CHAPTER 11. NATIONAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

11.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 11-1 11.2 BASE-CASE AND STANDARDS-CASE FORECASTED EFFICACY DISTRIBUTIONS, LAMP STOCKS, AND AVERAGE EFFICACY..................................... 11-2 11.2.1 General Service Fluorescent Lamps .................................................................. 11-2 11.2.1.1 Base and Standards Case Efficacy Distributions .............................. 11-2 11.2.1.2 Installed Lamp Stock....................................................................... 11-11 11.2.1.3 Average Lamp Efficacy in the Stock .............................................. 11-23 11.2.2 Incandescent Reflector Lamps......................................................................... 11-32 11.2.2.1 Base and Standards Case Efficacy Distributions ............................ 11-32 11.2.2.2 Installed Lamp Stock....................................................................... 11-35 11.2.2.3 Average Lamp Efficacy of the Stock ..............................................11-39 11.3 NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS ............................................................................. 11-41 11.3.1 National Energy Savings Definition ................................................................ 11-41 11.3.2 National Energy Savings Inputs.......................................................................11-42 11.3.2.1 Unit Energy Consumption (UEC)................................................... 11-43 11.3.2.2 Lamp Stock ..................................................................................... 11-43 11.3.2.3 Site-to-Source Conversion Factors..................................................11-43 11.3.2.4 Interactions with Heating, Ventilation, and Air-Conditioning (HVAC) Systems ............................................................................................. 11-44 11.3.2.5 Rebound Rate .................................................................................. 11-45 11.4 NET PRESENT VALUE............................................................................................. 11-45 11.4.1 Net Present Value Definition...........................................................................11-45 11.4.2 Net Present Value Inputs .................................................................................11-46 11.4.2.1 Total Annual Installed Cost Increases............................................. 11-46 11.4.2.2 Total Annual Operating Cost Savings.............................................11-47 11.4.2.3 Discount Factor ............................................................................... 11-47 11.5 NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS AND N ET PRESENT VALUE RESULTS........ 11-48 11.5.1 National Energy Savings and Net Pr esent Value Input Summary...................11-48 11.5.2 Base Case Energy Consumption......................................................................11-49 11.5.3 National Energy Savings Results.....................................................................11-53 11.5.3.1 General Service Fluorescent Lamps................................................ 11-54 11.5.3.2 Incandescent Reflector Lamps ........................................................ 11-56 11.5.4 Annual Costs and Savings ...............................................................................11-57 11.5.5 Net Present Value Results................................................................................11-62 11.5.5.1 General Service Fluorescent Lamps................................................ 11-63 11.5.5.2 Incandescent Reflector Lamps ........................................................ 11-66

11-iLIST OF TABLES

Table 11.1 4-Foot Medium Bipin Base Case and Standards C ase Efficacy Distributions (Existing Technologies, Shift, Hi gh Lighting Expertise Scenario) ...............................11-4 Table 11.2 4-Foot Medium Bipin Base Case and Standards Case Efficacy Distributions (Emerging Technologies, Roll-up, Market Segm ent-Based Lighting Expertise Scenario)

............................................................................................................................... ......... 11-5 Table 11.3 8-Foot Single Pin Slimline Base Case and Standards Case Efficacy Distributions (Existing Technologies, Sh ift, High Lighting Expertise Scenario) .........11-6 Table 11.4 8-Foot Single Pin Slimline Base Case and Standards Case Efficacy Distributions (Emerging Technologies, Roll-up, Market Segment-Based Lighting Expertise Scenario) ........................................................................................................ 11-7 Table 11.5 8-Foot Recessed Doubl e Contact High Output Base Case and Standards Case Efficacy Distributions (Existing Technologies , Shift, High Lighting Expertise Scenario)

............................................................................................................................... ......... 11-8 Table 11.6 8-Foot Recessed Doubl e Contact High Output Base Case and Standards Case Efficacy Distributions (Emerging Tec hnologies, Roll-up, Market Segment-Based Lighting Expertise Scenario) ......................................................................................... 11-9 Table 11.7 4-Foot T5 Miniatur e Bipin Standard Output Base Case and Standards Case Efficacy Distributions (Existing Technol ogies, Shift, High Expertise Scenario) ........11-10 Table 11.8 4-Foot T5 Miniatur e Bipin Standard Output Base Case and Standards Case Efficacy Distributions (Emerging Tec hnologies, Roll-up, Market Segment-Based Expertise Scenario) ...................................................................................................... 11-10 Table 11.9 4-Foot T5 Miniat ure bipin High Output Base Case and Standards Case Efficacy Distributions (Existing Technologies , Shift, High Lighting Expertise Scenario)

............................................................................................................................... ....... 11-11 Table 11.10 Commercial and Resi dential Incandescent Reflector Lamps: Base Case and Standards Case Efficacy Distributions in 2012, 2042 for the Existing Technologies, Shift, R-CFL Product Substitution Scenario ......................................................................... 11-34 Table 11.11 Commercial and Resi dential Incandescent Reflector Lamps: Base Case and Standards Case Efficacy Distributions from 2012 to 2042 for the Emerging Technologies, Roll-up, BR Product Substitution Scenario ................................................................. 11-35 Table 11.12 National Energy Saving Inputs ............................................................... 11-42 Table 11.13 Site-to-Source Conversion Factors ...................................................... 11-44 Table 11.14 Net Present Value Inputs ........................................................................ 11-46 Table 11.15 National Energy Saving and Net Present Value Inputs ..........................11-49 Table 11.16 Cumulative National Energy Savi ngs for General Service Fluorescent Lamps Under the Existing, Shift, High Lighti ng Expertise Scenario (2012-2042) (quads)

............................................................................................................................... ....... 11-55 Table 11.17 Cumulative National Energy Savi ngs for General Service Fluorescent Lamps Under the Emerging, Roll-up, Market Segment-Based Scenario (2012-2042) (quads) .......................................................................................................................... 11-56 Table 11.18 Cumulative National Energy Saving s for IRL in the Existing Technologies, Shift, R-CFL Product Substitution Scenario (2012-2042) (quads) ..............................11-57 Table 11.19 Cumulative National Energy Savings for IRL in the Emerging Technologies, Roll-up, BR Product Substitution Scenario (2012-2042) (quads) ........11-57

11-iiTable 11.20 Cumulative NPV Results for Gene ral Service Fluorescent Lamps Under the Existing Technologies, Shift, High Expe rtise Scenario (2012-2042) (Billion 2008$) 11-65 Table 11.21 Cumulative NPV Results for Gene ral Service Fluorescent Lamps Under the Emerging Technologies, Roll-up, Market Segment-Based Expertis e Scenario (2012- 2042) (Billion 2008$) .................................................................................................. 11-66 Table 11.22 Cumulative NPV Results for IRL: Existing Technologies, Shift, R-CFL Product Substitution (2012-2042) (billion 2008$) ....................................................... 11-67 Table 11.23 Cumulative NPV Results for IRL: Emerging Technologies, Roll-up, BR Product Substitution (2012-2042) (billion 2008$) ....................................................... 11-67 Table 11.24 Cumulative NPV Results for IRL: Existing Technologies, Shift, R-CFL Product Substitution, Baseline Lifetime scenario (2012-2042) (billion 2008$) ..........11-67 Table 11.25 Cumulative NPV Results for IRL: Emerging Technologies, Roll-up, BR Product Substitution, Baseline Lifetime scenario (2012-2042) (billion 2008$) ..........11-68

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 11.2.1 4-Foot Medium Bipin Existing Technologies Base Ca se Installed Lamp Stock ............................................................................................................................ 11-12 Figure 11.2.2 4-Foot Medium Bipin Emerging Technologies Base Case Installed Lamp Stock ............................................................................................................................ 11-13 Figure 11.2.3 4-Foot Medium Bipin Standard s Case Installed Lamp Stock (Existing Technologies, Shift, High Lighting Expertise Scenario, at TSL4) ..............................11-14 Figure 11.2.4 4-Foot Medium Bipin Standard s Case Installed Lamp Stock (Emerging Technologies, Roll-up, Market Segment-Based Lighting Expertise Scenario, at TSL4) 11- 15 Figure 11.2.5 8-Foot Single Pin Slimlin e Base Case Installed Lamp Stock ...............11-16 Figure 11.2.6 8-Foot Single Pin Slimline Sta ndards Case Installed Lamp Stock (TSL4)

............................................................................................................................... ....... 11-17 Figure 11.2.7 8-Foot Recessed Double Contac t High Output Base Case Installed Lamp Stock ............................................................................................................................ 11-18 Figure 11.2.8 8-Foot Recessed Double Cont act High Output Technologies Standards Case Installed Lamp Stock (TSL4) .............................................................................. 11-19 Figure 11.2.9 4-Foot T5 Miniature Bipin St andard Output and High Output Existing Technologies Base Case Installed Lamp Stock ........................................................... 11-20 Figure 11.2.10 4-Foot T5 Mini ature Bipin Standard Output and High Output Emerging Technologies Base Case Installed Lamp Stock ........................................................... 11-21 Figure 11.2.11 4-Foot T5 Mini ature Bipin Standard Output and High Output Standards Case Installed Lamp Stock (Existing Technol ogies, Shift, High Expertise Scenario at TSL4) ........................................................................................................................... 11-22 Figure 11.2.12 4-Foot T5 Mini ature Bipin Standard Output and High Output Standards Case Installed Lamp Stock (Emerging Tec hnologies, Roll-up, Market Segment-Based Expertise Scenario at TSL4) ........................................................................................ 11-23 Figure 11.2.13 Average Efficacy of Lamp Stoc k, 4-Foot Medium Bipin Lamps (Existing Technologies, Shift, High Scenario) ............................................................................ 11-24

11-iiiFigure 11.2.14 Average Efficacy of Lamp Stock, 4-Foot Medium Bipin Lamps (Emerging Technologies, Roll-up, Ma rket Segment-Based Scenario) ........................11-25 Figure 11.2.15 Average Efficacy of Lamp St ock, 8-Foot Single Pin Slimline Lamps (Existing Technologies, Shift, High Expertise Scenario) ............................................ 11-27 Figure 11.2.16 Average Efficacy of Lamp St ock, 8-Foot Single Pin Slimline Lamps (Emerging Technologies, Roll-up, Ma rket Segment-Based Scenario) ........................11-28 Figure 11.2.17 Average Efficacy of Lamp St ock, 8-Foot Recessed Double Contact High Output Lamps (Existing Technologies , Shift, High Expertise Scenario) ....................11-29 Figure 11.2.18 Average Efficacy of Lamp St ock, 8-Foot Recessed Double Contact High Output Lamps (Emerging Technologies, Ro ll-up, Market Segment-Based Scenario) 11-30 Figure 11.2.19 Average Efficacy of Lamp Stoc k, 4-Foot Miniature Bipin T5 Standard Output and High Output (Existing Technologies, Shift, High Scenario) ....................11-31 Figure 11.2.20 Average Efficacy of Lamp Stoc k, 4-Foot Miniature Bipin T5 Standard Output and High Output (Emerging Tec hnologies, Roll-up, Market Segment-Based Scenario) ...................................................................................................................... 11-32 Figure 11.2.21 IRL Existing Technologies Base case Installed Lamp Stock ..............11-36 Figure 11.2.22 IRL Emerging Technologies Base Case Installed Lamp Stock ..........11-37 Figure 11.2.23 IRL Install Lamp Stock (Exi sting Technologies, Shift, R-CFL Product Substitution Scenario, TSL4) ....................................................................................... 11-38 Figure 11.2.24 IRL Installed Lamp Stock (E merging Technologies, Roll-up, BR Product Substitution Scenario, TSL4) ....................................................................................... 11-39 Figure 11.2.25 Average Efficacy of the IRL St ock (Existing Technologies, Shift, R-CFL Product Substitution Scenario) .................................................................................... 11-40 Figure 11.2.26 Average Efficacy of the IRL Stock (Emerging Technologies, Roll-up, BR Product Substitution Scenario) .................................................................................... 11-41 Figure 11.5.1 National Energy Consumption, General Service Fluorescent Lamps, Existing Technologies Base Case (quads of source energy) ....................................... 11-50 Figure 11.5.2 National Energy Consumption, General Service Fluorescent Lamps, Emerging Technologies Base Case (quads of source energy) ..................................... 11-51 Figure 11.5.3 National Energy Consumption, Incandescent Reflector Lamps, Existing Technologies Base Case (quads of source energy) ...................................................... 11-52 Figure 11.5.4 National Energy Consumption, Incandescent Reflector Lamps, Emerging Technologies Base Case (quads of source energy) ...................................................... 11-53 Figure 11.5.5 National Undiscounted Annual To tal Installed Equipment and Operating Cost Savings for 4-Foot Medium Bipin at TSL4 (Existing Technologies, Shift, High Lighting Expertise Scenario) ....................................................................................... 11-59 Figure 11.5.6 National Undiscounted Annual To tal Installed Equipment and Operating Cost Savings for 4-Foot Medium Bipin at TSL4 (Emerging Technologies, Roll-up, Market Segment-Based Lighting Expertise Scenario) ................................................. 11-60 Figure 11.5.7 National Undiscounted Annual To tal Installed Equipment and Operating Cost Savings for IRL at TSL4 (Existing T echnologies, Shift, R-CF L Product Substitution Scenario) ...................................................................................................................... 11-61 Figure 11.5.8 National Undiscounted Annual To tal Installed Equipment and Operating Cost Savings for IRL at TSL4 (Emerg ing Technologies, Roll-up, BR Product Substitution Scenario) .................................................................................................. 11-62

11-iv11-vCHAPTER 11. NATIONAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS

11.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes the m ethod for estimating the national impacts of trial standard levels (TSLs) for covered gene ral service fluorescent lamps (GSFL) and incandescent reflector lamps (IRL). In the national impact analysis (NIA), the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) assesses the cumulative national energy savings (NES) and the cumulative national economic impacts of TSLs. DOE measures energy savings as the cumulative quads of energy a TSL is expect ed to save the Nation. DOE measures economic impacts as the net present value (NPV ) in dollars of total customer costs and savings expected to result from a TSL. Th e analysis period over which DOE calculates the NPV and NES is from 2012 to 2042. Result s of the NIA described in this chapter include (1) national energy consumption a nd savings, (2) monetary value of energy savings to the Nation as a result of standard s, (3) increased total installed costs to the Nation as a result of standards, and (4) the NPV of energy savings (the difference between the present monetary values of en ergy savings and increased total installed costs).

DOE determines both the NPV and NES for each TSL and each representative product class it selects in the engineering anal ysis (Chapter 5). In this rulemaking, DOE considers up to five trial standard levels for each of the GSFL representative product classes and up to five trial sta ndard levels for the IRL repres entative product classes.

DOE performs all NIA calculations us ing Microsoft Excel® spreadsheets, available for download at http://www.eere.energy.gov/build ings/appliance_standards/re sidential/incandescent_lamp s.html . Appendix 11A provides instructions for using the spreadsheet. NIA results for alternate shipment scenarios are available in Appendix 11B.

The following sections describe in detail the methodology and inputs for the NIA. Several NIA inputs, including per-unit costs, per-unit energy consumption, and national shipments, are discussed in other analyses. In describing the inputs to the NIA, this chapter references those analyses and pres ents new information on installed stock. Section 11.2 discusses DOE’s lamp-shipment forecas ts by efficacy, the in stalled stock of lamps, and the mix of efficacies of that stock. The section discusses GSFL and IRL separately. Section 11.3 discusses DOE’s calculation of national energy consum ption in the base and standards cases, and the resu lting NES between these cases. Section 11.4 discusses the NPV calculation. Section 11.5 presents the NES and NPV results by lamp catego ry.

11-111.2 BASE-CASE AND STANDARDS-CASE FO RECASTED EFFICACY DISTRIBUTIONS, LAMP STOC KS, AND AVERAGE EFFICACY

The characteristics of DOE’s shipment forecasts (such as equipment costs and operating costs) and projected lamp stoc ks (such as average efficacy and energy consumption) are key aspects of DOE’s NES and NPV estimates. This section describes these key characteristics of stock and shipments as they relate to the NES and NPV.

For example, the projected distribution of lamp efficacies shipped and lamp efficacies in stock are key factors in determ ining the NPV. Two inputs to the NPV are the per-unit total installed cost and per-uni t annual operating cost . The per-unit total installed cost often depends on the efficacy of lamps shipped. Therefore, when higher efficacy lamps are shipped, higher installed costs are often incurred. Section 8.2.2 of Chapter 8 describes how per-unit total installed costs vary as a function of efficacy for each lamp.

Per-unit annual energy consumption is a ke y input into the NPV (as an input into the per-unit operating cost) and NES. Th e per-unit annual energy consumption is a function of lamp wattage (and ba llast characteristics in the ca se of GSFL) in the installed stock. The total installed st ock of lamps is used to determine total annual energy consumption, a key input into the NES and NPV calculations.

Also important to determining NES and NPV is the average efficacy of the lamp stock. The engineering analysis (Chapter 5) discusses the relationship between lamp power and efficacy. Because consumers select wattages when purchasing lamps, per-unit energy consumption for a partic ular standards-case purchase is not necessarily less than per-unit energy consumption for the corre sponding base-case purchase. Certain standards-case scenarios (Shift and High ligh ting expertise for GSFL and R-CFL Product Substitution and Shift for IRL) model primarily energy-saving consumer purchase decisions with standards. The energy use ch aracterization (Chapter 6 and Appendix 6A) describes how the per-unit energy consumption varies as a function of efficacy for each lamp or lamp-and-ballast design.

Sections 11.3.2 and 11.4.2 discuss inputs to calculat ion of the NES and NPV in further detail.

The following sections detail the forecas ted distribution of efficacies, installed lamp stocks, and average efficacy of those stocks in the base and standards cases.

11.2.1 General Service Fluorescent Lamps

11.2.1.1 Base and Standards Case Effica cy Distributions

Because the end-user price of lamps va ries with lamp efficacy, the base and standards case forecasted efficacy distributio ns of shipments affect the average total installed cost per unit. Generally, as the efficacy of a GSFL lamp design increases, the total installed cost in creases as well. In addition, th e base-case and standards-case efficacy distributions affect the average lamp efficacy in the installed stock, an indication

11-2of annual energy consumption. However, as both efficacy and ballast factor affect energy consumption, total energy savings may be greater than the e fficacy distributions would indicate. For GSFL, DOE first presented the market share matrices in the base and standards cases in Chapter 10 in sections 10.3 and 10.4, respectively. These market share matrices characterize the shipments of lamps or lamp-and-ballast systems for each system type. The forecasted efficacy distributions of shipments for GSFL depend directly on these matrices and the total shipments of a particular lamp type in each year of the analysis period.

Table 11.1 through Table 11.9 show the base and standards case efficacy distributions for 4-foot m edium bipin (MBP), 8-foot single pin (SP) slimline, 8-foot recessed double contact (RDC) high output (HO), and 4-foot T5 miniature bipin (MiniBP) standard output (SO) and 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO lamp shipments. The tables illustrate the percentage market share of ship ments of lamps of different efficacies, where the efficacies correspond to particular TSLs.

The table also illustrates how this mix of efficacy changes over time. All tables illustrate three points in time: 2012, 2030, and 2042. The tables show that in the base case, consumers may purchase lamps with e fficacy higher than the baseline, and in the standards cases, consumers may purchase la mps of efficacies greater than the TSL requires.

There are two tables per GSFL represen tative product class, one depicting the efficacy mixes in the Existing Technologies, Shift, High Lighting Expertise scenario and one depicting those in the Emerging T echnologies, Roll-up, Market Segment-Based Lighting Expertise scenario. Chapter 10 disc usses these scenarios in further detail. Though the Emerging Technologies/Existing Technologies and High/Market SegmentBased Lighting Expertise scenarios slightly aff ect the shipped lamp efficacy distributions, the greater impact scenarios are the Shift/R oll-up shipment scenarios. Because consumers in the Shift scenario make pur chase decisions based more on the energy savings of a particular lamp or lamp-and-ball ast design, the Shift scen ario often presents a more aggressive forecasted efficacy dist ribution. As discussed in Chapter 10, in developing the Shift scenario, when possibl e, DOE maintained the same base-case efficacy distribution ( i.e. , the percentage of lamps shipped at the minimum efficacy level and the percentage shipped at higher efficacy levels) in the standard s-case for each lamp type ( e.g. , 4-foot T12 MBP lamps). However, when presenting the effi cacy distributions of multiple lamp types combined ( e.g. , T12 and T8 lamps), the standards-case efficacy distribution of an entire product class may not exactly mirror the base-case efficacy distribution. For the Roll-Up scenario, DOE assumed that, when possible, consumers will purchase the lowest first-cost lamp op tion which, in many cases, is often at the minimum allowed efficacy level.

Table 11.1 and Table 11.2 show the base-case and standards-case efficacy distributions in the Existing Technologies, Shift, High expertise scenario and the Em erging Technologies, Roll-up, Market Segmen t-Based expertise sc enario for 4-foot medium bipin lamps (both T8 and T12 diam eters), respectively. As Chapter 10 shows, approximately 75 percent of the 4-foot me dium bipin lamp shipments in 2012 are T8

11-3lamps, while 25 percent are T12. This is reflected in the base case efficacy distributions: In 2012, large portions of shipments appear at the lowest efficacy T12 level (baseline) and the lowest efficacy T8 efficacy level (EL2 ). As Chapter 10 discusses, 4-foot T12 medium bipin shipments continue to declin e in the years following 2012. In addition, DOE modeled a shift in the commercial sect or from consumers purchasing low efficacy T12 lamps to consumers purchasing higher e fficacy (EL2 and EL3) T12 lamps. This trend is reflected in the efficacy distribu tions: in 2030, shipments of baseline and EL1 lamps have approximately half the market shar e as in 2012 in the base case. The efficacy distributions also incorporate the effects of higher efficacy 4-foot T8 MBP lamps being shipped in the later years of the analysis peri od than those T8 lamps shipped in the earlier years of the analysis period. The standards case efficacy distributions show similar trends as the base case. However, as a result of the standards, at each trial standard level, various EL lamps are unavailable, and th erefore percentage shipments are zero.

Table 11.1 4-Foot Medium Bipin Base Case and Standards Case Efficacy Distributions (Existing Technologies, Shi ft, High Lighting Expertise Scenario) Proportions of All 4-Foot MBP Lamps Shipped (%) Standards Case TSLs Year EL Base Case 1 2 3 4 5
Baseline 16 0 0 0 0 0 1 8 14 0 0 0 0 2 38 45 53 0 0 0 3 22 24 29 55 0 0 4 11 12 12 34 64 0 5 5 6 6 10 36 100 2012

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 Baseline 7 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 5 0 0 0 0 2 34 39 41 0 0 0 3 17 18 22 42 0 0 4 26 27 27 27 52 0 5 10 10 11 31 48 100 2030

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 Baseline 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 4 0 0 0 0 2 27 30 32 0 0 0 3 10 11 13 33 0 0 4 40 40 40 20 43 0 5 14 15 15 47 57 100 2042

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100

11-4Table 11.2 4-Foot Medium Bipin Base Case and Standards Case Efficacy Distributions (Emerging Technologies, Ro ll-up, Market Segment-Based Lighting Expertise Scenario) Proportions of All 4-Foot MBP Lamps Shipped (%) Standards Case TSLs Year TSL Base Case 1 2 3 4 5
Baseline 16 0 0 0 0 0 1 8 19 0 0 0 0 2 38 40 58 0 0 0 3 22 23 24 81 0 0 4 11 12 12 13 93 0 5 5 6 6 6 7 100 2012

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 Baseline 9 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 11 0 0 0 0 2 34 36 46 0 0 0 3 17 18 19 64 0 0 4 25 25 26 26 89 0 5 10 10 10 10 11 100 2030

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 Baseline 7 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 9 0 0 0 0 2 27 28 37 0 0 0 3 11 12 12 48 0 0 4 36 37 37 38 86 0 5 13 14 14 14 14 100 2042

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100

Table 11.3 and Table 11.4 show the base case and standards case efficacy distributions in the Existing Technologies, Shift, High expertise scenario and the Em erging Technologies, Roll-up, High Lighting E xpertise scenario for 8-foot single pin slimline lamps (both T8 and T12 diameters), respectively. These two tables reflect the most and least aggressive efficacy distributio ns, respectively. As Chapter 10 shows, in the base case, approximately 30 percent of th e 8-foot single pin slimline lamp shipments are T8 lamps in 2012, while 70 percent are T 12. This is reflected in the efficacy distributions: in 2012, large porti ons of shipments appear at the lowest efficacy 8-foot T12 SP slimline TSL (baseline) and the lowest efficacy T8 TSL (TSL3). In addition, as Chapter 10 discusses, 8-foot T12 single pi n slimline shipments continue to decline rapidly in the years immediately follow ing 2012, before flattening out throughout the remainder of the analysis period. This is refl ected in the efficacy distributions: In 2030, there is approximately one-third to one-four th the share of shipments of baseline, EL1, and EL2 8-foot SP slimline lamps as in 2012. In addition, the efficacy distributions incorporate the effects of higher efficacy T8 lamps being shipped in the later years of the analysis period. The standards case efficacy distributions show similar trends as the base case. However, as a result of the standards, at each trial standard level several EL lamps are unavailable, and therefore pe rcentage shipments are zero.

11-5Table 11.3 8-Foot Single Pin Slimline Base Case and Standards Case Efficacy Distributions (Existing Technologies, Shi ft, High Lighting Expertise Scenario) Proportions of All 8-Foot SP Slimline Lamps Shipped (%) Standards Case TSLs Year EL Base Case 1 2 3 4 5 Baseline 32 0 0 0 0 0 1 21 47 0 0 0 0 2 11 11 56 0 0 0 3 19 23 24 78 0 0 4 10 12 13 14 0 0 5 6 7 8 8 100 100 2012

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 Baseline 8 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 3 31 37 36 36 0 0 4 26 30 31 31 0 0 5 27 32 33 33 100 100 2030

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 Baseline 9 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 22 26 25 25 0 0 4 23 28 28 28 0 0 5 37 46 46 46 100 100 2042

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100

11-6Table 11.4 8-Foot Single Pin Slimline Base Case and Standards Case Efficacy Distributions (Emerging Technologies, Ro ll-up, Market Segment-Based Lighting Expertise Scenario) Proportions of All 8-Foot SP Slimline Lamps Shipped (% ) Standards Case TSLs Year EL Base Case 1 2 3 4 5 Baseline 32 0 0 0 0 0 1 21 48 0 0 0 0 2 11 10 56 0 0 0 3 19 22 23 78 0 0 4 10 12 13 14 67 0 5 6 7 8 8 33 100 2012

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 Baseline 8 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 1 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 31 36 36 36 0 0 4 26 30 31 31 58 0 5 27 32 33 33 42 100 2030

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 Baseline 9 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 22 26 25 25 0 0 4 23 28 28 28 41 0 5 37 46 46 46 59 100 2042

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100

Table 11.5 and Table 11.6 show the base case and standards case efficacy distributions in the Existing Technologies, Shift, High Lighting Expertise scenario and the Em erging Technologies, Roll-up, Market Segment-Based Lighting Expertise scenario, respectively, for 8-f oot recessed double contact high output lamps (both T8 and T12 diameters). These two tables reflect the most and least aggressive efficacy distributions, respectively. As Chapter 10 show s, DOE projects that all 8-foot recessed double contact high output shipments will have a T12 diameter in the base case. This is reflected in the efficacy distributions: because EL3 is the highest efficacy T12 lamp, in the base case in 2012, 2030, and 2042, shipments at EL4 and EL5 are zero. The efficacy distributions also incorporate the effects of higher efficacy T12 lamps being shipped in the later years of the analysis period.

The standards case efficacy distributions at TSL1, TSL2, and TSL3 show similar trends as the base case. However, because of the standards at each trial standard level, various EL lamps are unavailable, and therefor e percentage shipments are zero. At TSL4 and TSL5, no 8-foot T12 RDC HO lamps are avai lable and all systems are retrofitted to

11-7T8 diameters. Therefore, standards case sh ipments at TSL4 and TSL5 represent only 8- foot T8 RDC HO shipments.

Table 11.5 8-Foot Recessed Double Contact High Output Base Case and Standards Case Efficacy Distributions (Existing Technologies, Shift, High Lighting Expertise Scenario) Proportions of All 8-Foot RDC HO Lamps Shipped (% ) Standards Case TSLs Year EL Base Case 1 2 3 4 5 Baseline 54 0 0 0 0 0 1 21 19 0 0 0 0 2 7 62 60 0 0 0 3 18 19 40 100 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 55 0 5 0 0 0 0 45 100 2012

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 Baseline 37 0 0 0 0 0 1 23 12 0 0 0 0 2 13 51 40 0 0 0 3 27 37 60 100 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 55 0 5 0 0 0 0 45 100 2030

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 Baseline 22 0 0 0 0 0 1 24 13 0 0 0 0 2 19 38 26 0 0 0 3 35 50 74 100 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 55 0 5 0 0 0 0 45 100 2042

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100

11-8Table 11.6 8-Foot Recessed Double Contact High Output Base Case and Standards Case Efficacy Distributions (Emerging Technologies, Roll- up, Market SegmentBased Lighting Expertise Scenario) Proportions of All 8-Foot RDC HO Lamps Shipped (% ) Standards Case (Roll-up, Market Segment-Based Scenario) Year TSL Emerging Technologies

Base Case 1 2 3 4 5 Baseline 54 0 0 0 0 0 1 21 51 0 0 0 0 2 7 31 82 0 0 0 3 18 18 18 100 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 55 0 5 0 0 0 0 45 100 2012

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 Baseline 37 0 0 0 0 0 1 23 23 0 0 0 0 2 13 50 73 0 0 0 3 27 27 27 100 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 55 0 5 0 0 0 0 45 100 2030

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 Baseline 22 0 0 0 0 0 1 24 24 0 0 0 0 2 19 40 65 0 0 0 3 35 35 35 100 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 55 0 5 0 0 0 0 45 100 2042

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100

Table 11.7 and Table 11.8 show the base case and standards case efficacy distributions in the Existing Technologies, Shift, High Expertis e scenario and the Em erging Technologies, Roll-up, Market Segment-Based expertise scenario, respectively, for 4-foot T5 miniature bipin standard output lamps. These two tables reflect the most and least a ggressive efficacy distributi ons, respectively. The efficacy distributions of 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO lamps are more straightforward than other product classes, as there is only one diameter under consideration. As presented in Chapter 10 and indicated in Table 11.7 and Table 11.8 , DOE modeled constant efficacy distributions in the base case and stan dards case. However, as a result of the standards at each trial standard level, various EL lamps are unavail able, and therefore percentage shipments are

zero.

11-9Table 11.7 4-Foot T5 Miniat ure Bipin Standard Output Base Case and Standards Case Efficacy Distributions (Existing T echnologies, Shift, High Expertise Scenario) Proportions of All 4-Foot T5 MiniBP SO Lamps Shipped (% ) Standards Case TSLs Year EL Base Case 1 2 3 4 5 Baseline 21 0 0 0 0 0 1 55 21 21 21 21 0 2 24 79 79 79 79 100 2012

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 Baseline 21 0 0 0 0 0 1 55 21 21 21 21 0 2 24 79 79 79 79 100 2030

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 Baseline 21 0 0 0 0 0 1 55 21 21 21 21 0 2 24 79 79 79 79 100 2042

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100

Table 11.8 4-Foot T5 Miniat ure Bipin Standard Output Base Case and Standards Case Efficacy Distributions (Emerging Technologies, Roll- up, Market SegmentBased Expertise Scenario) Proportions of All 4-Foot T5 MiniBP SO Lamps Shipped (% ) Standards Case TSLs Year EL Base Case 1 2 3 4 5 Baseline 21 0 0 0 0 0 1 55 76 76 76 76 0 2 24 24 24 24 24 100 2012

- 2042 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100

Table 11.9 shows the base case and standards case efficacy d istributions in the Existing Technologies, Shift, High expertise sc enario, which is iden tical to the Emerging Technologies, Roll-up, Market Segment-Based s cenario for 4-foot T5 miniature bipin high output lamps. The Shift and Roll- up scenarios produce identical efficacy distributions for 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO lamp s because there is only one higher efficacy lamp to which consumers can migrate. For example, in the base case, 20 percent of shipped 4-foot MiniBP HO lamps are of baselin e efficacy, all of which moves to the next efficacy level in the standards case. As presented in Chapter 10 and indicated in Table 11.9 , DOE modeled constant efficacy distributi ons in the b ase case and standards case.

11-10Table 11.9 4-Foot T5 Miniature bipin High Output Base Case and Standards Case Efficacy Distributions (Existing Techno logies, Shift, High Lighting Expertise Scenario) Proportions of All 4-Foot MiniBP T5 HO Lamps Shipped (% ) Standards Case TSLs Year EL Base Case 1 2 3 4 5
Baseline 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
1 80% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 2012

- 2042 Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

11.2.1.2 Installed Lamp Stock

The lamp stock in a given year is the to tal number of lamps shipped that year and in prior years that are still operating. The NES model keeps track of the lamp-and-ballast pairs in GSFL shipped each year. Lamps are retired when 1) they reach the end of their lifetime, 2) the ballast on which they are inst alled reaches the end of its life, or 3) the ballast on which they are installed is retrofi tted. From this information and the shipments forecasts presented in Chapter 10, DOE establis hed the installed lamp stock profile for 4- foot medium bipin, 8-foot si ngle pin slimline, 8-foot r ecessed double contact HO, and 4- foot T5 MiniBP SO and 4-f oot T5 MiniBP HO lamps. Figure 11.2.1 through Figure 11.2.12 show these lamp stocks in the base case and standards case for TSL4 under various scenarios.

Figure 11.2.1 and Figure 11.2.2 presents the installed stock of 4-foot medium bipin lam ps in the Existing Technologie s and Emerging Technologies base cases, respectively. The total installed stock of 4-foot medium bipin lamps is expected to experience a steady increase as DOE projects that most of the new construction in the commercial sector and all of new construction in the residential sector apportioned to GSFL will utilize 4-foot T8 medium bipin lamps. Additionally, as Chapter 10 notes, DOE expects 4-foot medium bipin systems to continue to replace 8-foot single pin slimline systems. DOE modele d the expectation that 80 perc ent of retiring two-lamp 8- foot single pin slimline systems will be re placed by two two-lamp 4-foot T8 medium bipin systems. As a result, DOE expects that the installed stock of lamps in 2042 (meeting the initial 2011 8-foot single pin slim line lumen demand) will be much greater than in 2012.

As discussed in Chapter 10, DOE assume d that all 4-foot T12 medium bipin systems installed prior to 2012 are magnetic syst ems. DOE expects the installed stock of T12 magnetic systems to decline and reach zero in the commercial sector by 2026 but persist with a relatively small presence in the residential sector. In the commercial sector, most of the retiring magnetic systems w ill be replaced by T8 systems, although 10 percent will be replaced by T12 electronic sy stems. After 2026, the residential 4-foot T12 MBP stock is split roughly between magnetic and electronic systems.

11-11The difference between the Existing Technologies base case ( Figure 11.2.1 ) and the Em erging Technologies base case ( Figure 11.2.2 ) is mostly one of scale. The Existing Technologies is larger becau se DOE assumes light-emitting diode (LED) lamps penetrate a portion of the 4-foot medium bipin stock over the analysis period, as is described in Chapter 10.

Figure 11.2.3 and Figure 11.2.4 depict the Existing Technologies, Shift, High expertise scenario and the Em erging Technol ogies, Roll-up, Market Segment-Based expertise scenarios at TSL4, respectively. Th e tables show that similar overall trends occur as in the base case, but because no T 12 lamps are standards-compliant they phase out of the stock by 2026. As discussed in chapter 10, four-foot T12 MBP systems are replaced by T8 systems in the reside ntial and commercial sectors.

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 2032 2035 2038 2041Installed Lamp Stock (Billions)



### Year 4-foot T12 MBP Elec Base Case Stock 4-foot T12 MBP Mag Base Case Stock 4-foot T8 MBP Base Case Stock

Figure 11.2.1 4-Foot Medium Bipin Existi ng Technologies Base Case Installed Lamp Stock

11-120.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5

2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 2032 2035 2038 2041Installed Lamp Stock (Billions)



### Year 4-foot T12 MBP Elec Base Case Stock 4-foot T12 MBP Mag Base Case Stock 4-foot T8 MBP Base Case Stock

Figure 11.2.2 4-Foot Medium Bipin Emerging Technologies Base Case Installed Lamp Stock

11-130.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 2032 2035 2038 2041Installed Lamp Stock (Billions)



### Year 4-foot T12 MBP Elec Stds-Case Stock 4-foot T12 MBP Mag Stds-Case Stock 4-foot T8 MBP Stds-Case Stock

Figure 11.2.3 4-Foot Medium Bipin Standard s Case Installed Lamp Stock (Existing Technologies, Shift, High Lighting Expertise Scenario, at TSL4)

11-140.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5

2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 2032 2035 2038 2041Installed Lamp Stock (Billions)



### Year 4-foot T12 MBP Elec Stds-Case Stock 4-foot T12 MBP Mag Stds-Case Stock 4-foot T8 MBP Stds-Case Stock

Figure 11.2.4 4-Foot Medium Bipin St andards Case Installed Lamp Stock (Emerging Technologies, Roll-up, Market Segment-Based Lighting Expertise Scenario, at TSL4)

Figure 11.2.5 presents the installed stock of 8- f oot single pin slimline lamps in the base case. As discussed earli er, 80 percent of retiring 8-f oot single pin slimline systems is replaced with 4-foot T8 medium bipin systems, accounting for most of the decline show below. Similar to the 4-foot T12 medium bipin stock, DOE expects that the installed stock of 8-foot T12 single pin slimline lamps will decline rapidly in the years immediately after 2012. Eight-foot single pi n slimline magnetic T12 systems will reach zero by 2026 when the initial stock has comp letely turned over. However, because electronic T12 systems will replace 10 percent of retiring 8-foot T12 single pin slimline magnetic systems in the base case, a relativ ely small stock of 8-foot T12 single pin slimline lamps will persist throughout the analysis period. The final 10 percent of retiring 8-foot T12 single pin slimline magnetic systems are replaced by 8-foot T8 single pin slimline systems, which, for this reason, incr ease in stock initially, before beginning a gradual decline.

The Existing Technologies s cenario is the same as the Emerging Technologies scenario for 8-foot single pin slimline lamp s because DOE did not assume this product class would service fixture replacement, re novation, or new construction. Therefore, there is no available market within this product class for emerging technologies to penetrate in DOE’s analysis.

11-15Figure 11.2.6 depicts a similar trend at TSL4. However, because no T12 lamps are standards-com pliant, they phase out of the stock by 2023 when stock has entirely turned over.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 2032 2035 2038 2041Installed Lamp Stock (Millions)



### Year 8-foot T12 Electronic SP Base Case Stock 8-foot T12 Magnetic SP Base Case Stock 8-foot T8 SP Base Case Stock

Figure 11.2.5 8-Foot Single Pin Slimlin e Base Case Installed Lamp Stock

11-160 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 2032 2035 2038 2041Installed Lamp Stock (Millions)



### Year 8-foot T12 Electronic SP stds-Case Stock 8-foot T12 Magnetic SP Stds-Case Stock 8-foot T8 SP Stds-Case Stock

Figure 11.2.6 8-Foot Single Pin Slimline Standards Case Installed Lamp Stock (TSL4)

Figure 11.2.7 presents the installed stock of 8-foot recessed double contact high output lam ps in the Existing Technologies (a lso the Emerging Technologies) base case. The Existing and Emerging Technologies base cases are equivalent because DOE assumed that most of the penetration of altern ative technologies into this market will be in the form of 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO lamps. As such, DOE expects that the installed stock of 8-foot recessed double contact high output lamps (composed entirely of T12 lamps) will decline rapidly, in accordance with 2006 and 2007 confidential shipment data. As discussed earlier, DOE decided not to model the 2011 stock of 8-foot T8 recessed double contact HO lamps, resulting in zero forecasted shipments of these lamps in the base case. Furthermore, DOE onl y models 8-foot T8 RDC HO systems as replacements on T8 systems or when T12 la mps are no longer standards-compliant. The combined effect of these assumptions is th at there is no stock of 8-foot T8 RDC HO lamps in the base case or at TSL1, TSL2, or TSL3.

With regard to T12 lamps, as in the resi dential sector of the 4-foot medium bipin product class, some magnetic 8-foot T 12 recessed double contact HO systems can be manufactured under the 2000 Ballast Rule. Therefore, Figure 11.2.7 depicts a continued presence of T12 lam ps throughout the an alysis period in the base case.

11-17Figure 11.2.8 depicts 8-foot recessed double contact HO lam ps at TSL4. Because T12 lamps are no longer standard s-compliant, only 8-ft T8 RDC HO lamps are shipped in this product class, and T 12 lamps are phased out by 2022.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 2032 2035 2038 2041Installed Lamp Stock (Millions)



### Year 8-foot T12 RDC HO Magnetic Base Case Stock

8-foot T8 RDC HO Base Case Stock

8-foot T12 RDC HO Electronic Base Case Stock

Figure 11.2.7 8-Foot Recessed Double Contac t High Output Base Case Installed Lamp Stock

11-180 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 2032 2035 2038 2041Installed Lamp Stock (Millions)



### Year 8-foot T12 Electronic RDC HO Stds-Case Stock
8-foot T8 RDC HO Electronic Stds-Case Stock 8-foot T12 RDC HO Magnetic Stds-Case Stock

Figure 11.2.8 8-Foot Recessed Double Co ntact High Output Technologies Standards Case Installed Lamp Stock (TSL4)

Figure 11.2.9 and Figure 11.2.10 depict the installed stoc k of 4-foot T5 m iniature bipin standard output and hi gh output lamps in the Existing Technologies and Emerging Technologies base case scenarios, respectiv ely. DOE projects the installed stock of lamps in each product class to increase over the analysis period, as 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO systems penetrate the 8-foot single pin slimline and 4-foot MBP markets in the commercial sector. Four-foot T5 MiniBP HO systems penetrate the 8-foot recessed double contact HO market in the industrial sector and other markets such as high intensity discharge lamps. While shipments of each lamp type are approximately equivalent, 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO lamps ha ve longer lifetimes and therefore accrue to larger installed stocks over time. Similar to the 4-foot MBP inst alled stock projections, the installed stock projections of 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO lamp s is greater in the Existing Technologies scenario than it is in the Emerging Technologies scenario.

Figure 11.2.12 and Figure 11.2.12 depict the Existing T echnologies, Shift, High Lighting Expertise and Em erging Technol ogies, Roll-up, Market Segment-Based expertise lamp stocks at TS L4, respectively, for 4-foot T5 SO and HO lamps. The figures show that at TSL4 a very simila r trend occurs as in the base case.

11-190 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 2032 2035 2038 2041Installed Lamp Stock (Millions)



### Year 4-foot T5 HO Base Case Stock 4-foot T5 SO Base Case Stock

Figure 11.2.9 4-Foot T5 Miniature Bipi n Standard Output and High Output Existing Technologies Base Case Installed Lamp Stock

11-200 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 2032 2035 2038 2041Installed Lamp Stock (Millions)



### Year 4-foot T5 HO Base Case Stock 4-foot T5 SO Base Case Stock

Figure 11.2.10 4-Foot T5 Miniature Bipi n Standard Output and High Output Emerging Technologies Base Case Installed Lamp Stock

11-210 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 2032 2035 2038 2041Installed Lamp Stock (Millions)



### Year 4-foot T5 HO Stds Case Stock 4-foot T5 SO Stds Case Stock

Figure 11.2.11 4-Foot T5 Miniature Bipi n Standard Output and High Output Standards Case Installed Lamp Stock (Exi sting Technologies, Shift, High Expertise Scenario at TSL4)

11-220 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 2032 2035 2038 2041Installed Lamp Stock (Millions)



### Year 4-foot T5 HO Stds Case Stock 4-foot T5 SO Stds Case Stock

Figure 11.2.12 4-Foot T5 Miniature Bipi n Standard Output and High Output Standards Case Installed Lamp Stock (E merging Technologies, Roll-up, Market Segment-Based Expertise Scenario at TSL4)

11.2.1.3 Average Lamp Efficacy in the Stock

As discussed earlier, the aver age lamp efficacy of the sto ck is an important input to both the NPV and NES calculations. The av erage efficacy of the stock can be an indication of the energy consumption. Figure 11.2.13 through Figure 11.2.20 present the average efficacy forecas ts of GSFL stock in the base case and standards case for the Existing Technologies, Shift, High expe rtise and Emerging Technologies, Roll-up, Market Segment-Based scenarios for each product class (provided there is a difference between the scenarios).

As Figure 11.2.13 and Figure 11.2.14 illustrate, the average efficacy of 4-foot

m edium bipin lamps gradually increases in th e base case. This is due to two separate trends: 1) the decline of T12 ballasts over the analysis pe riod as they are largely replaced with more efficacious T8 systems, and 2) th e installation of highe r efficacy 4-foot T8 MBP lamps later in the analysis period. As T12 lamps are generally less efficacious than their T8 counterparts, the market shift towa rd 4-foot T8 MBP lamp-and-ballast systems causes an overall increase in efficacies of sh ipped fluorescent lamps. In the standards case, similar trends occur but at accelerated ra tes, particularly in the years immediately following the effective date of the standards as the lamp and ballasts stock turn over for

11-23the first time. At all TSLs, the average efficacy of the stock increases rapidly until about 2026, when the rate of increase slows. By 2026, most T12 ballasts in the initial stock will have been replaced by T8 ballasts (and thei r corresponding higher efficacy T8 lamps). Because TSL1 and TSL2 only affect 4-foot T12 MPB lamps, the efficacy forecasts at these levels depict a higher average e fficacy of the T12 the lamp stock. As Figure 11.2.13 shows, the average efficacy of 4-foot MBP lam ps rapidly increases at TSL3, TSL4 and TSL5, when T8 lamps are affected by standards. The increase is most pronounced at TSL4 and TSL5, at which leve ls 4-foot T12 MBP are phased out. This increase is also due to the installation of very high efficacy, reduced-wattage lamps on higher ballast factor ballasts installed before 2012. DOE expects that many consumers will choose these reduced-wattage lamps in orde r to maintain their existing light output. DOE also expects that some consumers who purchase new ballasts may choose lower ballast factors and therefore will not necessarily migrat e to the very high efficacy, reduced-wattage lamps. The magnitude of this effect is characterized by the lighting expertise scenarios. Figure 11.2.14 depicts the case in which whether consumers migrate to lower ballast factors depends on their m arket segment. Figure 11.2.14 also depicts the Roll-up scenario, in which only consum ers w hose baseline 4-foot MBP lamps are below the standard are affected. Th erefore, the average efficacy in the stock at each TSL is lower than in the Shift scenario shown in Figure 11.2.13 . At TSL5, the difference between the scenarios is sm all because all consumers migrate to max-tech.

82.0 84.0 86.0 88.0 90.0 92.0 94.0 96.0 98.0

2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 2030 2033 2036 2039 2042Average Efficacy (lumens per Watt)



### Year Base Case TSL1 TSL2 TSL3 TSL4 TSL5

Figure 11.2.13 Average Efficacy of Lamp Stock, 4-Foot Medium Bipin Lamps (Existing Technologies, Shift, High Scenario)

11-2482.0 84.0 86.0 88.0 90.0 92.0 94.0 96.0 98.0

2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 2030 2033 2036 2039 2042Average Efficacy (lumens per Watt)



### Year Base Case TSL1 TSL2 TSL3 TSL4 TSL5

Figure 11.2.14 Average Efficacy of Lamp Stock, 4-Foot Medium Bipin Lamps (Emerging Technologies, Roll-up, Market Segment-Based Scenario)

As Figure 11.2.15 and Figure 11.2.16 illustrate, the average efficacy forecast of 8- f

oot single pin slimline lamps increases in the base case. Similar to 4-foot medium bipin lamps, this is due to two separate trends: 1) the decline of T12 ma gnetic ballasts and their replacement with T8 ballasts and higher e fficacy T8 lamps, and 2) the installation of higher efficacy T8 SP slimline lamps later in the analysis period. As 8-foot T12 SP slimline lamps are generally less efficacious than their T8 counterparts, the market shift toward T8 lamp-and-ballast systems causes an overall increase in efficacies of shipped fluorescent lamps. The average efficacy also increases with higher TSLs as DOE assumes increasing levels of voluntary 8-foot T12-to-T8 SP slimline lamp retrofits with increasing TSLs. As TSL1 and TSL2 only affect 8-foot T12 SP slimline lamps, the efficacy forecasts depict a higher average e fficacy of the T12 lamp stock and standardsinduced retrofits. At TSL4 and TSL5, which ar e equivalent in the Shift, High expertise scenario, T12 8-foot SP slimline lamps are pha sed out and automatica lly retrofitted upon ballast failure. This is reflected in the drama tic increase in average efficacy at these trial standard levels immediately after the effective date of the standard.

Under both scenarios shown, the average e fficacy of the standards-case stock is higher than that of the base case throughout the entire analysis period. Figure 11.2.16 depicts the Roll-up scenario, in which only consum ers whose baseline 8-foot SP slimline lamps are below the standard are affected. Th erefore, the average e fficacy in the stock at

11-25each TSL is lower than in th e Shift scenario shown in Figure 11.2.15 . At TSL5, the difference b etween the scenarios is slight because all consumers migrate to max-tech.

11-2690.0 92.0 94.0 96.0 98.0 100.0 102.0 104.0

2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 2030 2033 2036 2039 2042Average Efficacy (lumens per Watt)



### Year Base Case

TSL1

TSL2

TSL3

TSL4

TSL5

Figure 11.2.15 Average Efficacy of Lamp St ock, 8-Foot Single Pin Slimline Lamps (Existing Technologies, Shift, High Expertise Scenario)

11-2790.0 92.0 94.0 96.0 98.0 100.0 102.0 104.0

2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 2030 2033 2036 2039 2042Average Efficacy (lumens per Watt)



### Year Base Case

TSL1

TSL2

TSL3

TSL4

TSL5

Figure 11.2.16 Average Efficacy of Lamp St ock, 8-Foot Single Pin Slimline Lamps (Emerging Technologies, Roll-up, Market Segment-Based Scenario)

As Figure 11.2.17 and Figure 11.2.18 illustrate, the average efficacy forecast of 8- foot recessed double co ntact HO lamps gradually increases in the base case due to the installation of higher efficacy la mps later in the analysis pe riod. Because DOE estimates that all 8-foot RDC HO lamps installed befo re 2012 will be retired within approximately two years of standards implementation (the es timated service lifetime of these lamps in the industrial sector), the average efficacy sharply increases in the standards case until 2014. The average efficacy forecast shows a large increase at TSL4 due to the retrofitting of all T12 systems to T8 system s. As 8-foot T12 RDC lamps are generally less efficacious than their T8 counterparts, the market shift toward T8 lamp-and-ballast systems causes an overall increase in efficacies of shipped fluorescent lamps.

Under both shown scenarios, the average e fficacy of the standards-case stock is higher than that of the base case throughout the entire analysis period. Figure 11.2.18 depicts the Roll-up scenario, in which only consum ers whos e baseline 8-foot RDC HO lamps are below the standard are affected. Th erefore, the average e fficacy in the stock at each TSL is lower than in th e Shift scenario shown in Figure 11.2.17 . At TSL5, the difference b etween the scenarios is slight because all consumers migrate to max-tech.

11-2878.0 80.0 82.0 84.0 86.0 88.0 90.0 92.0 94.0 96.0 98.0

2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 2030 2033 2036 2039 2042Average Efficacy (lumens per Watt)



### Year Base Case
TSL1
TSL2
TSL3
TSL4
TSL5

Figure 11.2.17 Average Efficacy of Lamp Stock, 8-Foot Recessed Double Contact High Output Lamps (Existing Technologi es, Shift, High Expertise Scenario)

11-2978.0 80.0 82.0 84.0 86.0 88.0 90.0 92.0 94.0 96.0 98.0

2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 2030 2033 2036 2039 2042Average Efficacy (lumens per Watt)



### Year Base Case TSL1

TSL2 TSL3

TSL4 TSL5

Figure 11.2.18 Average Efficacy of Lamp Stock, 8-Foot Recessed Double Contact High Output Lamps (Emerging Technol ogies, Roll-up, Market Segment-Based Scenario)

As Figure 11.2.19 and Figure 11.2.20 illustrate, the average efficacies of 4-foot

m iniature bipin T5 standard and high output lamps are flat in the base case, as DOE models no natural migration between lamp de signs of varying efficacies within each product class. For the same reason, the average efficacy of the stock increases immediately following the effective date of th e standard and then flattens out for the remainder of the analysis period in the standards case.

Under both scenarios shown, the average e fficacy of the standards-case stock is higher than that of the base case throughout the entire analysis period. Figure 11.2.20 depicts the Roll-up scenario, in which only consum ers whos e baseline 4-foot MiniBP lamps are below the standard are affected. Th erefore, the average e fficacy in the stock at each TSL is lower than in th e Shift scenario shown in Figure 11.2.19 . This is particularly true at TSL1 through TSL4. At TSL5, the difference between the scenarios is slight because all consum ers migrate to max-tech.

11-3085.0 90.0 95.0 100.0 105.0 110.0 115.0

2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 2030 2033 2036 2039 2042Average Efficacy (lumens per Watt)



### Year T5 SO: Base Case T5 SO: TSL1 to TSL4 T5 SO: TSL5

T5 HO: Base Case T5 HO: TSL1 to TSL5

Figure 11.2.19 Average Efficacy of Lamp Stock, 4-Foot Miniature Bipin T5 Standard Output and High Output (Exist ing Technologies, Shift, High Scenario)

11-3185.0 90.0 95.0 100.0 105.0 110.0 115.0

2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 2030 2033 2036 2039 2042Average Efficacy (lumens per Watt)



### Year T5 SO: Base Case T5 SO: TSL1 to TSL4 T5 SO: TSL5

T5 HO: Base Case T5 HO: TSL1 to TSL5

Figure 11.2.20 Average Efficacy of Lamp Stock, 4-Foot Miniature Bipin T5 Standard Output and High Output (Em erging Technologies, Roll-up, Market Segment-Based Scenario)

11.2.2 Incandescent Reflector Lamps

11.2.2.1 Base and Standards Case Effica cy Distributions

Sections 10.3.3 and 10.4.2 of Chapter 10 pres ent the IRL market share matrices for the base and standards case scenarios, re spectively. These matrices characterize the stock of IRL in the base and standards cases. As the shipments analysis discusses, DOE establishes forecasted shipments throughout the analysis period by using the service lifetime of lamps.

Table 11.10 presents the Existing Technologies, Shift, R-CFL Product Substitu tion standards case efficacy distribut ions of IRL shipped in 2012 and 2042 for the commercial and residential sectors combined. In general, base case shipments of halogen IRL decrease while shipments of halogen infrared (HIR) increase over the analysis period. In the Shift scenario, as a new efficacy level is established in the market, those consumers purchasing IRL that just meet th at trial standard level in the base case generally shift up to the next trial standard level in the standards case. At TSL1, improved halogen IRL are shipped in place of halogen IRL, as these lower efficacy lamps

11-32are no longer standards compliant. In addition, over the analysis period, HIR technologies continue to increa se in market-share while the halogen shipments decrease. All shipments at TSL2 are HIR lamps except for the improved halogen lamps at TSL2, which are the only halogen lamps remaining. At TSL2 and above, in the Shift scenario, market share begins to accumulate at improve d HIR plus (TSL5) as consumers shift up to this level. As discussed in Chapter 10, shipments do not move beyond improved HIR plus as DOE does not consider lamps above this efficacy. At TSL3, TSL4, and TSL5 most shipments become HIR, Improved HIR, and improved HIR plus, respectively.

Table 11.11 presents the Emerging Technologies, Roll-up, BR Product Substitu tion standards case efficacy distribut ions of IRL shipped in 2012 and 2042 for the commercial and residential sectors combine d. The Roll-up scenario causes market share to aggregate at the least efficacious standard s-compliant level at each TSL. Because Table 11.11 also depicts the emerging technologies scenario, there is actually greater

m arket share at the least standards-complia nt design option in 2012 than in 2042 in the base case and standards case, except for TS L5. This occurs because, in the emerging technologies scenario, the commercial sector sh ips a greater percentage of covered IRL in 2012 than in 2042. As the residential sector in general purchase the least efficacious standards-compliant options, there is great er market share for the least standardscompliant design option as a percentage of total covered shipments in 2042 as compared to 2012.

11-33Table 11.10 Commercial and Residential Inca ndescent Reflector Lamps: Base Case and Standards Case Efficacy Distri butions in 2012, 2042 for the Existing Technologies, Shift, R-CFL Product Substitution Scenario Proportions of IRL Shipped (%) Standards Case TSLs Year EL Design Option Base Case 1 2 3 4 5 Baseline Halogen 90 0 0 0 0 0

1 Improved Halogen (xenon) 0 89 0 0 0 0

2 Long-life HIR / Improved Halogen (silver) 3 4 88 0 0 0

3 HIR 5 5 4 89 0 0 4 Improved HIR 2 2 5 4 88 0 5 Improved HIR Plus 0 0 2 7 12 100 2012

Total - 100 100 100 100 100 100 Baseline Halogen 80 0 0 0 0 0

1 Improved Halogen (xenon) 0 79 0 0 0 0

2 Long-life HIR / Improved Halogen (silver) 5 5 75 0 0 0

3 HIR 11 11 10 79 0 0
4 Improved HIR 4 4 11 7 72 0 5 Improved HIR Plus 0 0 5 14 28 100 2042

Total - 100 100 100 100 100 100

11-34Table 11.11 Commercial and Residential Inca ndescent Reflector Lamps: Base Case and Standards Case Efficacy Distribut ions from 2012 to 2042 for the Emerging Technologies, Roll-up, BR Pr oduct Substitution Scenario Proportions of IRL Shipped (%) Standards Case TSLs Year TSL Design Option Emerging Technologies

Base Case 1 2 3 4 5

Baseline Halogen 91 0 0 0 0 0

1 Improved Halogen (xenon) 0 89 0 0 0 0

2 Long-life HIR / Improved Halogen (silver) 3 3 93 0 0 0

3 HIR 5 5 5 98 0 0 4 Improved HIR 2 2 2 2 100 0 5 Improved HIR Plus 0 0 0 0 0 100 2012

Total - 100 100 100 100 100 100 Baseline Halogen 97 0 0 0 0 0

1 Improved Halogen (xenon) 0 96 0 0 0 0

2 Long-life HIR / Improved Halogen (silver) 1 1 97 0 0 0

3 HIR 2 2 2 99 0 0
4 Improved HIR 1 1 1 1 100 0 5 Improved HIR Plus 0 0 0 0 0 100 2042

Total - 100 100 100 100 100 100

11.2.2.2 Installed Lamp Stock

The lamp stock in a given year is the to tal number of lamps shipped in prior years that survive in the given year. Figure 11.2.21 displays the combined residential and commercial installed lamp stock for the Exis ting Technologies base case scenario. For the Existing Technologies scenario, 2042 re flector com pact fluorescent lamps (R-CFL) penetration reached 38 percent in the residentia l sector and 20 percent in the commercial sector. This penetration of R-CFL, occurring gradually ove r the analysis period, reduces the analyzed installed stock and therefor e the potential impact of an IRL energy conservation standard. For further details see Chapter 10, Section 10.3.3.1.

11-350 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 2032 2035 2038 2041Installed Lamp Stock (millions)



### Year R-CFL
IRL

Figure 11.2.21 IRL Existing Technologies Base case Installed Lamp Stock

Figure 11.2.22 displays the commercial and residential IRL Em erging Technologies base case installed lamp stock. In this scenario, DOE models market penetration of emerging technologies, such as LED, R-CFL, and ceramic metal halide (CMH), into the IRL stock. The methodology used for this scenario is described in detail in Chapter 10. For the Emerging Technologies scenario, LED reached the highest market penetration of any analyzed t echnology in both the residentia l sector and the commercial sector. DOE’s analysis found that R-CF L and other emerging technologies could penetrate 45 percent and 93 pe rcent of the IRL installed st ock by 2042 in the residential and commercial sector, respectively. This penetration of emerging technologies, occurring gradually over the analysis period, reduces the an alyzed installed stock and therefore the potential impact of an IRL energy conservation standard.

11-360 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 2032 2035 2038 2041Installed Lamp Stock (millions)



### Year R-CFL
IRL

Figure 11.2.22 IRL Emerging Technologies Base Case Installed Lamp Stock

Figure 11.2.23 and Figure 11.2.24 display the IRL stocks for the Existing Technologies, Shift, R-CFL Product Substitu tion and Em erging Technologies, Roll-up, BR Product Substitution standards case scenario s at TSL4, respectively. In general, DOE expects a decline in the stock of covered IRL in the near term because of a historical fall in R-CFL prices which DOE predicts will continue to increase the penetration of this technology. However, DOE does not believe this rate of decline is sustainable as the growth of R-CFL will likely slow commensurate with the stabilization of R-CFL prices in recent years. Therefore, in the years after a standard takes effect, DOE expects the covered IRL stock to flatten and then gra dually climb due to new construction and the increasing number of light points per home, as discussed in Chapter 10.

Again, DOE assumes consumers do not necessarily continue to purchase the same lamp as they do in the base case. DOE thus models an additional shift (driven by standards) to R-CFL in the R-CFL Produc t Substitution Case, as depicted in Figure 11.2.23

.

11-370 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 2032 2035 2038 2041Installed Lamp Stock (millions)



### Year R-CFL
Add'l R-CFL
65W BR
IRL

Figure 11.2.23 IRL Install Lamp Stock (E xisting Technologies, Shift, R-CFL Product Substitution Scenario, TSL4)

Figure 11.2.24 shows that after the effective date of the standard, R-CFL and other em erging technologies penetrate the IRL ma rket, gradually increasing market share. As stated above, DOE assumes consumers do not necessarily continue to purchase the same lamp as they do in the base case. In the BR Production Substitution scenario, DOE thus models migration to exempted bulge re flector (BR) lamps, butnot to additional RCFL. Figure 11.2.24 .depicts the migration to BR lamps at TSL 4. This reflects the lower-bound energy savings scenario.

11-380 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 2032 2035 2038 2041Installed Lamp Stock (millions)



### Year R-CFL and Other Emerging Technologies
Add'l R-CFL
65W BR
IRL

Figure 11.2.24 IRL Installed Lamp Stock (Emerging Technologies, Roll-up, BR Product Substitution Scenario, TSL4)

11.2.2.3 Average Lamp Efficacy of the Stock

Calculation of the NES and NPV de pends on the estimate of the average efficacy in the lamp stock. Figure 11.2.25 and Figure 11.2.26 present the average efficacy of the commercial and resid ential IRL stock for each TSL in the upper- and lower-bound energy savings scenarios. The average efficacy num bers do not include stock moving to R-CFL or other emerging technologies over time.

Figure 11.2.25 presents the average efficacy of the IRL stock under the Existing Technologies, Shift, R-CFL Product Substitu tion scenario from 2012 to 2042. The average efficacy of the IRL stock increases with increasing TSLs. In the residential sector, there is a sharp increase in effi cacy at each TSL until 2014 as lower-efficacy lamps installed prior to 2012 are retired fr om the stock. By 2014, standards-compliant lamps saturate the installed base. Becau se the technology mix of the lamps shipped remains constant over time in both the base case and standards cases for the residential sector, the corresponding efficacy forecasts are c onstant as well. This is not the case for the commercial sector because technology tends to shift from halogen to HIR. However, because the commercial sector is a much smalle r part of the overall market, a significant overall increase in efficacy is not shown.

11-390 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045Average Efficacy (lm/W)



### Year Base Case
TSL1
TSL2
TSL3
TSL4
TSL5

Figure 11.2.25 Average Efficacy of the IR L Stock (Existing Technologies, Shift, RCFL Product Substitution Scenario)

Figure 11.2.26 presents the average efficacy of the IRL stock in the Emerging Technologies, Roll-up, B R Product Substitution scenario from 2012 to 2042. Again, the average efficacy of the IRL stock increases with increasing TSLs. Also similar to the previous scenario, lamp efficacy remains cons tant over the analysis period after a sharp increase during the first few years. However, in the base case for emerging technologies, there is a slight decrease in lamp efficacy in the first few years of the analysis period. This is due to the rapid penetration of em erging technologies in the commercial market, especially between 2012 and 2019. Since such a large percentage of the commercial market shifts to technologies other than IRL, the residential market quickly increases its share of the overall market for IRL. Because residential IRL have a lower average efficacy than commercial IRL and quickly increa se market share, the average efficacy of the total market decreases sligh tly between the years of 2012 and 2019.

11-400 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045Average Efficacy (lm/W)



### Year Base Case
TSL1
TSL2
TSL3
TSL4
TSL5

Figure 11.2.26 Average Efficacy of the IRL Stock (Emerging Technologies, Roll-up, BR Product Substitution Scenario)

11.3 NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS

11.3.1 National Energy Savings Definition

DOE calculates annual national energy savi ngs as the difference between the base case (withou t new standards) and the standa rds case (with new standards). Positive values of NES correspond to net energy savings following standards implementation. That is, national annual energy consumption (AEC) with standa rds is less than AEC in the base case.

RR HVAC AEC AEC NES stdt baset t  

  ) (

, , Eq. 11.1

where

NES t = national energy savings in year t ,

AEC = annual national energy consumpti on each year (at the source) in quadrillion British thermal units (quads),

11-41HVAC= heating, ventilation, air c onditioning (HVAC) factor,

RR = rebound rate,

t = year in the forecast (e.g., 2012 to 2042),

base = base case, and

std = standards case.

Cumulative energy savings are the sum over a defined time period from the implementation of a standard forward (fro m 2012 to 2042) of the annual national energy savings multiplied by the HVAC interaction factor and rebound rate. 

## 


t t cum NES NES Eq. 11.2

where

NES cum = cumulative national energy savings.

DOE calculated the AEC (in any year) by multiplying the number or stock of lamps by the product of the annual unit en ergy consumption and the site-to-source conversion factor, shown by the following equation:

t ld ld ld convsrcUEC STOCK AEC

_   

##  Eq. 11.3

where

STOCK ld = stock of lamps for a given lamp design or lamp-and-ballast design surviving in the year for which DOE calculated AEC,

UEC ld

= unit energy consumption (kWh per year), and

src_conv t = time-dependent conversion factor to convert from site energy (kWh) to source energy (quads) (Btu/kWh).

11.3.2 National Energy Savings Inputs

Table 11.12 lists the inputs for the determination of NES.

Table 11.12 National Energy Saving Inputs

Input Unit Energy Consumption, UEC Lamp Stock by Design ( STOCKld ) Site-to-Source Conversion Factor ( src_conv ) Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning Factor ( HVAC )

11-42Reb ound Rate ( RR )

11.3.2.1 Unit Energy Consumption (UEC)

DOE presented the per-unit UEC for each lamp (and lamp-and-ballast pair in the case of GSFL) in the energy use characteriz ation (Chapter 6). For the NES and NPV calculations, DOE used an average number of annual operating hours for each sector and lamp type in calculating the UEC of each lamp design.

11.3.2.2 Lamp Stock

For GSFL, the lamp stock in a given year is the total number of lamps shipped in prior years that survive. The NES spreadsh eet model keeps track of the lamps (and lampand-ballast pairs in the case of GSFL) shipped each year. DOE discusses forecasted shipments for the base case and all standa rds cases in Chapter 10. To generate the shipments that eventually compose the GSFL stock, the shipments analysis for GSFL incorporates one set of base-case scenario s and two sets of st andards-case scenarios which can affect shipments. The base-case scenarios, Exis ting Technologies and Emerging Technologies, dictate the penetrati on of other lighting t echnologies into the GSFL stock, and therefore affect the total volu me of GSFL shipment and installed stock. The first set of standards-case scenarios comp rises the Roll-up and Shift scenarios; the second set comprises the High and Market Segm ent-Based lighting expertise scenarios. These scenarios dictate the inputs to the mark et-share matrices, and therefore affect the breakdown of the installed stock by lamp and ballast design from 2012 to 2042.

For IRL, the total lamp stock is also th e total number of lamps shipped in prior years that survive in a given y ear. To generate the shipments that eventually compose the IRL stock, DOE’s shipments analysis incorporat es two sets of standards case scenarios— four standards case scenarios in all—which characterize consumers that may weigh these factors differently. As with GSFL, the first set of scenario s for IRL includes the Roll-up and Shift scenarios. The s econd set of standards case IR L scenarios includes the BR Product Substitution and R-CFL Product Substitu tion scenarios. These standards-case scenarios are compared to two separate ba se-case scenarios (Existing Technologies and Emerging Technologies) resulting in eight possible sets of re sults. The Shift and R-CFL Product Substitution scenarios generally result in higher energy savings than the Roll-up and BR Product Substitution scenarios, resp ectively. The market share matrices, as presented in Chapter 10, provide for the breakdown of the stock by lamp design.

11.3.2.3 Site-to-Source Conversion Factors

The site-to-source conversion factor is the multiplicative factor DOE uses for converting site-energy consum ption into primary or source energy consumption. For electricity, the conversion factors vary over ti me due to projected changes in generation sources (i.e., the power plant types projected to provide elect ricity to the country). For the notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR), DOE calculated annua l average site-tosource conversion factors using the versi on of the National Energy Modeling Systems (NEMS) that corresponds to the Energy In formation Administration’s Annual Energy

11-43Outlook ( AEO2009)

. Table 11.13 presents site-to-source factors. The average conversion f actors vary over time, due to pr ojected changes in electricity generation

sources.

Table 11.13 Site-to-Source Conversion Factors

Year Site-to-Source Conversion Factor Btu/kWh Year Site-to-Source Conversion Factor Btu/kWh 2012 9,400 2028 9,200 2013 9,400 2029 9,200 2014 9,400 2030 9,200 2015 9,400 2031 9,200 2016 9,300 2032 9,200 2017 9,300 2033 9,200 2018 9,200 2034 9,200 2019 9,200 2035 9,200 2020 9,200 2036 9,200 2021 9,200 2037 9,200 2022 9,200 2038 9,200 2023 9,200 2039 9,200 2024 9,200 2040 9,200 2025 9,200 2041 9,200 2026 9,200 2042 9,200 2027 9,200 Source: AEO 2009. Conversion fact ors beyond 2030 are extrapolated.

11.3.2.4 Interactions with Heating, Ve ntilation, and Air-Conditioning (HVAC) Systems

DOE estimated increased national energy savi ngs due to interactions with heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning systems in th e commercial and industrial sectors. To account for HVAC energy savings, DOE used the analysis completed by the 2000 Fluorescent Ballast rulemaking, which calculate s an HVAC interaction energy savings of 6.25 percent of total energy savings. i This analysis incorporates changes in both heating and cooling loads as a result of the standard. The ballast rule analysis involved calculating the lighting HVAC interaction ener gy savings on buildings built before 1989 (5 percent of total energy savings) and ones built from 1990 to 1995 (10 percent of total energy savings). The ballast analysis assume d that over the analysis period, the building stock would move from the 5-percent HVAC f actor toward the 10-percent HVAC factor. With simple scaling methods, DOE used 6.25 pe rcent as an average interaction over the entire analysis period. Using this same methodology for lamps, an analysis period from 2012 to 2042 would have a slightly higher HVAC energy savings. However, the overall HVAC savings with lighting may also decrease relative to the factor calculated by the 2000 ballast rule due to a trend toward more efficient heating and cooling systems. Considering these competing factors, DOE us ed 6.25 percent of total energy savings as the HVAC energy savings in the commercial se ctor for both GSFL and IRL and in the industrial sector for GSFL. DOE assume d negligible HVAC interactions in the residential sector.

11-4411.3.2.5 Rebound Rate

In its analysis, DOE considered the rebound effect 1 that occurs after installation of energy-efficient lighting equipment. DOE examined a summary of the literature regarding the rebound effect in relation to lighting equipment. 2 Based on four studies, the summary estimated that for a 100-percent increase in energy efficiency, “take-back” or rebound values for residential lighting are between 5 and 12 percent of energy consumption savings. The summary estimated zero to 2-percent rebound values for commercial and industrial ligh ting. Therefore, in the ca lculation of national energy savings due to energy conservation standard s on lighting, DOE used a rebound rate of 8.5 percent in the residential sector and 1 percent in the commerci al and industrial sectors.

The take-back in energy consumption a ssociated with the rebound effect provides consumers with increased value (e.g., incr eased lighting hours, since the increased efficiency enables consumers to use their lighting equipment for longer periods of time). The impact on consumers is therefore the sum of the change in the cost of owning the lighting equipment (i.e., life-cycle cost) and the increased value of more lighting hours. However, DOE is unable to monetize this incr ease in consumer value in the life-cycle cost (LCC) analysis. If it were able to m onetize the increased value to consumers of the rebound effect, this value would be at least as great as the value of the foregone energy savings. For this analysis, DOE estimates that this value is equivalent to the monetary value of the energy savings that would ha ve occurred without the rebound effect. Therefore, the economic impacts on consumer s with or without th e rebound effect, as measured in the LCC and NPV analyses, are the same.

11.4 NET PRESENT VALUE

11.4.1 Net Present Value Definition

The NPV is the value in the present of a time series of costs and savings. The NPV is calculated as follows:

PVCPVS NPV

  Eq. 11.4 where

PVS = present value of operating cost savings, and

PVC = present value of increased total installed costs.

The PVS and PVC are determined according to the following expressions:

1 Under economic theory, “rebound effect” refers to the tendency of a consumer to respond to the cost savings associated with more effi cient equipment in a manner that act ually leads to marginally greater product usage, thereby diminishing some portion of anticipated benefits related to improved efficiency.
2 Greening, L.A., D.L. Greene, and C. Difiglio, “Ene rgy efficiency and consumption—the rebound effect— a survey,” 28 Energy Policy (2000), pp. 389–401.

11-45

##    tt DFOCS PVS Eq. 11.5 

##   tt DFTIC PVC Eq. 11.6
where

OCS = total annual operating cost savings,

TIC = total annual installed cost increases,

DF = discount factor, and

t = year ( PVS and PVC are summed over 2012-2042).

DOE determined the contributions to PVC and PVS for each year from the effective date of the standard, 2012, to 2042, discounted for the NOPR analysis to 2007. DOE applied residual values ( positive cash flows) in 2042 in both the base and standards cases to account for the remaining useful lives of the lamps (and ballasts) beyond 2042. DOE chose this approach rather than es timating the operating cost savings beyond 2042 because the average lamp lifetimes in the ba se and standards cases often differ. For example, a baseline halogen IRL may ha ve lifetime of 2,500 hours while an improved HIR IRL (shipped at TSL3) has a lifetime of 4,000 hours. DOE calculated costs and savings as the difference between a standards case (i.e., with new standards) and a base case (i.e., without new standards). DOE calcu lated a discount factor from the discount rate and the number of years between the “present” (i.e., year to which the sum is being discounted) and the year in which the costs and savings occur. DOE calculated the net present value as the sum over time of the disc ounted net savings (whi ch is equivalent to the approach shown in Equations 10.4 – 10.6).

11.4.2 Net Present Value Inputs

Table 11.14 summarizes the inputs to the NPV calculation.
Table 11.14 Net Present Value Inputs

Input Total Annual Installed Cost Increases ( TICt ) Total Annual Operating Cost Savings ( OCSt ) Discount Factor

11.4.2.1 Total Annual Installed Cost Increases

DOE calculated the increase in total annual installed costs as the difference between the total annual installed costs in the standards case minus thos e in the base case. For each case, the total annual installed costs equal the product of the shipments and perunit installed cost (summed over each lamp design or lamp-and-ballast design). The perunit installed cost includes the lamp cost (and the ballast cost if applicable) and the installation cost. (In its installed cost calcula tion, DOE also includes the cost of a retrofit

11-46kit for replacing a two-lamp 8-foot single pi n slimline system with two two-lamp 4-foot MBP T8 systems. DOE found a retrofit kit sold for $32.00, excluding lamps and ballasts, and included this in the installed costs. To account for the time required to install the retrofit kit, DOE added 22.5 minut es of labor time to the 8-foot single pin slimline system replacement time to derive the full labor time required in this event. In sum, DOE calculated the total labor cost of the retrof it kit and the installation of two two-lamp 4- foot medium bipin systems to be $74.32.)

To establish the per-unit installed cost, DOE based installation costs on nationally representative values for each lamp design or each lamp-and-ballast design. In addition, DOE based lamp and ballast prices off of di scounted blue-book prices (See the LCC and payback period (PBP) analysis descriptions in Chapter 8 for a further description of installation costs and lamp a nd ballast prices). Although GS FL lamp designs often have slightly varying lifetimes, as discussed in chapter 10, DOE used an average lifetime of each lamp type for each GSFL product class. Therefore, to ensure the accurate calculation of NPV, DOE scaled the per-unit installed costs of each lamp to account for this modification of lamp lifetime.

11.4.2.2 Total Annual Operating Cost Savings

As the LCC and PBP analysis (Chapter 8) describes, DOE calculates total annual operating costs based on national average elect ricity prices. (The only component of annual operating cost for lamps is the co st of electricity consumption.)

Eq. 11.7 

##   
ld ld ld priceyelectricit UEC STOCK OCS

DOE calculates tota l annual operating cost savings as the difference between total annual operating costs in the base case minus those in the standards case. DOE uses an average number of annual operating hours for e ach sector and lamp type in calculating the UEC of each lamp design.

For GSFL, DOE uses national average comm ercial electricity prices, for 4-foot medium bipin lamps, 8-foot single pin slimline lamps, and 4-foot T5 miniature bipin standard output. DOE uses national average industrial prices for the 8-foot recessed double contact HO lamps and 4-foot T5 miniat ure bipin high output lamps. For IRL, DOE uses national-average commercial and re sidential prices for it analysis in the commercial and residential sect ors, respectively. DOE uses AEO 2009 to establish all electricity prices. ii Chapter 8 provides the electricity price forecasts DOE uses to calculate the NPV.

11.4.2.3 Discount Factor

DOE multiplies monetary values in future years by the discount factor (DF) to calculate the present value. The followi ng equation describes how to calculate the discount factor:

11-47

##    

p tt r DF  

11 Eq. 11.8 where

r = discount rate,

t = year of the monetary value, and

t p = year in which the present value is being determined.

DOE estimates national impacts with bot h a 3-percent and a 7-percent real discount rate as the average real rate of return on private i nvestment in the U.S. economy. These discount rates are used in accordance with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)’s guidance to Federal ag encies on the development of regulatory analysis (OMB Circular A-4, September 17, 2003), and section E, “Identifying and Measuring Benefits and Costs,” therein. iii DOE defined the present year as 2009 for the final rule analysis.

11.5 NATIONAL ENERGY SA VINGS AND NET PRES ENT VALUE RESULTS

The NES spreadsheet model provides estimates of the NES and NPV due to various TSLs. The inputs to the NES spreadsheet are discussed in sections 11.3.2

, National Energy Savings Inputs, and 11.4.2 , Net Present Value Inputs. DOE generated the NES and NPV results using Microsoft Excel spreadsheets, accessible at http://www.eere.energy.gov/build ings/appliance_standards/re sidential/incandescent_lamp s.html . Appendix 11A provides instructi ons for using the spreadsheets.

11.5.1 National Energy Savings and Net Present Value Input Summary

Table 11.15 summarizes the inputs to the NES spreadsheet model. A brief description of the data is given for each input.

11-48Table 11.15 National Energy Saving and Net Present Value Inputs Input Data Data Description Shipments Annual shipments from the GSFL and IRL, shipment models (see technical support document (TSD) Chapter 10, Shipments Analysis). Stock of Lamps Established based on the 2005 lamp stock, the service life of lampsand/or ballasts, penetration of emerging technologies and noncovered technologies, and annual shipments.. The 2012 initial stock is based on historical shipments from National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) and forecasted shipments from 2006 to 2011. (see TSD Chapter 10, Shipments Analysis).
Effective Date of Standard 2012 Analysis Period 2012 to 2042 Unit Energy Consumption (kWh/yr) Established in the Energy-Use Char acterization, TSD Chapter 6, by lamp or lamp-and-ballast design and sector.
Total Installed Cost Established in the Pr oduct Price Determination, TSD Chapter 7 and the LCC Analysis, TSD Chapter 8, by lamp-and-ballast designs. Includes cost of retrofit kit and labor for replacing 8-foot lamp with two 4-foot lamps. Electricity Price Forecast 2009 En ergy Information Agency (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook forecasts (to 2030) and extrapola tion for beyond 2030 (see TSD Chapter 8). DOE used the version of AEO2009 that incorporated the impacts of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act. Electricity Site-to-Source Conversion Conversion varies yearly and is generated by 2009 EIA Annual Energy Outlook forecasts (to 2030) of electricity generation and electricity-related losses. Conversion factors beyond 2030 are extrapolated. HVAC Interaction Savings 6.25% of total en ergy savings in the commercial sector.
Rebound Effect 1% of total energy savings in the commercial sector 8.5% of total energy savings in the residential sector
Discount Rate 3 and 7 percent real.
Present Year Future costs and saving s are discounted to the year 2009.

11.5.2 Base Case Energy Consumption

Figure 11.5.1 through Figure 11.5.4 show the base-case energy consumption trajectories for the GSFL and IRL stocks, re spectively, in both the Em erging and Existing Technologies scenarios. As Figure 11.5.1 shows, DOE projects the energy consumption of 4-foot m edium bipin lamps to grow due to new construction and the replacement of some 8-foot single pin slimline systems with 4-foot medium bipin systems. Because of this same replacement, DOE projects the energy consumption of 8-foot single pin slimline systems will decrease. Additionall y, DOE expects energy consumption from 4- foot T5 miniature bipin standard output la mps to grow due to ne w construction, fixture replacement, renovation in the commercial se ctor. Similarly, energy consumption from 4- foot T5 miniature bipin high out put lamps is expected to grow as their stock grows from shipments servicing new construction and reno vation demand in the industrial sector.

11-49The stock and energy consumption of 8-foot recessed double contact high output lamps declines as these T5 high output lamps and ot her technologies, such as HID, take their place in new construction, fixture replacement, and renovation.

As shown in Figure 11.5.2 , energy consumption in the Emerging Technologies base case is lower than in the Existing Technolog ies scenario for 4-foot medium bipin and 4-foot T5 miniature bipin standard output lamps, as thei r stock is penetrated by LED lamps. The energy consumption of other product classes is equivalent in each scenario.

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 2030 2033 2036 2039 2042Energy Consumption (Quads)



### Year 8

‐ foot RDC HO 8

‐ foot SP Slimline 4

‐ foot T5 SO 4

‐ foot T5 HO 4

‐ foot MBP

Figure 11.5.1 National Ener gy Consumption, General Service Fluorescent Lamps, Existing Technologies Base Case (quads of source energy)

11-500.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 2030 2033 2036 2039 2042Energy Consumption (Quads)



### Year 8

‐ foot RDC HO 8

‐ foot SP Slimline 4

‐ foot T5 SO 4

‐ foot T5 HO 4

‐ foot MBP

Figure 11.5.2 National Ener gy Consumption, General Service Fluorescent Lamps, Emerging Technologies Base Ca se (quads of source energy)

As illustrated in Figure 11.5.3 and Figure 11.5.4 , the energy consumption of the IRL stock mostly increases over tim e in bot h the commercial and residential sectors in each base case scenario. However, in the initial years of the analysis period, energy consumption in the Emerging Technologies s cenario declines due the penetration of RCFL and other technologies. For this r eason, energy consumption is lower in the Emerging Technologies base case than in th e Existing Technologies base case.

11-510.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45

2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 2030 2033 2036 2039 2042Energy Consumption Source (Quads)



### Year
Figure 11.5.3 National En ergy Consumption, Incandescent Reflector Lamps, Existing Technologies Base Case (quads of source energy)

11-520.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 2030 2033 2036 2039 2042Energy Consumption Source (Quads)



### Year
Figure 11.5.4 National En ergy Consumption, Incandescent Reflector Lamps, Emerging Technologies Base Ca se (quads of source energy)

11.5.3 National Energy Savings Results

The following section provides NES resu lts (including HVAC interactions and rebound effects where applicable) for each TSL that DOE considers for GSFL and IRL. Results are cumulative to 2042 and are shown as primary energy savings in quads. For GSFL, 4-foot medium bipin, 8-foot single pin slimline, 8-foot recessed double contact high output, and 4-foot T5 mi niature bipin standard output and high outpu t results are representative of the combination of the lo w correlated color temperature (CCT) (less than or equal to 4,500K) and the high CCT (g reater than 4,500K) pr oduct classes. Also shown are the NIA results for 2-foot U-shaped lamps. Due to their relatively small shipments-based market share, DOE did not directly model the national impacts of 2-foot U-shaped lamps. However, given the similari ties in historical shipment trends (showing a decrease in T12 lamps and an increase in T8 lamps) and in sy stem input power, DOE scaled results from the 4-f oot medium bipin product cla sses to approximate NES of 2- foot U-Shaped product classes. As historical shipments 4-f oot medium bipin lamps were 22 times that of 2-foot U-shaped lamp ship ments, DOE used this scaling factor to approximate the energy savings of 2-foot U-shaped lamps. For IRL, results in this chapter represent a combinati on of the standard-spectrum and modified-spectrum product classes. As discussed earlier, DOE analy zes several shipment scenarios for GSFL and IRL. In this section DOE presents only upper- and lower-bound energy savings and net

11-53present value results. Appendix 11B presen ts national impact results for the other shipment scenarios, including the sensitivity scenarios DOE considered.

11.5.3.1 General Service Fluorescent Lamps

In total, there are eight possible comb inations of base and standards case scenarios, yielding eight possi ble sets of NES results. Table 11.16 and Table 11.17 show the NES results under the Existing Technologies , Shift, High expertise scenario, which reflects the upper bound of energy savings, and the Em erging, Roll-up, Market SegmentBased scenario, which reflects the lower bound, respectively. Due to a larger reduction in the installed stock of lamps affected by standards, the Emerging Technologies basecase forecast results in lower energy savi ngs than the Existing Technologies base-case forecast. In addition, due to a portion of consumers purchasing non-energy-saving, higher-lumen-output systems, the Market Se gment-Based Lighting Expertise scenario results in lower energy savings than the High Lighting Expertise scenario. Finally, because in the Shift scenario more consumer s move to higher-efficacy lamps than in the Roll-up scenario, the Shift scenario results in higher energy savings than the Roll-up scenario.

Table 11.16 and Table 11.17 present total national energy savings for each TSL (labeled as “Total” s avings). The table also reports national energy savings due to individually regulating each t ype of GSFL (presented next to the lamp type names), assuming no amended standard on all other la mp types. For this reason, individual lamp type energy savings (due to se parate regulation) do not sum to equal total energy savings achieved at the trial standard levels due to standards-induced substitution effects between lamp types. Instead, these savings are pr ovided merely to illustrate the approximate relative energy savings of each lamp type under a TSL.

The greatest energy savings result from TSL5 for both scenarios and all lamp types. At TSL1 and TSL2, most of the ener gy savings originate from shifts to higher efficacy T12 lamps and, in the 4-foot medium bipin and 8-foot single pin slimline models, retrofits to more efficacious T8 syst ems. At TSL1 and TSL2 all T8 lamps are standards-compliant and, therefore, unaffect ed in both scenarios. At TSL3, a large increase in energy savings can be observed, stemming from the savings associated with the regulation of 4-foot T8 MBP lamps (the majority of the stock). At TSL4 and TSL5, all T12 lamp systems are automatically retr ofitted to T8 lamp systems because no T12 standards-compliant lamps are available in the 4-foot medium bi pin, 8-foot single pin slimline, and 8-foot recesse d double contact HO product classe s. Energy savings for 4- foot T5 MiniBP HO lamps are the same at each TSL because there is only one efficacy level for this product class. For 4-foot T5 standard output lamps, energy savings are the same for TSL1 to TSL4 as these TSL reflect the same efficacy level. At TSL5, the energy savings increase for the 4-foot T5 standard output product class as the minimum efficacy requirement for these lamps increases this highest TSL.

11-54Table 11.16 Cumulative National Energy Savings for General Service Fluorescent Lamps Under the Existing, Shift, High Lighting Expertise Scenario (2012-2042) (quads) NES (Quads) TSL Product Class Undiscounted Discounted at 7% Discounted at 3% 4-foot medium bipin 0.89 3.30 6.86 8-foot single pin slimline 0.25 0.55 1.40 8-foot recessed double contact HO 0.17 0.54 0.88 4-foot T5 miniature bipin SO 0.69 1.47 3.37 4-foot T5 miniature bipin HO 0.96 2.22 4.81 2-foot U-shaped 0.04 0.15 0.31 1

TOTAL 3.01 8.24 17.63 4-foot medium bipin 0.99 2.63 5.99 8-foot single pin slimline 0.28 0.60 1.53 8-foot recessed double contact HO 0.22 0.68 1.09 4-foot T5 miniature bipin SO 0.69 1.47 3.37 4-foot T5 miniature bipin HO 0.96 2.22 4.81 2-foot U-shaped 0.05 0.12 0.27 2

TOTAL 3.19 7.73 17.07 4-foot medium bipin 4.17 9.40 20.06 8-foot single pin slimline 0.32 0.82 1.82 8-foot recessed double contact HO 0.23 0.32 0.59 4-foot T5 miniature bipin SO 0.69 1.47 3.37 4-foot T5 miniature bipin HO 0.96 2.22 4.81 2-foot U-shaped 0.19 0.43 0.91 3

TOTAL 6.59 14.81 31.80 4-foot medium bipin 6.96 18.66 37.88 8-foot single pin slimline 0.37 0.84 1.97 8-foot recessed double contact HO 0.56 1.87 3.17 4-foot T5 miniature bipin SO 0.69 1.47 3.37 4-foot T5 miniature bipin HO 0.96 2.22 4.81 2-foot U-shaped 0.32 0.85 1.72 4

TOTAL 9.94 26.31 53.53 4-foot medium bipin 8.79 22.79 45.79 8-foot single pin slimline 0.37 0.84 1.97 8-foot recessed double contact HO 0.62 1.98 3.36 4-foot T5 miniature bipin SO 0.82 1.91 4.29 4-foot T5 miniature bipin HO 0.96 2.22 4.81 2-foot U-shaped 0.40 1.04 2.08 5

TOTAL 12.00 30.93 62.55

11-55Table 11.17 Cumulative National Energy Savings for General Service Fluorescent Lamps Under the Emerging, Roll-up, Market Segment-Based Scen ario (2012-2042) (quads) NES (Quads) TSL Product Class Undiscounted Discounted at 7% Discounted at 3% 4-foot medium bipin 0.61 1.11 2.88 8-foot single pin slimline 0.25 0.51 1.34 8-foot recessed double contact HO 0.02 -0.19 -0.24 4-foot T5 miniature bipin SO 0.11 0.08 0.26 4-foot T5 miniature bipin HO 0.53 1.19 2.63 2-foot U-shaped 0.03 0.05 0.13 1

TOTAL 1.54 2.75 7.00 4-foot medium bipin 0.75 0.75 2.60 8-foot single pin slimline 0.27 0.58 1.50 8-foot recessed double contact HO 0.19 0.77 1.20 4-foot T5 miniature bipin SO 0.11 0.08 0.26 4-foot T5 miniature bipin HO 0.53 1.19 2.63 2-foot U-shaped 0.03 0.03 0.12 2

TOTAL 1.88 3.41 8.31 4-foot medium bipin 1.81 2.68 7.05 8-foot single pin slimline 0.32 0.82 1.82 8-foot recessed double contact HO 0.19 0.22 0.39 4-foot T5 miniature bipin SO 0.11 0.08 0.26 4-foot T5 miniature bipin HO 0.53 1.19 2.63 2-foot U-shaped 0.08 0.12 0.32 3

TOTAL 3.06 5.18 12.60 4-foot medium bipin 2.30 6.34 14.22 8-foot single pin slimline 0.23 0.24 0.91 8-foot recessed double contact HO 0.56 1.87 3.17 4-foot T5 miniature bipin SO 0.11 0.08 0.26 4-foot T5 miniature bipin HO 0.53 1.19 2.63 2-foot U-shaped 0.10 0.29 0.65 4

TOTAL 3.83 10.02 21.84 4-foot medium bipin 3.32 6.12 14.24 8-foot single pin slimline 0.24 0.33 1.07 8-foot recessed double contact HO 0.57 1.81 3.10 4-foot T5 miniature bipin SO 0.26 0.32 0.91 4-foot T5 miniature bipin HO 0.53 1.19 2.63 2-foot U-shaped 0.15 0.28 0.65 5

TOTAL 5.08 10.05 22.57

11.5.3.2 Incandescent Reflector Lamps

Table 11.18 and Table 11.19 present national energy savings for IRL in the Existing Technologies, S hift, R-CFL Produc t Substitution scenario and the Emerging Technologies, Roll-up, BR Product substitution scenario, respectively. Table 11.18 reflects the upper-bound ener gy savings scenario, and Table 11.19 reflects the lowerbound energy savings scenario. In total, there are eight possible com binations of base and

11-56standards case scenarios. Appendix 11B presents results for each scenario as well as for the 10-percent lumen increase, Baseline Lifetime, and the Modified Emerging Technologies sensitivity scenarios. As seen in the tables, energy savings increases with increasing TSLs. TSL5 results in the hi ghest energy savings for both the upper- and lower-bound scenarios. Energy savings are, in general, greater for the Existing Technologies, Shift, R-CFL Product Substituti on scenario primarily because there is more covered IRL stock for this scenari o, because consumers can shift to above minimum-efficacy covered IRL, and because ther e is a shift to higher-efficacy R-CFLs in the standards-case.

Table 11.18 Cumulative National Energy Savings for IRL in the Existing Technologies, Shift, R-CFL Product Substi tution Scenario (2012-2042) (quads) NES (Quads) TSL Undiscounted Discounted at 7% Discounted at 3% 1 0.45 0.13 0.25
2 1.09 0.33 0.62
3 1.91 0.58 1.08
4 2.39 0.72 1.35
5 2.72 0.82 1.54

Table 11.19 Cumulative National Energy Savings for IRL in the Emerging Technologies, Roll-up, BR Product Subs titution Scenario (2012-2042) (quads) NES (Quads) TSL Undiscounted Discounted at 7% Discounted at 3% 1 0.16 0.05 0.09
2 0.40 0.13 0.23
3 0.81 0.26 0.47
4 0.94 0.30 0.55
5 1.12 0.36 0.65

11.5.4 Annual Costs and Savings

To illustrate the basic inputs to the NPV calculations, Figure 11.5.5 through Figure 11.5.8 present the undiscounted annual total installed cost increases and annual operating cost savings at the national level for G SFL and IRL in the upper and lower bound scenarios. The figures also show the net annual savings, which is the difference

11-57between the savings and costs for each year. Both annual total installed cost increases and annual operating costs savings accumula te from 2012 to 2042. A net residual value is applied at the end of 2042 to account for th e difference in the remaining values of the base and standards case lamp (and ballast) stock. The NPV is the difference between the cumulative annual discounted operating co st savings and the cumulative annual discounted total installed cost increases (plus the inclusion of the discounted net residual value).

Figure 11.5.5 and Figure 11.5.6 present detailed results showing the breakdown of the NPV into PVS (equation 10.5) and PVC (equation 10.6) for 4-foot m edium bipin under the Existing Technologies, Shift, Hi gh expertise scenario and the Emerging Technologies, Roll-up, Market Segment-Based e xpertise scenario, respectively. Both figures illustrate a similar pattern though at different sc ales: smaller annual operating cost savings initially compared to the increa ses in annual total installed equipment costs, resulting in negative net annual savings in the first years after the st andard takes effect. However, operating and equipment cost savings generally increase w ith time, as more standards-compliant lamps are installed (and th e initial ballast stock is replaced). As a result, total savings increases rapidly. Near the middle of th e analysis period, after much of initial ballast stock has retired and been re placed, the net annual savings begins to level out and gradually decline, although savings remain positive. As the bl ue line depicts, net annual savings decline for a few years during the middle of the anal ysis period and again at the end of the analysis period. This is because there are lamp-and-ballast system retrofits at the start of the analysis period in the standard s case that result in high incremental first costs at the beginning of the analysis period and approximately 15 years later when these ballasts must be replaced.

11-58-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 2030 2033 2036 2039 2042Billion $



### Year Undiscounted Equipment Cost Savings
Undiscounted Operating Cost Savings
Net Undiscounted Annual Savings Undiscounted Net Residual Value: $0.81 Billion

Figure 11.5.5 National Undiscounted Annual Total Installed Equipment and Operating Cost Savings for 4-Foot Medium Bipin at TSL4 (Existing Technologies, Shift, High Lighting Expertise Scenario)

11-59-3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 2030 2033 2036 2039 2042Billion $



### Year Undiscounted Equipment Cost Savings
Undiscounted Operating Cost Savings
Net Undiscounted Annual Savings Undiscounted Net Residual Value: $2.35 Billion

Figure 11.5.6 National Undiscounted Annual Total Installed Equipment and Operating Cost Savings for 4-Foot Medium Bipin at TSL4 (Emerging Technologies, Roll-up, Market Segment-Based Lighting Expertise Scenario)

Figure 11.5.7 and Figure 11.5.8 present detailed results showing the breakdown of the NPV into PVS (equation 10.5) and PVC (equation 10.6) for com bined commercial and residential IRL at TSL4 under the Ex isting Technologies, Shift, R-CFL Product Substitution and Emerging Technologies, Roll -up, BR Product Substitution scenarios, respectively. In general, operating cost sa vings exceed any increase in equipment costs throughout the analysis period, resulting in a positive annual NPV in both scenarios. The operating costs savings are much higher in R-CFL Product Substitution than in BR Product Substitution due to the former’s much higher efficacy. In the R-CFL ProductSubstitution scenario, incremental equipment costs are greater due the higher price of RCFL relative to BR lamps. However, this higher equipment costs is mitigated by the longer lifetime (8,000 hr) of R- CFL, resulting in fewer lamp replacement needs.

11-60-0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6

2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 2032 2035 2038 2041Billion $



### Year IRL Undiscounted Operating Cost Savings IRL Undiscounted Equipment Cost Savings
IRL Undiscounted Total NPV Undiscounted Net Residual Value (Billion $): 0.616

Figure 11.5.7 National Undiscounted Annual Total Installed Equipment and Operating Cost Savings for IRL at TSL4 (Existing Technologies, Shift, R-CFL Product Substitution Scenario)

11-61-0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 2032 2035 2038 2041Billion $



### Year IRL Undiscounted Operating Cost Savings IRL Undiscounted Equipment Cost Savings
IRL Undiscounted Total NPV Undiscounted Net Residual Value (Billion $): 0.389

Figure 11.5.8 National Undiscounted Annual Total Installed Equipment and Operating Cost Savings for IRL at TSL4 (Emerging Technologies, Roll-up, BR Product Substitution Scenario)

11.5.5 Net Present Value Results

The following section provides NPV results for the TSLs considered for GSFL and IRL. For GSFL, 4-foot medium bipin, 8-foot single pin slimline, 8-foot recessed double contact high output, 4-foot T5 miniat ure bipin standard out put and high output, and 2-foot U-shaped results are representati ve of the combination of the low CCT (less than or equal to 4,500K) and the high CCT (g reater than 4,500K) pr oduct classes. As discussed earlier, due to thei r relatively small shipments- based market share, DOE did not directly model the national impacts of 2-foot U-shaped lamps. However, given the similarities in historical shipment trends (showing a decrease in T12 lamps and an increase in T8 lamps) and in system input power, DOE scaled results from the 4-foot medium bipin product classes to approximate NPV of 2-foot U-Shap ed product classes. As historical shipments 4-foot medium bi pin lamps were 22 times that of 2-foot Ushaped lamp shipments, DOE used this sca ling factor to approximate the net present value for 2-foot U-shaped lamps. For IRL, results in this chapter represent a combination of the standard-spectrum and modi fied-spectrum product classes.

11-62NPV results are cumulative and shown as the discounted value of these savings in dollar terms. DOE uses national average el ectricity pricing and sector-specific point values for operating hours in calculating UECs . Thus, the NPV results are discrete point values rather than a distribution of valu es as in the LCC and PBP analyses.

The present value of increased total inst alled costs is the total installed cost increase (i.e., the difference between the st andards case and base case in given year), discounted to the present, and summed over the time period in which DOE evaluates the impact of standards (i.e., from the e ffective date of standards, 2012, to 2042).

Savings are decreases in operating cost s associated with higher efficacy lamps purchased in the standards case compared to the base case. DOE calculated total annual operating cost savings as the difference between total annual operating costs in the base case minus those in the standards case. Equation 10.7 gives the total annual operating costs in each case.

11.5.5.1 General Service Fluorescent Lamps

Table 11.20 and Table 11.21 show the NPV results under the Existing Technologies, Shift, High expertise scenar io, which reflects the upper bound NPV of standards, and the Em erging, Roll-up, Market Segment-Based scenario, which reflects the lower bound, respectively. NPV is presente d at both 7-percent a nd 3-percent discount rates. DOE based all results on el ectricity price forecasts from the AEO 2009 Reference Case. In general, the NPV results at each tr ial standard level are a reflection of the lifecycle cost savings at the corresponding efficacy levels. As seen in Chapter 8, Life-Cycle Cost Analysis, for most lamp purchasing events and most baseline lamps, increasing efficacy levels generally result in increased LCC savings. Due to this general costeffectiveness of higher-efficacy GSFL, the Existing Technologies base-case forecast (which increases the affected stock and shipme nts) and the Shift scenario (which results in the shipment of more high-efficacy lamps) represent the high-range scenario for NPV. The Market Segment-Based Lighting Expertis e scenario models consumers who purchase higher-first-cost lamps, but may not achie ve energy savings. As these consumers generally have overall lower NPV (and often negative NPV) than their energy-saving counterparts, the Market Segment-Based Light ing Expertise scenario results in lower NPV than the High Lighting Expertise scenario.

As seen in Table 11.20 and Table 11.21 , NPV generally increases with increasing trial s tandard levels, consistent with the same trend in the LCC results. The largest product class, 4-foot medium bipin lamps, have positive NPV in both scenarios at all TSLs due to the integration of more-efficaci ous T8 lamps into both commercial stocks and residential stocks. In the Emerging Technologies, Roll-up, Market Segment-Based Lighting Expertise scenario show s a slight decrease in NPV from TSL4 to TSL5 at a 7% discount rate (and essentially no increase at a 3% discount rate). This is primarily due to the portion of consumers (without lighting expertise) that ar e forced to purchase much higher cost lamps, but do not take advant age of the energy savings they provide.

11-63Under the upper scenario, the highest NPV is realized at TSL5 for all product classes. Under the lower bound scenario, the highest NPV is realized at TSL5 for all product classes, except 4-foot MBP (as discusse d), 2-foot U-shaped (w hich is scaled from 4-foot MPB product class), and 8-foot RDC hi gh output lamps, which all realize slightly higher NPVs at TSL4. The majority of the NP V is achieved in 4-foot medium bipin class due mostly to the cost effectiveness of T8 systems as replacements for both 4-foot medium bipin T12 and 8-foot single pin slimlin e systems, as well as the larger stock of these lamps relative to other pr oduct classes. The 4-foot me dium bipin lamp results in positive NPV because increasingly efficacious lamp-and-ballast designs generally have higher LCC savings relative to each other a nd the base case lamp-a nd-ballast designs.

At TSL4 and TSL5 for 4-foot medium bi pin, 8-foot single pin slimline lamps, and 8-foot recessed double contact HO lamps, larg e and positive NPV generally result due to the integration of more efficacious T8 design options into the commercial, residential, and industrial lamp stocks. As 4-foot T8 medium bipin lamps compose the majority of the GSFL stock, an increase in lamp effi cacy and a decrease in energy consumption results in large operating cost savings and, th erefore, high NPV. The NPV of 4-foot T5 miniature bipin standard output and high output is positive for each scenario and relatively flat across the various TSLs becau se there are only two efficacy levels for standard output lamps and one for high output lamps.

11-64Table 11.20 Cumulative NPV Results for General Service Fluorescent Lamps Under the Existing Technologies, Shift, High Expertise Scenario (2012-2042) (Billion 2008$) NPV (billion 2008$)
TSL Product Class Discounted at 7% Discounted at 3%

4-foot medium bipin 3.30 6.86 8-foot single pin slimline 0.55 1.40 8-foot recessed double contact HO 0.54 0.88 4-foot T5 miniature bipin SO 1.47 3.37 4-foot T5 miniature bipin HO 2.22 4.81 2-foot U-Shaped 0.15 0.31 1

TOTAL 8.24 17.63 4-foot medium bipin 2.63 5.99 8-foot single pin slimline 0.60 1.53 8-foot recessed double contact HO 0.68 1.09 4-foot T5 miniature bipin SO 1.47 3.37 4-foot T5 miniature bipin HO 2.22 4.81 2-foot U-Shaped 0.12 0.27 2

TOTAL 7.73 17.07 4-foot medium bipin 9.40 20.06 8-foot single pin slimline 0.82 1.82 8-foot recessed double contact HO 0.32 0.59 4-foot T5 miniature bipin SO 1.47 3.37 4-foot T5 miniature bipin HO 2.22 4.81 2-foot U-Shaped 0.43 0.91 3

TOTAL 14.81 31.80 4-foot medium bipin 18.66 37.88 8-foot single pin slimline 0.84 1.97 8-foot recessed double contact HO 1.87 3.17 4-foot T5 miniature bipin SO 1.47 3.37 4-foot T5 miniature bipin HO 2.22 4.81 2-foot U-Shaped 0.85 1.72 4

TOTAL 26.31 53.53 4-foot medium bipin 22.79 45.79 8-foot single pin slimline 0.84 1.97 8-foot recessed double contact HO 1.98 3.36 4-foot T5 miniature bipin SO 1.91 4.29 4-foot T5 miniature bipin HO 2.22 4.81 2-foot U-Shaped 1.04 2.08 5

TOTAL 30.93 62.55

11-65Table 11.21 Cumulative NPV Results for General Service Fluorescent Lamps Under the Emerging Technologies, Roll- up, Market Segment-Based Expertise Scenario (2012-2042) (Billion 2008$) NPV (billion 2008$)
TSL Product Class Discounted at 7% Discounted at 3%

4-foot medium bipin 1.11 2.88 8-foot single pin slimline 0.51 1.34 8-foot recessed double contact HO -0.19 -0.24 4-foot T5 miniature bipin SO 0.08 0.26 4-foot T5 miniature bipin HO 1.19 2.63 2-foot U-Shaped 0.05 0.13 1

TOTAL 2.75 7.00 4-foot medium bipin 0.75 2.60 8-foot single pin slimline 0.58 1.50 8-foot recessed double contact HO 0.77 1.20 4-foot T5 miniature bipin SO 0.08 0.26 4-foot T5 miniature bipin HO 1.19 2.63 2-foot U-Shaped 0.03 0.12 2

TOTAL 3.41 8.31 4-foot medium bipin 2.68 7.05 8-foot single pin slimline 0.82 1.82 8-foot recessed double contact HO 0.22 0.39 4-foot T5 miniature bipin SO 0.08 0.26 4-foot T5 miniature bipin HO 1.19 2.63 2-foot U-Shaped 0.12 0.32 3

TOTAL 5.18 12.60 4-foot medium bipin 6.34 14.22 8-foot single pin slimline 0.24 0.91 8-foot recessed double contact HO 1.87 3.17 4-foot T5 miniature bipin SO 0.08 0.26 4-foot T5 miniature bipin HO 1.19 2.63 2-foot U-Shaped 0.29 0.65 4

TOTAL 10.02 21.84 4-foot medium bipin 6.12 14.24 8-foot single pin slimline 0.33 1.07 8-foot recessed double contact HO 1.81 3.10 4-foot T5 miniature bipin SO 0.32 0.91 4-foot T5 miniature bipin HO 1.19 2.63 2-foot U-Shaped 0.28 0.65 5

TOTAL 10.05 22.57

11.5.5.2 Incandescent Reflector Lamps

Table 11.22 and Table 11.23 present IRL NPV in the Existing Technologies, Shift, R-CFL Product Substitu tion scenario a nd the Emerging Technologies, Roll-up, BR product substitution scenario, respectively. Table 11.22 reflects the upper-bound NPV scenario, an d Table 11.23 reflects the lower-bound NPV scenario. As seen in Table 11.22

11-66and Table 11.23 NPV increases with TSL, consis tent with LCC savings generally increasing w ith efficacy level. In particular, for the BR Product Substitution scenario, the negative NPV at TSL1 results because the life- cycle cost savings at EL1 (the associated EL) are primarily negative. However, as seen in the R-CFL Product Substitution scenario, TSL1 achieves positive NPV due to primarily the increased movement to highly cost-effective R-CFLs. NPV results are highes t at TSL5, because the most cost-effective IRL is purchased at this TSL.

Table 11.24 and Table 11.25 depict the Baseline Lifetime scenario in the upper and lower bound scenarios, respectively. Re lative to other scen arios, the Baseline Lifetim e scenario results in lower NPV because it assumes lamps meeting TSL4 and TSL5 have relatively shorter lifetimes, fo rcing consumers to replace their lamps more frequently and increasing their equipment cost s. Appendix 11B presents results for other scenarios as well as for the 10 percent lumen increase and Modified Emerging Technologies sensitivity scenarios.

Table 11.22 Cumulative NPV Results for IRL: Existing Technologies, Shift, R-CFL Product Substitution (2012-2042) (billion 2008$)

TSL NPV at 7% NPV at 3%

1 0.45 1.11 2 4.59 8.94 3 6.34 12.50 4 9.06 17.81 5 10.16 20.01

Table 11.23 Cumulative NPV Results for IRL: Emerging Technologies, Roll-up, BR Product Substitution (2012-2042) (billion 2008$)

TSL NPV at 7% NPV at 3%

1 -0.09 -0.04 2 2.08 3.93 3 3.04 5.84 4 4.20 8.02 5 4.90 9.38

Table 11.24 Cumulative NPV Results for IRL: Existing Technologies, Shift, R-CFL Product Substitution, Baseline Lifetime scenario (2012-2042) (billion 2008$)

TSL NPV at 7% NPV at 3%

4 5.22 10.81 5 4.86 10.13

11-67Table 11.25 Cumulative NPV Results for IRL: Emerging Technologies, Roll-up, BR Product Substitution, Baseline Lifeti me scenario (2012-2042) (billion 2008$)

TSL NPV at 7% NPV at 3%

4 1.83 3.78 5 2.53 5.12

11-6811-69 REFERENCES

i U.S. Department of Energy—Energy Effi ciency and Renewable Energy Office of Building Research and Standards. Technical Support Document : Energy Efficiency Standards for Consumer Products: Fluorescent Lamp Ballast Proposed Rule: Appendix B. Marginal Energy Prices and National Energy Savings . January 2000. Washington, D.C.

< http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/applianc e_standards/residen tial/pdfs/appendix_b. pdf >.

ii U.S. Department of Energy

C Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy Outlook 2009 with Projections to 2030

. March 2009. Washington, D.C.

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

iii Office of Management and Budget. CircularA-4. September 2003. Washington, D.C.

< http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a004/a-4.pdf >.