated shipments for multiple designs to keep manufacturer information confidential. For some ballast designs, all shipments are withheld to prevent disclosing data for individual companies.

Recognizing that shipment estimates based on CIR data reflect only the shipments of NEMA members, DOE increases these estimates to account for the volume of ballasts that nonNE MA companies import or manufacture. Based on ballast manufacturer interviews and conservative estimates , NEMA shipments were assumed to account for 50 –90 percent of total ballast shipments, depending on the ballast design. Table 9.3.1 provides historical fluorescent ballast shipments estimates for the entire U.S. market.

Table 9.3.1. Total Historical Fluorescent Ballast S hipments (millions)
Year 4

- F oot T8 MBP 4

- F oot T12 MBP 8

- F oot T8 S limline 8

- F oot T12 S limline 8

- F oot T8 RDC HO 8

- F oot T12 RDC HO 4

- F oot T5 MiniBP SO 4

- F oot T5 MiniBP HO Total

1990 11.3 7.6 0.1 1.0 0.1 3.1 0.0 0.0 23.2 1991 24.6 8.7 0.2 1.0 0.1 3.1 0.0 0.0 37.8 1992 36.3 9.3 0.4 1.0 0.1 3.5 0.0 0.0 50.5 1993 58.4 9.3 0.7 0.9 0.1 3.6 0.0 0.0 73.0 1994 51.9 7.9 0.6 0.9 0.1 3.7 0.0 0.0 65.0 1995 70.5 6.7 1.0 0.9 0.1 3.8 0.0 0.0 83.1 1996 67.2 6.1 0.9 0.9 0.1 3.5 0.0 0.0 78.7 1997 79.3 6.3 1.1 0.7 0.1 3.2 0.0 0.0 90.7 1998 85.8 6.1 1.1 0.7 0.1 2.8 0.0 0.0 96.4 1999 88.6 6.1 1.1 0.6 0.1 3.7 0.0 0.0 100.2 2000 99.8 5.8 1.3 0.6 0.1 3.2 0.0 0.0 110.9 2001 116.1 5.4 1.7 0.6 0.1 3.1 0.0 0.0 127.1 2002 118.8 5.2 1.7 0.6 0.1 3.2 0.9 0.9 131.5 2003 116.4 3.9 1.4 0.5 0.1 3.2 1.9 1.9 129.3 2004 118.6 2.7 1.3 0.5 0.1 3.2 3.2 3.2 133.0 2005 114.4 1.3 1.4 0.5 0.1 3.3 3.4 3.4 127.8Revised on 4/2 7/2010

9- 10 

### 9.3.2.2 Calculation of Installed Stock in 2006

Based on historical ballast shipments estimated from U.S. Census Bureau CIR data, DOE calculates the 2006 ballast stock . In a mature market, DOE typically estimates the installed stock at the beginning of an analysis period by summing the historical shipments f or the years that correspond to the service lifetime ( i.e. , the lifetime in hours divided by operating hours per year) of each ballast type for every sector

. However, the historical ballasts shipment data Table 9.3.1 reflect a remarkable 450 percent growth over 15 years, from 23.2 million ballasts in 1990 to 127.8 million ballasts in 2005. In the absence of clear data on historical ballasts stock, DOE judged that this very strong growth in ballasts shipments was unlikely to reflect equivalent growth in ballasts stock, and would likely not persist through 2044. Rather, DOE assumed that some portion of this very strong growth in shipment was likely due to early retirement of ballasts, consistent with the development of several improved ballasts technologies in the 1990–2005 period.

DOE conservatively assumed that the historical stock of ballasts actually grew by only 2 percent over the period 1990–2005 ( Table 9.3.2 ) and that the remainder of the strong growth in fluorescent lamp ballasts shipments was due to technology-induced retrofits. Accordingly

, DOE calculates the installed stock in 2006 as the est imated share of historical shipments that are not due to technology-induced retrofits. DOE then extrapolated an adjusted shipments estimate by taking the difference between the 1990 –2005 shipments growth rates and the assumed 2 percent growth rate of histo rical stock.

Table 9.3.2. H istorical Fluorescent Ballast Shipments by Estimated Life Event (millions)

Year Historical Shipments Estimated Number of Early Retirement Shipments Adjusted Shipments

Estimate Total Growth Rate

% Assumed Historical Stock

Growth Rate % 1990 23.2 unknown unknown unknown 23.2 1991 37.8 63 2 14. 1 23.7 1992 50.5 34 2 12.0 38.5 1993 73.0 45 2 33.7 39.3 1994 65.0

- 11 2 24.9 40.1 1995 83.1 28 2 42.2 40.9 1996 78.7

- 5 2 37.0 41.7 1997 90.7 15 2 48.1 42.5 1998 96.4 6 2 53.0 43.4 1999 100.2 4 2 56.0 44.3 2000 110.9 11 2 65.7 45.1 2001 127.1 15 2 81.0 46.0 2002 131.5 3 2 84.5 47.0 2003 129.3

- 2 2 81.4 47.9 2004 133.0 3 2 84.1 48.9 2005 127.8

- 4 2 78.0 49.8Revised on 4/2 7/2010

9- 11 

### DOE then produced stock estimates by summing backwards from 2005 and applying ballast product lifetimes to this adjusted shipments estimate. T o accurately forecast ballast shipments, DOE assumed a ballast age distribution for the installed ballast stocks using trends in ballast shipments, calibrated to the available shipment data

. Table 9.3.3 provides ballast stocks in 2006 for all analyzed ballast types

.

Table 9.3.3. 2006 Ballast Stocks (millions) System Type 4

- F oot T8 MBP 4

- F oot T12 MBP 8

- F oot T8 Slimline 8

- F oot T12 Slimline 8

- F oot T8 RDC HO 8

- F oot T12 RDC HO 4

- F oot T5 MiniBP SO 4

- F oot T5 MiniBP

HO Stock 1,131 73 15 9 1 38 12 10 First y ear of s ervice 46 2 1 0 0 3 2 1 Halfway through

s ervice l ifetime 82 6 1 1 0 3 0 0

Last y ear of s ervice 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0



### 9.3.2.3 Base- Case Market

- Share Apportionment

As discussed in the engineering analysis ( preliminary TSD chapter 5) and the LCC and PBP analys e s ( preliminary TSD chapter 8), consumers have a variety of choices in replacement ballasts and lamp

- and

- ballast systems. When choosing lighting systems, consumers often make their choices considering attributes such as lifetime, efficiency , price, lumen output, rated wattage, and total system power. DOE captures these considerations by designing product classes which account for these consumer preferences. As discussed earlier, the shipments for ballasts depend on such input assumptions as ballast lifetime and system lumen output. In addition, other ballast or lamp

- and

- ballast system properties s uch as price and energy consumption are key inputs to the NES and NPV calculations. Therefore, within each product class, DOE believes it is necessary to directly account for the mix of technologies that consumers select in the base and standards case . To account for the range of possible consumer choices, DOE develops technology market- share apportionments . These market

- share apportionments are used to estimate historical shipments and installed stock for each ballast design in the base and standards case

. As discussed in the NIA ( preliminary TSD chapter 10), the base - and standardscase efficiency forecasts also depend on the market- share apportionments.

DOE was not able to obtain detailed historical ballast shipment data from NEMA to develop percentage ma rket shares for the analyzed ballast designs. However, based on manufacturer interviews, DOE was able to develop a general assumed market

- share apportionment based on shipments of 4-foot T8 MBP electronic ballasts. Interviewed manufacturers provided estima ted percentages of standard

- efficiency and high

- efficiency T8 ballasts sold through OEM fixture and electrical wholesaler distribution channels. As presented in Table 9.3.4 , DOE developed weighted apportionment s for the two efficiency levels. Specifically, DOE assumes that 69 percent of shipped 4- foot T8 MBP electronic ballasts are standard -efficiency designs, and 31 percent are high

- efficiency designs.Revised on 4/2 7/2010

9- 12 

### Table 9.3.4. Weighted Apportionments for Standar d- and High- Efficiency 4 -Foot T8 MBP Ballasts Ballast Efficiency Shipments through Distribution Channel % Fixture OEM Electrical Wholesaler Weighted Average Standard 80 50 69 High 20 50 31 Overall v olume t hrough d istribution c hannel * 63 37 100

* Pecentages from the 2000 Ballast Rule

. 

### DOE believes that this apportionment is a reasonable estimate for the other ballast product classes analyzed in the base

- case shipments model, as it reflects the assumed tendency of
most consumers to minimize their first cost and select standard

- efficiency designs if not otherwise required. Consequently, for each product class in the base case, DOE apportions 69 percent of s hipments to the baseline ballast design, and divides the remaining 31 percent of shipments ( i.e. , the high-efficiency apportionment) evenly among the CSL designs. Table 9.3.5 through Table 9.3.18 illustrate the base

- case market

- share apportionments for ballast designs in each product class

.

Table 9.3.5. Base- Case Initial Market

- Share Apportionments for Two -L amp RS and IS Ballasts Operating 4- Foot MBP and 2

- Foot U -Shaped Lamps (F34T8 Baseline)
CSL For Operation Of Ballast Efficacy Factor (BEF) Stock in 2015 %
Baseline * 2 F32T8 Lamps 1.450 69
1 2 F32T8 Lamps 1.528 1 6
2 2 F32T8 Lamps 1.548 1 6

* Baseline meets CSL1 efficacy requirements in this product category.



### Table 9.3.6. Base- Case Initial Market

- Share Apportionments for Two -Lamp PS Ballasts Operating 4 -Foot MBP and 2-Foot U- Shaped Lamps
CSL For Operation Of BEF Stock in 2015 %
Baseline 2 F32T8 Lamps 1.424 69
1 2 F32T8 Lamps 1.515 31



### Table 9.3.7. Base- Case Initial Market

- Share Apportionments for Two -Lam p RS and IS Ballasts Operating 4-Foot MBP and 2-F oot U

- Shaped Lamps (F34T12 Baseline)
CSL For Operation Of BEF Stock in 2015 %
Baseline 2 F34T12 Lamps 1.359 69
1 2 F32T8 Lamps 1.450 10
2 2 F32T8 Lamps 1.528 1 0
3 2 F32T8 Lamps 1.548 1 0Revised on 4/2 7/2010

9- 13 

### Table 9.3.8. Base- Case Initial Market

- Share Apportionments for Four -L amp RS and IS Ballasts Operating 4-Foot MBP and 2-F oot U

- Shaped Lamps
CSL For Operation Of BEF Stock in 2015 %
Baseline 4 F32T8 Lamps 0.751 69
1 4 F32T8 Lamps 0.757 31



### Table 9.3.9. Base- Case Initial Market

- Share Apportionments for Four -Lamp PS Ballasts Operating 4 -Foot MBP and 2-Foot U- Shaped Lamps
C SL For Operation Of BEF Stock in 2015 %
Baseline 4 F32T8 Lamps 0.719 69
1 4 F32T8 Lamps 0.758 31



### Table 9.3.10. Base- Case Initial Market

- Share Apportionments for Two -L amp RS and IS Ballasts Operating 8-F oot RDC HO Lamps (F96T12HO/ES Baseline)
C SL For Operation Of BEF Stock in 2015 %
Baseline 2 F96T12ES/HO Lamps 0.422 69
1 2 F96T12ES/HO Lamps 0.500 10
2 2 F96T8HO Lamps 0.550 10
3 2 F96T8HO Lamps 0.563 10



### Table 9.3.11. Base- Case Initial Market

- Share Apportionments for Two -L amp RS and IS Ballasts Operating 8- Foot RDC HO Lamps (F96T8HO Baseline)
C SL For Operation Of BEF Stock in 2015 %
Baseline * 2 F96T8HO Lamps 0.550 69
1 2 F96T8HO Lamps 0.563 3 1

* Baseline meets CSL1 efficacy requirements in this product category.



### Table 9.3.12. Base- Case Initial Market

- Share Apportionments for Two -Lamp IS Ballasts Operating 8 -Foot Slimline Lamps (F96T12/ES Baseline)
C SL For Operation Of BEF Stock in 2015 %
Baseline 2 F96T12ES Lamps 0.797 69
1 2 F96T12ES Lamps 0.807 31



### Table 9.3.13. Base- Case Initial Market

- Share Apportionments for Two -Lamp IS Ballasts Operating 8 -Foot Slimline Lamps (F96T8 Baseline)
C SL For Operation Of BEF Stock in 2015 %
Baseline 2 F96T8 Lamps 0.789 69
1 2 F96T8 Lamps 0.810 31Revised on 4/2 7/2010

9- 14 

### Table 9.3.14. Base- Case Initial Market

- Share Apportionments for Two -Lamp PS Ballasts Operating 4 -Foot T5 MiniBP SO Lamps
C SL For Operation Of BEF Stock in 2015 %
Baseline 2 F28T5 Lamps 1.309 69
1 2 F28T5 Lamps 1.570 16
2 2 F28T5 Lamps 1.624 16



### Table 9.3.15. Base- Case Initial Market

- Share Apportionments for Two -Lamp PS Ballasts Operating 4 -F oot T5 MiniBP HO Lamps
C SL For Operation Of BEF Stock in 2015 %
Baseline 2 F54T5HO Lamps 0.688 69
1 2 F54T5HO Lamps 0.791 16
2 2 F54T5HO Lamps 0.829 16



### Table 9.3.16. Base- Case Initial Market

- Share Apportionments for Two -L amp RS and IS Ballasts Operating 4- Foot MBP and 2

- Foot U -Shaped Lamps (Low Power Factor , F34T12 Baseline )
C SL For Operation Of BEF Stock in 2015 %
Baseline 2 F34T12 Lamps 1.277 69
1 2 F32T8 Lamps 1.470 16
2 2 F32T8 Lamps 1.505 16



### Table 9.3.17. Base- Case Initial Market

- Share Apportionments for Two -L amp RS and IS Ballasts Operating 4-Foot MBP and 2-F oot U

- Shaped Lamps (Low Power Factor , F34T8 Baseline )
C SL For Operation Of BEF Stock in 2015 %
Baseline* 2 F32T8 Lamps 1.470 6 9
1 2 F32T8 Lamps 1.505 31

* Baseline meets CSL1 efficacy requirements in this product category.



### Table 9.3.18. Base- Case Initial Market

- Share Apportionments for Four -L amp RS and IS Ballasts Operating 8-F oot RDC HO Lamps (Cold Temperature/Sign Ballasts)
C SL For Operation Of BEF Stock in 2015 %
Baseline 4 F96T12HO Lamps 0.167 69
1 4 F96T12HO Lamps 0.250 31



### 9.3.2.4 Base- Case Forecast Results

Figure 9.3.1 through Figure 9.3.4 8 present the base

- case ballast shipments forecasts from 2014–2044, modeled from the 2006 installed stock (based on 1990–2005 historical shipments ) and growth rates as explained in section 9.2.1.2

.Revised on 4/2 7/2010

9- 15 

### Because DOE forecasts lower future growth rates in the ballast marketplace than are evidenced in historical shipments , replacements of initial stock make up a relatively large share of the total number of ballasts shipments in DOE’s forecast. Therefore as the initial stock of ballasts reach the end of their lifetime and are replaced, a surge in replacement shipments emerges that mimics the shape of the initial growth in the industry. This pat tern is repeated throughout the analysis period as subsequent generations of replacement ballasts also reach the end s of their lifetimes and are in turn replaced. This would be even more dramatic if DOE did not adjust for technology-induced retrofits, as e xplained in section 9.3.2.2

. This cyclical pattern in shipments also reflects DOE assumptions about the distribution of ballast lifetimes (section 9.2.1.1 ). Also note that shipments of T12 ballasts are near zero during the analysis period because they are being substituted by T8 ballasts.

For categories of ballasts expected to experience penetration by LED lamps and other emerging technologies ( 4-foot MBP category, and the combined 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO and HO categories), separate shipments forecasts are presented in this section for the existing and

e merging technologies scenarios. For other ballast categories , only one forecast is provided which corresponds to the existing and e merging t echnologies base cases.

0 10,000,000 20,000,000 30,000,000 40,000,000 50,000,000 60,000,000 70,000,000 80,000,000 90,000,000 100,000,000

2014 2019 2024 2029 2034 2039 2044Shipments

Year

4

- foot T8 MBP Base

- Case Existing Tech Forecast
4

- foot T12 MBP Base

- Case Existing Tech Forecast
4

- foot T8 MBP Base

- Case Emerging Tech Forecast
4

- foot T12 MBP Base

- Case Emerging Tech Forecast



### Figure 9.3.1. 4-Foot MBP Base- Case Forecasted Ball ast Shipments (Existing and Emerging Technologies Scenarios)Revised on 4/2 7/2010

9-16 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000

2014 2019 2024 2029 2034 2039 2044Shipments

Year

8

- foot T8 RDC HO Base

- Case Forecast 8

- foot T12 RDC HO Base

- Case Forecast



### Figure 9.3.2 8-F oot RDC HO Base -Case Forecasted Ballast Shipments ( Existing and Emerging Technologies Scenarios , Excluding Sign Ballasts)

0 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000

2014 2019 2024 2029 2034 2039 2044Shipments

Year

8

- foot T8 Slimline Base

- Case Forecast 8

- foot T12 Slimline Base

- Case Forecast



### Figure 9.3.3. 8-F oot Slimline Base -Case Forecasted Ballast Shipments (Existing and Emerging Technology Scenario s)Revised on 4/2 7/2010

9- 17 0 5,000,000 10,000,000 15,000,000 20,000,000 25,000,000 30,000,000 35,000,000 40,000,000 45,000,000

2014 2019 2024 2029 2034 2039 2044Shipments

Year

4

- foot T5 MiniBP SO Base

- Case Existing Tech Forecast

4

- foot T5 MiniBP SO Base

- Case Emerging Tech Forecast

4

- foot T5 MiniBP HO Base

- Case Existing Tech Forecast



### Figure 9.3.4. 4-Foot MiniBP SO and HO Base-Case Forecasted Ballast Shipments ( Existing and Emerging Technologies Scenarios)

0 5,000,000 10,000,000 15,000,000 20,000,000 25,000,000 30,000,000 35,000,000

2014 2019 2024 2029 2034 2039 2044Shipments

Year

4

- foot T8 MBP Base

- Case Forecast 4

- foot T12 MBP Base

- Case Forecast



### Figure 9.3.5. Base- Case Forecasted Shipments for Ballasts Operating 4- Foot MBP Lamps in the Residential Sector (Existing and Emerging Technologies Scenarios)Revised on 4/2 7/2010

9- 18 0 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000 6,000,000

2014 2019 2024 2029 2034 2039 2044Shipments

Year

8

- foot T12 HO Base

- Case Forecast



### Figure 9.3.6. Base-Case Forecasted Shipments for Sign Ballasts Operating 8- Foot RDC HO Lamps

9.3.2.5 Base- Case Forecast by Market Segment

Figure 9.3.7 through Figure 9.3.10 present the base

- case ballast shipments forecast by market segment ( i.e. , ballast failure/replacement, or new construction/renovation) for 4- foot MBP systems, 8

- foot RDC HO systems, 8- foot slimline systems, and 4

- foot T5 MiniBP systems, respectively. For all four of these categories, shipments of replacements dominate shipments related to new construction/renovation over the analysis period. As noted in section 9.3.2.4

, shipments driven by ball ast failure/replacement exhibit a cyclical pattern that is not present in shipments driven by new construction/renovation. Note that 8

- foot slimline ballasts are only shipped for replacement ( Figure 9.3.9 ). They are substituted in the new construction by T5 ballast systems. The figures below are for the e xisting t echnologies scenario.Revised on 4/2 7/2010

9- 19 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14Shipments (billions)

Year New Construction Ballast Replacement



### Figure 9.3.7. 4-Foot MBP Base- Case Ballast Shipments Forecast by Market Segment

0.0000 0.0010 0.0020 0.0030 0.0040 0.0050 0.0060Shipments (billions)

Year New Construction Ballast Replacement



### Figure 9.3.8. 8-Foot RDC HO Base- Case Ballast Shipments Forecast by Market SegmentRevised on 4/2 7/2010

9- 20 0.0000 0.0005 0.0010 0.0015 0.0020 0.0025Shipments (billions)

Year New Construction Ballast Replacement



### Figure 9.3.9. 8-F oot Slimline Base

- Case Ballast Shipments Forecast by Market Segment

0.0000 0.0050 0.0100 0.0150 0.0200 0.0250Shipments (billions)

Year New Construction Ballast Replacement



### Figure 9.3.10. 4-F oot MiniBP SO and HO Ballast Shipments Forecast by Market SegmentRevised on 4/2 7/2010

9- 21 

### 9.4 S TANDARDS

- CASE INPUTS

9.4.1 Shipments Scenarios

To c haracterize consumer behavior in the standards case , DOE considers many characteristics that consumers take into account when purchasing their lamp

- and

- ballast system s. Specifically, DOE regards system price, system energy consumption, and system lumen output as three key drivers of consumer purchases.

DOE develops two sets of two shipments scenarios to characterize consumers that may weigh these factors differently . T o evaluate a standards case , DOE models a standards- case scenario and compares it to the base case.

The first set of standards- case scenarios for ballasts includes the roll-up and s hift scenarios. The roll-up scenario represents a standards case in which all product efficiencies in the base case that do not meet the standard would roll up to meet the new standard level. Consumers in the base- case purchase ballasts above th e standard level are not affected as they are assumed to continue to purchase the same base

- case ballast or lamp

- and

- ballast system in the roll-up scenario. The roll-up scenario characterizes consumers primarily driven by the first -cost of the analyzed equipment

. In a roll-up scenario

, DOE assumes consumers will buy the first standardcompliant lamp

- and

- ballast system available. In contrast, i n a s hift scenario, DOE assumes consumers seek to s hift to an efficiency level that keeps their purchase the same number of efficiency levels above the baseline as in the base case . T he s hift scenario models a standards

case in which all base

- case consumer purchases are affected by the standard (whether their base

case efficiency is below the standard). In this scenario, any consumer may purchase a more efficient ballast

. As the standard level increases, market share incrementally accumulates at the highest CSL because it represents “max tech” ( i.e. , moving beyond it is impossible given available technology options ). The s hift scenario characterizes consumers primarily conc erned with system energy consumption, and reflects an upper bound scenario.

In either the roll-up or s hift scenario consumers will attempt to buy a ballast from t he

same product class as their previous ly demanded system except where additional replacement trends are modeled (as given in Table 9.2.2 ). The structure of these product classes is such that at each CSL level lumen output is within 10 percent of the baseline system’s lumen output.

Each of these pairs of scenarios ( roll-up and shift) occurs in combination with the existing and e merging technologies scenarios from the base case, for a total of four standardscase scenarios.

M any tables for the shipments analysi s and the NIA (preliminary TSD chapter 10) present only two of the four possible shipments scenarios: e xisting technology/shift and

e merging technology/roll-up . These scenarios are presented because they represent the upper and lower bound scenarios for the energy impacts of this rulemaking, respectively.

For its analysis, DOE evaluated the principal events that prompt ballast purchases: (1) ballast failure / replacement ; and ( 2) new construction /renovation. DOE assumed that all replacement ballast shipments were due to ballast failure

, and all new ballast shipments were considered renovation or new construction.Revised on 4/2 7/2010

9- 22 

### 9.5 RESULTS

The following sections show the shipments forecasts for the various efficiency levels
over t ime and by shipments scenario . DOE’s forecasts of the resultant stock forecasts for the various efficiency levels over time and by scenario are presented in preliminary TSD chapter 10.

Figure 9.5.1 through Figure 9.5.8 present the shipments forecasts for the base case and standards- case s for ballast s in the e xisting technologies /s hift and the emerging t echnologies /rollup scenarios scenario . As noted, these reflect the upper - and lower-bound scenarios for energy use. For the standards case, shipments are shown at what they are modeled as in the CSL 3 scenario. Please note that if the line does not show up on the graph, it means that the values for this CSL a re zeros or very close to zeros during the entire analysis period.

Quantities of ballast shipments depend on the occurrence of the ballast purchasing events : ballast failure /replacement , and new construction/renovation. As discussed earlier, instead of

u sing each particular ballast design’s individual lifetime to time ballast replacements, DOE uses the same ballast lifetime assumptions for all ballast designs within a given sector . For this reason, the rate of ballast replacement does not change between different shipments scenarios.

- 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06

2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034 2038 2042Shipments (billions)

Year

4

- foot T8 MBP CSL0 4

- foot T8 MBP CSL1 4

- foot T8 MBP CSL2

4

- foot T8 MBP CSL3 4

- foot T12 MBP CSL0



### Figure 9.5.1. 4-Foot MBP Base Case and Standards-Case Ballast Shipments Forecasts (Emerging Technologies, Roll -Up Scenario)Revised on 4/2 7/2010

9- 23 - 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06

2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034 2038 2042Shipments (billions)

Year

4

- foot T8 MBP CSL0 4

- foot T8 MBP CSL1 4

- foot T8 MBP CSL2

4

- foot T8 MBP CSL3 4

- foot T12 MBP CSL0



### Figure 9.5.2. 4-Foot MBP Base Case and Standards-Case Ballast Shipments Forecasts ( Existing Technologies, Shift Scenario)

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01

2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034 2038 2042Shipments (billions)

Year

8

- foot T8 MBP CSL0 8

- foot T8 MBP CSL1 8

- foot T8 MBP CSL2

8

- foot T8 MBP CSL3 8

- foot T12 MBP CSL0 4

- foot T12 MBP CSL1



### Figure 9.5.3. 8-F oot RDC HO (including Cold Temperature/Sign) Ba se Case and Standards -Case Ballast Shipments Forecasts (Existing Technologies, Shift Scenario)Revised on 4/2 7/2010

9- 24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01

2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034 2038 2042Shipments (billions)

Year

8

- foot T8 MBP CSL0 8

- foot T8 MBP CSL1 8

- foot T8 MBP CSL2

8

- foot T8 MBP CSL3 8

- foot T12 MBP CSL0 4

- foot T12 MBP CSL1



### Figure 9.5.4. 8-F oot RDC HO (including Cold Temperature/Sign) Base Case and Standards

- Case Ballast Shipments Fo recasts (Emerging Technologies, Roll -Up Scenario)

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034 2038 2042Shipments (billions)

Year

8

- foot T8 Slimline CSL0 8

- foot T8 Slimline CSL1

8

- foot T12 Slimline CSL0 4

- foot T12 Slimline CSL1



### Figure 9.5.5. 8-F oot Slimline Base Case and Standards -Case Ballast Shipments Forecasts (Existing Technologies, Shift Scenario)Revised on 4/2 7/2010

9- 25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034 2038 2042Shipments (billions)

Year

8

- foot T8 Slimline CSL0 8

- foot T8 Slimline CSL1

8

- foot T12 Slimline CSL0 4

- foot T12 Slimline CSL1



### Figure 9.5.6. 8-F oot Slimline Base Case and Standards -Case Ballast Shipments Forecasts (Emerging Technologies, Roll -Up Scenario)

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02

2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034 2038 2042Shipments (billions)

Year

4

- foot T5 Mini

- Bipin SO CSL0 4

- foot T5 Mini

- Bipin SO CSL1

4

- foot T5 Mini

- Bipin HO CSL0 4

- foot T5 Mini

- Bipin HO CSL1

4

- foot T5 Mini

- Bipin HO CSL2 4

- foot T5 Mini

- Bipin SO CSL2



### Figure 9.5.7. 4-Foot MiniBP SO and HO Base Case and Stan dards

- Case Ballast Shipments Forecasts (Existing Technologies, Shift Scenario)Revised on 4/2 7/2010

9- 26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02

2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034 2038 2042Shipments (billions)

Year

4

- foot T5 Mini

- Bipin SO CSL0 4

- foot T5 Mini

- Bipin SO CSL1

4

- foot T5 Mini

- Bipin HO CSL0 4

- foot T5 Mini

- Bipin HO CSL1

4

- foot T5 Mini

- Bipin HO CSL2 4

- foot T5 Mini

- Bipin SO CSL2



### Figure 9.5.8. 4-F oot MiniBP SO and HO Base Case and Standards

- Case Ballast Shipments Forecasts (Emerging Technologies, Roll -Up Scenario)

Table 9.5.1 and Table 9.5.2 show the cumulative shipments impacts caused by each of the three sta ndards- case s (column labels) out to 2044 for both shipments scenarios (Existing Technologies Shift and Emerging Technologies Roll-Up). CSL levels in the first column indicate the product CSL. As discussed earlier, quantities of ballast shipments in the sta ndards- case are based on ballast replacement rates and shipments due to new construction/renovation. However, because all ballasts within a particular product class are assumed to have the same lifetime, ballast replacement rates in the base case and standards

- case are equal . In addition, because the ballast lifetime never varies within a particular market sector , ballast replacement rates are equal in the base case and standards case. The only aspects that do vary are the distribution of ballasts by e fficiency levels

. Note that cumulative shipments impacts are different from impacts on the stock, because of ballast replacements over time. I mpacts on the efficiency distributions in the ballast stock are addressed in the preliminary TSD chapter 10.

Tabl e 9.5.1. Cumulative Ballast Shipments Impacts by Standard Level , 2014–2044 ( Existing Technologies, Shift Scenario )
CSL Ballast Product Class Standard Shipment Impacts CSL 1 2 3 0 Two

- L amp Normal BF 4

- Foot MBP PS

- 217,105,127

- 217,105,127

- 217,105,127 Two

- L amp Normal BF 4

- Foot MBP IS & RS 0 0 0 Four

- L amp Normal BF 4

- Foot MBP IS & RS

- 423,063,218

- 423,063,218

- 423,063,218Revised on 4/2 7/2010

9- 27 Four

- L amp Normal BF 4

- Foot MBP PS

- 116,902,758

- 116,902,758

- 116,902,758 Two

- L amp Normal BF 8

- Foot RDC HO IS & RS

- 318,775

- 318,775

- 318,775 Two

- L amp Normal BF 8

- Foot SP Slimline

- 342,825

- 342,825

- 342,825 Two

- L amp Normal BF 8

- Foot SP Slimline (T8 Baseline)

- 36,304,615

- 36,304,615

- 36,304,615 Two

- L amp Normal BF 4

- Foot T5 MiniBP SO

- 538,125,468

- 538,125,468

- 538,125,468 Two

- L amp 4

- Foot T5 MiniBP HO

- 92,905,672

- 92,905,672

- 92,905,672 Two

- L amp Low BF 4

- Foot MBP IS & RS Residential

- 3,437,714

- 3,437,714

- 3,437,714 Four

- L amp Sign Ballasts

- 117,590,619

- 117,590,619

- 117,590,619 TOTAL

- 1,546,096,790

- 1,546,096,790

- 1,546,096,790 1 Two

- L amp Normal BF 4

- Foot MBP PS 217,105,127 217,105,127 217,105,127 Two

- L amp Normal BF 4

- Foot MBP IS & RS

- 1,013,693,094

- 1,013,693,094

- 1,013,693,094 Four

- L amp Normal BF 4

- Foot MBP IS & RS 423,063,217 423,063,218 423,063,218 Four

- L amp Normal BF 4

- Foot MBP PS 116,902,765 116,902,762 116,902,762 Two

- L amp Normal BF 8

- Foot RDC HO IS & RS 271,036

- 47,739

- 47,739 Two

- L amp Normal BF 8

- Foot SP Slimline 342,825 342,825 342,825 Two

- L amp Normal BF 8

- Foot SP Slimline (T8 Baseline) 36,304,615 36,304,615 36,304,615 Two

- L amp Normal BF 4

- Foot T5 MiniBP SO 136,570,912

- 120,883,258

- 120,883,258 Two

- Lamp 4

- Foot T5 MiniBP HO 202,223

- 20,870,114

- 20,870,114 Two

- Lamp Low BF 4

- Foot MBP IS & RS Residential

- 827,525,945

- 830,634,822

- 830,634,822 Four

- Lamp Sign Ballasts 117,590,620 117,590,620 117,590,620 TOTAL

- 792,865,698

- 1,074,819,861

- 1,074,819,861 2 Two

- L amp Normal BF 4

- Foot MBP IS & RS 204,349,502

- 216,731,594

- 216,731,594 Two

- L amp Normal BF 8

- Foot RDC HO IS & RS

- 1,012,509

- 741,473

- 741,473 Two

- L amp Normal BF 4

- Foot T5 MiniBP SO 401,554,558 659,008,720 659,008,720 Two

- L amp 4

- Foot T5 MiniBP HO 92,703,449 113,775,784 113,775,784 Two

- L amp Low BF 4

- Foot MBP IS & RS Residential 831,935,314 835,044,191 835,044,191 TOTAL 1,529,530,314 1,390,355,627 1,390,355,627 3 Four

- L amp Normal BF 4

- Foot MBP IS & RS 809,343,605 1,230,424,702 1,230,424,702 Two

- L amp Normal BF 8

- Foot RDC HO IS & RS 1,060,249 1,107,988 1,426,763 TOTAL 810,403,853 1,231,532,689 1,231,851,465



### Table 9.5.2. Cumulative Ballast Shipments Impacts by Standard Level, 2014–2044 (Emerging Technologies, Roll

- up Scenario)
CSL Ballast Product Class Standard Shipment Impacts CSL 1 2 3 0 Two

- L amp Normal BF 4

- Foot MBP PS

- 97,938,297

- 97,938,297

- 97,938,297 Two

- L amp Normal BF 4

- Foot MBP IS & RS 0 0 0 Four

- L amp Normal BF 4

- Foot MBP IS & RS

- 236,307,640

- 236,307,640

- 236,307,640 Four

- L amp Normal BF 4

- Foot MBP PS

- 52,736,006

- 52,736,006

- 52,736,006 Two

- L amp Normal BF 8

- Foot RDC HO IS & RS

- 318,775

- 318,775

- 318,775 Two

- L amp Normal BF 8

- Foot SP Slimline

- 342,825

- 342,825

- 342,825 Two

- Lamp Normal BF 8

- Foot SP Slimline (T8 Baseline)

- 36,304,615

- 36,304,615

- 36,304,615 Two

- L amp Normal BF 4

- Foot T5 MiniBP SO

- 252,219,545

- 252,219,545

- 252,219,544 Two

- L amp 4

- Foot T5 MiniBP HO

- 92,905,672

- 92,905,672

- 92,905,672 Two

- Lamp Low BF 4

- Foot MBP IS & RS Residential

- 3,437,714

- 3,437,714

- 3,437,714 Four

- L amp Sign Ballasts

- 117,590,619

- 117,590,619

- 117,590,619 TOTAL

- 890,101,708

- 890,101,708

- 890,101,707 1 Two

- L amp Normal BF 4

- Foot MBP PS 97,938,298 97,938,297 97,938,297 Two

- L amp Normal BF 4

- Foot MBP IS & RS 0

- 564,983,181

- 564,983,181 Four

- L amp Normal BF 4

- Foot MBP IS & RS 236,307,634 236,307,634 236,307,634 Four

- L amp Normal BF 4

- Foot MBP PS 52,736,005 52,736,005 52,736,005 Two

- L amp Normal BF 8

- Foot RDC HO IS & RS 159,388

- 47,739

- 47,739 Two

- L amp Normal BF 8

- Foot SP Slimline 342,825 342,825 342,825Revised on 4/2 7/2010

9- 28 Two

- Lamp Normal BF 8

- Foot SP Slimline (T8 Baseline) 36,304,615 36,304,615 36,304,615 Two

- L amp Normal BF 4

- Foot T5 MiniBP SO 252,219,540

- 56,658,014

- 56,658,014 Two

- Lamp 4

- Foot T5 MiniBP HO 92,905,669

- 20,870,114

- 20,870,114 Two

- Lamp Low BF 4

- Foot MBP IS & RS Residential 4,409,369

- 830,634,822

- 830,634,822 Four

- Lamp Sign Ballasts 117,590,620 117,590,620 117,590,620 TOTAL 890,913,963

- 931,973,874

- 931,973,874 2 Two

- L amp Normal BF 4

- Foot MBP IS & RS 0 564,983,175

- 121,014,844 Two

- L amp Normal BF 8

- Foot RDC HO IS & RS 159,388

- 1,060,248

- 1,060,248 Two

- L amp Normal BF 4

- Foot T5 MiniBP SO 0 308,877,552 308,877,552 Two

- L amp 4

- Foot T5 MiniBP HO 0 113,775,784 113,775,784 Two

- L amp Low BF 4

- Foot MBP IS & RS Residential 0 835,044,191 835,044,191 TOTAL 159,388 1,821,620,453 1,135,622,434 3 Four

- L amp Normal BF 4

- Foot MBP IS & RS 0 0 685,998,015 Two

- L amp Normal BF 8

- Foot RDC HO IS & RS 0 1,426,763 1,426,763 TOTAL 0 1,426,763 687,424,778Revised on 4/2 7/2010

9- 29 

### REFERENCES

1. U.S. Department of Energy–Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy Outlook 2009 with Projections to 2030 . March 2009.

< http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/aeoref_tab.html >.

2. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy Outlook 2009 with Projections to 2030 . Updated Reference case. April 2009. Washington, D.C.

< http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/stimulus/aeostim.html >.
3. U.S. Department of Energy– Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Multi

- Year Program Plan FY’09 to FY’14: S olid

- State Lighting Research and Development. Washington, D.C.

< http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/ssl_mypp2008_web.pdf >.
4. U.S. Depa rtment of Energy

– Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Building Technologies Program: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) Technical Support Document (TSD): Energy Conservation Standards for General Service Fluorescent Lamps and Incandescent Re flector Lamps. January, 2009. Washington, D.C.

< http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/incandescent_lamps _nopr_tsd.html >
5. U.S. Census Bureau. Current Industrial Reports, Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts: 2005. July 2006. Washington, D.C. < http://www.census.gov/industry/1/mq335c055.pdf >.

6. U.S. Census Bureau. Current Industrial Reports, Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts (individual annual reports for 1990-1996). MQ36C(90)-5 through MQ36C(96)-5. Washington, D.C.