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 NET PRESENT VALUE RESULTS........ 11-48

11.5.1 National Energy Savings and Net Present 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-i
 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 11.1 4-Foot Medium Bipin Base Case and Standards Case Efficacy Distributions 

(Existing Technologies, Shift, High Lighting Expertise Scenario) ...............................11-4

Table 11.2 4-Foot Medium Bipin Base Case and Standards Case Efficacy Distributions 

(Emerging Technologies, Roll-up, Market Segment-Based Lighting Expertise Scenario)

........................................................................................................................................ 11-5

Table 11.3 8-Foot Single Pin Slimline Base Case and Standards Case Efficacy 

Distributions (Existing Technologies, Shift, 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 Double 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 Double Contact High Output Base Case and Standards Case 

Efficacy Distributions (Emerging Technologies, Roll-up, Market Segment-Based 

Lighting Expertise Scenario) ......................................................................................... 11-9

Table 11.7 4-Foot T5 Miniature Bipin Standard Output Base Case and Standards Case 

Efficacy Distributions (Existing Technologies, Shift, High Expertise Scenario)........11-10

Table 11.8 4-Foot T5 Miniature Bipin Standard Output Base Case and Standards Case 

Efficacy Distributions (Emerging Technologies, Roll-up, Market Segment-Based 

Expertise Scenario)...................................................................................................... 11-10

Table 11.9 4-Foot T5 Miniature bipin High Output Base Case and Standards Case 

Efficacy Distributions (Existing Technologies, Shift, High Lighting Expertise Scenario)

......................................................................................................................................11-11

Table 11.10 Commercial and Residential 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 Residential 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 Savings for General Service Fluorescent 

Lamps Under the Existing, Shift, High Lighting Expertise Scenario (2012-2042) (quads)

......................................................................................................................................11-55

Table 11.17 Cumulative National Energy Savings 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 Savings 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-ii
 

Table 11.20 Cumulative NPV Results for General Service Fluorescent Lamps Under the 

Existing Technologies, Shift, High Expertise Scenario (2012-2042) (Billion 2008$) 11-65

Table 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$) .................................................................................................. 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 Case 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 Standards Case Installed Lamp Stock (Existing 

Technologies, Shift, High Lighting Expertise Scenario, at TSL4)..............................11-14

Figure 11.2.4 4-Foot Medium Bipin Standards 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 Slimline Base Case Installed Lamp Stock...............11-16

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

......................................................................................................................................11-17

Figure 11.2.7 8-Foot Recessed Double Contact High Output Base Case Installed Lamp 

Stock ............................................................................................................................ 11-18

Figure 11.2.8 8-Foot Recessed Double Contact High Output Technologies Standards 

Case Installed Lamp Stock (TSL4).............................................................................. 11-19

Figure 11.2.9 4-Foot T5 Miniature Bipin Standard Output and High Output Existing 

Technologies Base Case Installed Lamp Stock ........................................................... 11-20

Figure 11.2.10 4-Foot T5 Miniature Bipin Standard Output and High Output Emerging 

Technologies Base Case Installed Lamp Stock ........................................................... 11-21

Figure 11.2.11 4-Foot T5 Miniature Bipin Standard Output and High Output Standards 

Case Installed Lamp Stock (Existing Technologies, Shift, High Expertise Scenario at 

TSL4)........................................................................................................................... 11-22

Figure 11.2.12 4-Foot T5 Miniature Bipin Standard Output and High Output Standards 

Case Installed Lamp Stock (Emerging Technologies, Roll-up, Market Segment-Based 

Expertise Scenario at TSL4)........................................................................................ 11-23

Figure 11.2.13 Average Efficacy of Lamp Stock, 4-Foot Medium Bipin Lamps (Existing 

Technologies, Shift, High Scenario)............................................................................ 11-24

11-iii
 

Figure 11.2.14 Average Efficacy of Lamp Stock, 4-Foot Medium Bipin Lamps 

(Emerging Technologies, Roll-up, Market Segment-Based Scenario)........................11-25

Figure 11.2.15 Average Efficacy of Lamp Stock, 8-Foot Single Pin Slimline Lamps 

(Existing Technologies, Shift, High Expertise Scenario)............................................ 11-27

Figure 11.2.16 Average Efficacy of Lamp Stock, 8-Foot Single Pin Slimline Lamps 

(Emerging Technologies, Roll-up, Market Segment-Based Scenario)........................11-28

Figure 11.2.17 Average Efficacy of Lamp Stock, 8-Foot Recessed Double Contact High 

Output Lamps (Existing Technologies, Shift, High Expertise Scenario)....................11-29

Figure 11.2.18 Average Efficacy of Lamp Stock, 8-Foot Recessed Double Contact High 

Output Lamps (Emerging Technologies, Roll-up, Market Segment-Based Scenario) 11-30

Figure 11.2.19 Average Efficacy of Lamp Stock, 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 Stock, 4-Foot Miniature Bipin T5 Standard 

Output and High Output (Emerging Technologies, 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 (Existing Technologies, Shift, R-CFL Product 

Substitution Scenario, TSL4)....................................................................................... 11-38

Figure 11.2.24 IRL Installed Lamp Stock (Emerging Technologies, Roll-up, BR Product 

Substitution Scenario, TSL4)....................................................................................... 11-39

Figure 11.2.25 Average Efficacy of the IRL Stock (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 Total 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 Total 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 Total Installed Equipment and Operating 

Cost Savings for IRL at TSL4 (Existing Technologies, Shift, R-CFL Product Substitution 

Scenario)...................................................................................................................... 11-61

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).................................................................................................. 11-62

11-iv
 

11-v
 

CHAPTER 11. NATIONAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS 

11.1 INTRODUCTION 

This chapter describes the method for estimating the national impacts of trial 

standard levels (TSLs) for covered general 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 expected 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. The analysis period over which DOE calculates 

the NPV and NES is from 2012 to 2042. Results of the NIA described in this chapter 

include (1) national energy consumption and savings, (2) monetary value of energy 

savings to the Nation as a result of standards, (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 energy 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 analysis (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 standard levels for the IRL representative product classes. 

DOE performs all NIA calculations using Microsoft Excel® spreadsheets, 

available for download at 

http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/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 presents new information on installed stock. 

Section 11.2 discusses DOE’s lamp-shipment forecasts by efficacy, the installed 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 consumption in 

the base and standards cases, and the resulting NES between these cases. Section 11.4

discusses the NPV calculation. Section 11.5 presents the NES and NPV results by lamp 

category. 

11-1
 

11.2 BASE-CASE AND STANDARDS-CASE FORECASTED EFFICACY 

DISTRIBUTIONS, LAMP STOCKS, AND AVERAGE EFFICACY 

The characteristics of DOE’s shipment forecasts (such as equipment costs and 

operating costs) and projected lamp stocks (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 determining the NPV. Two inputs to the NPV are 

the per-unit total installed cost and per-unit 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 key input into the NPV (as an input into 

the per-unit operating cost) and NES. The per-unit annual energy consumption is a 

function of lamp wattage (and ballast characteristics in the case of GSFL) in the installed 

stock. The total installed stock 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 particular standards-case purchase is not necessarily less than 

per-unit energy consumption for the corresponding base-case purchase. Certain 

standards-case scenarios (Shift and High lighting expertise for GSFL and R-CFL Product 

Substitution and Shift for IRL) model primarily energy-saving consumer purchase 

decisions with standards. The energy use characterization (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 calculation of the NES and NPV in 

further detail. 

The following sections detail the forecasted 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 Efficacy Distributions 

Because the end-user price of lamps varies with lamp efficacy, the base and 

standards case forecasted efficacy distributions of shipments affect the average total 

installed cost per unit. Generally, as the efficacy of a GSFL lamp design increases, the 

total installed cost increases as well. In addition, the base-case and standards-case 

efficacy distributions affect the average lamp efficacy in the installed stock, an indication 

11-2
 

of annual energy consumption. However, as both efficacy and ballast factor affect 

energy consumption, total energy savings may be greater than the efficacy 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 medium 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 shipments 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 efficacy higher than the baseline, and in the 

standards cases, consumers may purchase lamps of efficacies greater than the TSL 

requires. 

There are two tables per GSFL representative product class, one depicting the 

efficacy mixes in the Existing Technologies, Shift, High Lighting Expertise scenario and 

one depicting those in the Emerging Technologies, Roll-up, Market Segment-Based 

Lighting Expertise scenario. Chapter 10 discusses these scenarios in further detail. 

Though the Emerging Technologies/Existing Technologies and High/Market SegmentBased Lighting Expertise scenarios slightly affect the shipped lamp efficacy distributions, 

the greater impact scenarios are the Shift/Roll-up shipment scenarios. Because 

consumers in the Shift scenario make purchase decisions based more on the energy 

savings of a particular lamp or lamp-and-ballast design, the Shift scenario often presents 

a more aggressive forecasted efficacy distribution. As discussed in Chapter 10, in 

developing the Shift scenario, when possible, 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 standards-case for each lamp 

type (e.g., 4-foot T12 MBP lamps). However, when presenting the efficacy 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 option 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 

Emerging Technologies, Roll-up, Market Segment-Based expertise scenario for 4-foot 

medium bipin lamps (both T8 and T12 diameters), respectively. As Chapter 10 shows, 

approximately 75 percent of the 4-foot medium bipin lamp shipments in 2012 are T8 

11-3
 

lamps, 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 decline in the years following 2012. In addition, 

DOE modeled a shift in the commercial sector from consumers purchasing low efficacy 

T12 lamps to consumers purchasing higher efficacy (EL2 and EL3) T12 lamps. This 

trend is reflected in the efficacy distributions: in 2030, shipments of baseline and EL1 

lamps have approximately half the market share 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 period 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 therefore percentage shipments are zero. 

Table 11.1 4-Foot Medium Bipin Base Case and Standards Case Efficacy 

Distributions (Existing Technologies, Shift, High Lighting Expertise Scenario) 

Proportions of All 4-Foot MBP Lamps Shipped (%) 

Year EL Standards Case TSLs 

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

11-4
 

Table 11.2 4-Foot Medium Bipin Base Case and Standards Case Efficacy 

Distributions (Emerging Technologies, Roll-up, Market Segment-Based Lighting 

Expertise Scenario) 

Proportions of All 4-Foot MBP Lamps Shipped (%)

Year TSL Standards Case TSLs 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 

Emerging Technologies, Roll-up, High Lighting Expertise scenario for 8-foot single pin 

slimline lamps (both T8 and T12 diameters), respectively. These two tables reflect the 

most and least aggressive efficacy distributions, respectively. As Chapter 10 shows, in 

the base case, approximately 30 percent of the 8-foot single pin slimline lamp shipments 

are T8 lamps in 2012, while 70 percent are T12. This is reflected in the efficacy 

distributions: in 2012, large portions 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 pin slimline shipments continue to decline 

rapidly in the years immediately following 2012, before flattening out throughout the 

remainder of the analysis period. This is reflected in the efficacy distributions: In 2030, 

there is approximately one-third to one-fourth 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 percentage shipments are zero. 

11-5
 

Table 11.3 8-Foot Single Pin Slimline Base Case and Standards Case Efficacy 

Distributions (Existing Technologies, Shift, High Lighting Expertise Scenario) 

Proportions of All 8-Foot SP Slimline Lamps Shipped (%)

Year EL Standards Case TSLs 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 

11-6
 

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) 

Proportions of All 8-Foot SP Slimline Lamps Shipped (% )

Year EL Base Standards Case TSLs 

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 Emerging Technologies, Roll-up, Market Segment-Based Lighting Expertise 

scenario, respectively, for 8-foot 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 shows, 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 therefore percentage shipments are zero. At TSL4 

and TSL5, no 8-foot T12 RDC HO lamps are available and all systems are retrofitted to 

11-7
 

T8 diameters. Therefore, standards case shipments 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 (% ) 

Year EL Standards Case TSLs 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 

11-8
 

Table 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 Expertise scenario and the 

Emerging 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 aggressive efficacy distributions, 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 standards case. However, as a result of the standards at each trial 

standard level, various EL lamps are unavailable, and therefore percentage shipments are 

zero. 

11-9
 

Table 11.7 4-Foot T5 Miniature Bipin Standard Output Base Case and Standards 

Case Efficacy Distributions (Existing Technologies, Shift, High Expertise Scenario) 

Proportions of All 4-Foot T5 MiniBP SO Lamps Shipped (% ) 

Year EL Standards Case TSLs 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 Miniature 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 (% ) 

Year EL Standards Case TSLs 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 distributions in the 

Existing Technologies, Shift, High expertise scenario, which is identical to the Emerging 

Technologies, Roll-up, Market Segment-Based scenario 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 lamps 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 baseline 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 distributions in the base case and standards case. 

11-10
 

Table 11.9 4-Foot T5 Miniature bipin High Output Base Case and Standards Case 

Efficacy Distributions (Existing Technologies, Shift, High Lighting Expertise 

Scenario) 

Proportions of All 4-Foot MiniBP T5 HO Lamps Shipped (% ) 

Year EL Standards Case TSLs 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 total 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 installed reaches the end of its life, or 3) the 

ballast on which they are installed is retrofitted. From this information and the shipments 

forecasts presented in Chapter 10, DOE established the installed lamp stock profile for 4-

foot medium bipin, 8-foot single pin slimline, 8-foot recessed double contact HO, and 4-

foot T5 MiniBP SO and 4-foot 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 lamps in the Existing Technologies 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 modeled the expectation that 80 percent of retiring two-lamp 8-

foot single pin slimline systems will be replaced 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 slimline lumen demand) will be much greater 

than in 2012. 

As discussed in Chapter 10, DOE assumed that all 4-foot T12 medium bipin 

systems installed prior to 2012 are magnetic systems. 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 will be replaced by T8 systems, although 10 

percent will be replaced by T12 electronic systems. After 2026, the residential 4-foot 

T12 MBP stock is split roughly between magnetic and electronic systems. 

11-11
 

The difference between the Existing Technologies base case (Figure 11.2.1) and 

the Emerging Technologies base case (Figure 11.2.2) is mostly one of scale. The 

Existing Technologies is larger because 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 Emerging Technologies, Roll-up, Market Segment-Based 

expertise scenarios at TSL4, respectively. The tables show that similar overall trends 

occur as in the base case, but because no T12 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 residential 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 2041

Installed 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 Existing Technologies Base Case Installed 

Lamp Stock 

11-12
 

0.0

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 2041

Installed 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 

11-13
 

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 2041

Installed 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 Standards Case Installed Lamp Stock (Existing 

Technologies, Shift, High Lighting Expertise Scenario, at TSL4) 

11-14
 

0.0

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 2041

Installed 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 Standards 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-foot single pin slimline lamps in the 

base case. As discussed earlier, 80 percent of retiring 8-foot 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 pin slimline magnetic T12 systems will reach 

zero by 2026 when the initial stock has completely 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 relatively 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, increase in stock initially, before beginning a 

gradual decline. 

The Existing Technologies scenario is the same as the Emerging Technologies 

scenario for 8-foot single pin slimline lamps because DOE did not assume this product 

class would service fixture replacement, renovation, or new construction. Therefore, 

there is no available market within this product class for emerging technologies to 

penetrate in DOE’s analysis. 

11-15
 

Figure 11.2.6 depicts a similar trend at TSL4. However, because no T12 lamps 

are standards-compliant, 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 2041

Installed 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 Slimline Base Case Installed Lamp Stock 

11-16
 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 2032 2035 2038 2041

Installed 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 lamps in the Existing Technologies (also the Emerging Technologies) base case. 

The Existing and Emerging Technologies base cases are equivalent because DOE 

assumed that most of the penetration of alternative 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 only models 8-foot T8 RDC HO systems as 

replacements on T8 systems or when T12 lamps are no longer standards-compliant. The 

combined effect of these assumptions is that 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 residential sector of the 4-foot medium bipin 

product class, some magnetic 8-foot T12 recessed double contact HO systems can be 

manufactured under the 2000 Ballast Rule. Therefore, Figure 11.2.7 depicts a continued 

presence of T12 lamps throughout the analysis period in the base case. 

11-17
 

Figure 11.2.8 depicts 8-foot recessed double contact HO lamps at TSL4. Because 

T12 lamps are no longer standards-compliant, only 8-ft T8 RDC HO lamps are shipped in 

this product class, and T12 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 2041

Installed 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 Contact High Output Base Case Installed 

Lamp Stock 

11-18
 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 2032 2035 2038 2041

Installed 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 Contact High Output Technologies 

Standards Case Installed Lamp Stock (TSL4) 

Figure 11.2.9 and Figure 11.2.10 depict the installed stock of 4-foot T5 miniature 

bipin standard output and high output lamps in the Existing Technologies and Emerging 

Technologies base case scenarios, respectively. 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 have longer lifetimes and therefore accrue to 

larger installed stocks over time. Similar to the 4-foot MBP installed stock projections, 

the installed stock projections of 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO lamps 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 Technologies, Shift, High 

Lighting Expertise and Emerging Technologies, Roll-up, Market Segment-Based 

expertise lamp stocks at TSL4, respectively, for 4-foot T5 SO and HO lamps. The 

figures show that at TSL4 a very similar trend occurs as in the base case. 

11-19
 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 2032 2035 2038 2041

Installed 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 Bipin Standard Output and High Output 

Existing Technologies Base Case Installed Lamp Stock 

11-20
 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 2032 2035 2038 2041

Installed 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 Bipin Standard Output and High Output 

Emerging Technologies Base Case Installed Lamp Stock 

11-21
 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 2032 2035 2038 2041

Installed 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 Bipin Standard Output and High Output 

Standards Case Installed Lamp Stock (Existing Technologies, Shift, High Expertise 

Scenario at TSL4) 

11-22
 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 2032 2035 2038 2041

Installed 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 Bipin Standard Output and High Output 

Standards Case Installed Lamp Stock (Emerging Technologies, Roll-up, Market 

Segment-Based Expertise Scenario at TSL4) 

11.2.1.3 Average Lamp Efficacy in the Stock 

As discussed earlier, the average lamp efficacy of the stock is an important input 

to both the NPV and NES calculations. The average 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 forecasts of GSFL stock in the base case and standards case for the 

Existing Technologies, Shift, High expertise 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 

medium bipin lamps gradually increases in the base case. This is due to two separate 

trends: 1) the decline of T12 ballasts over the analysis period as they are largely replaced 

with more efficacious T8 systems, and 2) the installation of higher 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 toward 4-foot T8 MBP lamp-and-ballast systems 

causes an overall increase in efficacies of shipped fluorescent lamps. In the standards 

case, similar trends occur but at accelerated rates, particularly in the years immediately 

following the effective date of the standards as the lamp and ballasts stock turn over for 

11-23
 

the 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 their 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 efficacy of the T12 the lamp stock. As Figure 

11.2.13 shows, the average efficacy of 4-foot MBP lamps 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 levels 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 order 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 migrate 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 market segment. Figure 11.2.14 also depicts the 

Roll-up scenario, in which only consumers whose baseline 4-foot MBP lamps are below 

the standard are affected. Therefore, 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 small 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 2042

Average 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) 

11-24
 

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 2042

Average 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-

foot 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 magnetic ballasts and their 

replacement with T8 ballasts and higher efficacy 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 efficacy of the T12 lamp stock and standardsinduced retrofits. At TSL4 and TSL5, which are equivalent in the Shift, High expertise 

scenario, T12 8-foot SP slimline lamps are phased out and automatically retrofitted upon 

ballast failure. This is reflected in the dramatic increase in average efficacy at these trial 

standard levels immediately after the effective date of the standard. 

Under both scenarios shown, the average efficacy 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 consumers whose baseline 8-foot SP slimline 

lamps are below the standard are affected. Therefore, the average efficacy in the stock at 

11-25
 

each TSL is lower than in the Shift scenario shown in Figure 11.2.15. At TSL5, the 

difference between the scenarios is slight because all consumers migrate to max-tech. 

11-26
 

90.0 

92.0 

94.0 

96.0 

98.0 

100.0 

102.0 

104.0 

2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 2030 2033 2036 2039 2042

Average Efficacy (lumens per Watt)

Year

Base Case

TSL1

TSL2

TSL3

TSL4

TSL5

 

Figure 11.2.15 Average Efficacy of Lamp Stock, 8-Foot Single Pin Slimline Lamps 

(Existing Technologies, Shift, High Expertise Scenario) 

11-27
 

90.0 

92.0 

94.0 

96.0 

98.0 

100.0 

102.0 

104.0 

2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 2030 2033 2036 2039 2042

Average Efficacy (lumens per Watt)

Year

Base Case

TSL1

TSL2

TSL3

TSL4

TSL5

Figure 11.2.16 Average Efficacy of Lamp Stock, 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 contact HO lamps gradually increases in the base case due to the 

installation of higher efficacy lamps later in the analysis period. Because DOE estimates 

that all 8-foot RDC HO lamps installed before 2012 will be retired within approximately 

two years of standards implementation (the estimated 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 systems. 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 efficacy 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 consumers whose baseline 8-foot RDC HO 

lamps are below the standard are affected. Therefore, the average efficacy in the stock at 

each TSL is lower than in the Shift scenario shown in Figure 11.2.17. At TSL5, the 

difference between the scenarios is slight because all consumers migrate to max-tech. 

11-28
 

78.0 

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 2042

Average 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 Technologies, Shift, High Expertise Scenario) 

11-29
 

78.0 

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 2042

Average 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 Technologies, Roll-up, Market Segment-Based 

Scenario) 

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

miniature bipin T5 standard and high output lamps are flat in the base case, as DOE 

models no natural migration between lamp designs of varying efficacies within each 

product class. For the same reason, the average efficacy of the stock increases 

immediately following the effective date of the standard and then flattens out for the 

remainder of the analysis period in the standards case. 

Under both scenarios shown, the average efficacy 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 consumers whose baseline 4-foot MiniBP 

lamps are below the standard are affected. Therefore, the average efficacy in the stock at 

each TSL is lower than in the 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 consumers migrate to max-tech. 

11-30
 

85.0 

90.0 

95.0 

100.0 

105.0 

110.0 

115.0 

2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 2030 2033 2036 2039 2042

Average 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 (Existing Technologies, Shift, High Scenario) 

11-31
 

85.0 

90.0 

95.0 

100.0 

105.0 

110.0 

115.0 

2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 2030 2033 2036 2039 2042

Average 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 (Emerging Technologies, Roll-up, Market 

Segment-Based Scenario) 

11.2.2 Incandescent Reflector Lamps 

11.2.2.1 Base and Standards Case Efficacy Distributions 

Sections 10.3.3 and 10.4.2 of Chapter 10 present the IRL market share matrices 

for the base and standards case scenarios, respectively. 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 

Substitution standards case efficacy distributions 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 that 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 

11-32
 

are no longer standards compliant. In addition, over the analysis period, HIR 

technologies continue to increase 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 improved 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 

Substitution standards case efficacy distributions of IRL shipped in 2012 and 2042 for the 

commercial and residential sectors combined. The Roll-up scenario causes market share 

to aggregate at the least efficacious standards-compliant level at each TSL. Because 

Table 11.11 also depicts the emerging technologies scenario, there is actually greater 

market share at the least standards-compliant design option in 2012 than in 2042 in the 

base case and standards case, except for TSL5. This occurs because, in the emerging 

technologies scenario, the commercial sector ships 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 greater market share for the least standardscompliant design option as a percentage of total covered shipments in 2042 as compared 

to 2012. 

11-33
 

Table 11.10 Commercial and Residential Incandescent Reflector Lamps: Base Case 

and Standards Case Efficacy Distributions in 2012, 2042 for the Existing 

Technologies, Shift, R-CFL Product Substitution Scenario

Proportions of IRL Shipped (%)

Year EL Design Option Standards Case TSLs 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 

11-34
 

Table 11.11 Commercial and Residential Incandescent Reflector Lamps: Base Case 

and Standards Case Efficacy Distributions from 2012 to 2042 for the Emerging 

Technologies, Roll-up, BR Product 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 total 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 Existing Technologies base case scenario. For 

the Existing Technologies scenario, 2042 reflector compact fluorescent lamps (R-CFL) 

penetration reached 38 percent in the residential sector and 20 percent in the commercial 

sector. This penetration of R-CFL, occurring gradually over the analysis period, reduces 

the analyzed installed stock and therefore the potential impact of an IRL energy 

conservation standard. For further details see Chapter 10, Section 10.3.3.1. 

11-35
 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 2032 2035 2038 2041

Installed 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 Emerging 

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 technology in both the residential sector and the commercial 

sector. DOE’s analysis found that R-CFL and other emerging technologies could 

penetrate 45 percent and 93 percent of the IRL installed stock by 2042 in the residential 

and commercial sector, respectively. This penetration of emerging technologies, 

occurring gradually over the analysis period, reduces the analyzed installed stock and 

therefore the potential impact of an IRL energy conservation standard. 

11-36
 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 2032 2035 2038 2041

Installed 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 Substitution and Emerging Technologies, Roll-up, 

BR Product Substitution standards case scenarios 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 gradually 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 Product Substitution Case, as depicted in Figure 

11.2.23. 

11-37
 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 2032 2035 2038 2041

Installed Lamp Stock (millions)

Year

R-CFL

Add'l R-CFL

65W BR

IRL

Figure 11.2.23 IRL Install Lamp Stock (Existing 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 emerging technologies penetrate the IRL market, 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 reflector (BR) lamps, but not to additional RCFL. Figure 11.2.24.depicts the migration to BR lamps at TSL 4. This reflects the 

lower-bound energy savings scenario. 

 

11-38
 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 2032 2035 2038 2041

Installed 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 depends on the estimate of the average efficacy 

in the lamp stock. Figure 11.2.25and Figure 11.2.26 present the average efficacy of the 

commercial and residential IRL stock for each TSL in the upper- and lower-bound energy 

savings scenarios. The average efficacy numbers 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 Substitution 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 efficacy at each TSL until 2014 as lower-efficacy 

lamps installed prior to 2012 are retired from the stock. By 2014, standards-compliant 

lamps saturate the installed base. Because 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 constant 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 smaller part of the overall market, a significant 

overall increase in efficacy is not shown. 

11-39
 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045

Average Efficacy (lm/W)

Year

Base Case

TSL1

TSL2

TSL3

TSL4

TSL5

Figure 11.2.25 Average Efficacy of the IRL 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, BR 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 constant 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 emerging 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 increase market share, the average efficacy of 

the total market decreases slightly between the years of 2012 and 2019. 

11-40
 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045

Average 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 savings as the difference between the base 

case (without new standards) and the standards case (with new standards). Positive 

values of NES correspond to net energy savings following standards implementation. 

That is, national annual energy consumption (AEC) with standards is less than AEC in 

the base case. 

NESt  (AEC ,baset  AEC ,stdt ) HVAC  RR Eq. 11.1 

where 

NESt = national energy savings in year t, 

AEC = annual national energy consumption each year (at the source) in 

quadrillion British thermal units (quads), 

11-41
 

HVAC=heating, ventilation, air conditioning (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 (from 2012 to 2042) of the annual national energy 

savings multiplied by the HVAC interaction factor and rebound rate. 

 tNEScum NESt Eq. 11.2

where 

NEScum = 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 energy consumption and the site-to-source 

conversion factor, shown by the following equation: 

ld t

ld

ld AEC  STOCK  _ convsrcUEC Eq. 11.3

where 

STOCKld = stock of lamps for a given lamp design or lamp-and-ballast design 

surviving in the year for which DOE calculated AEC, 

UECld = unit energy consumption (kWh per year), and 

src_convt = time-dependent conversion factor to convert from site energy (kWh) 

to source energy (quads) (Btu/kWh). 

11.3.2National 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) 

11-42
 

Rebound 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 characterization (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 spreadsheet 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 standards 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 scenarios and two sets of standards-case scenarios 

which can affect shipments. The base-case scenarios, Existing Technologies and 

Emerging Technologies, dictate the penetration of other lighting technologies into the 

GSFL stock, and therefore affect the total volume of GSFL shipment and installed stock. 

The first set of standards-case scenarios comprises the Roll-up and Shift scenarios; the 

second set comprises the High and Market Segment-Based lighting expertise scenarios. 

These scenarios dictate the inputs to the market-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 the total number of lamps shipped in prior 

years that survive in a given year. To generate the shipments that eventually compose the 

IRL stock, DOE’s shipments analysis incorporates 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 scenarios for IRL includes the Roll-up 

and Shift scenarios. The second set of standards case IRL scenarios includes the BR 

Product Substitution and R-CFL Product Substitution scenarios. These standards-case 

scenarios are compared to two separate base-case scenarios (Existing Technologies and 

Emerging Technologies) resulting in eight possible sets of results. The Shift and R-CFL 

Product Substitution scenarios generally result in higher energy savings than the Roll-up 

and BR Product Substitution scenarios, respectively. 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 consumption into primary or source energy consumption. For 

electricity, the conversion factors vary over time due to projected changes in generation 

sources (i.e., the power plant types projected to provide electricity to the country). For 

the notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR), DOE calculated annual average site-tosource conversion factors using the version of the National Energy Modeling Systems 

(NEMS) that corresponds to the Energy Information Administration’s Annual Energy 

11-43
 

Outlook (AEO2009). Table 11.13 presents site-to-source factors. The average 

conversion factors vary over time, due to projected 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 factors beyond 2030 are extrapolated. 

11.3.2.4 Interactions with Heating, Ventilation, and Air-Conditioning 

(HVAC) Systems 

DOE estimated increased national energy savings due to interactions with heating, 

ventilating, and air-conditioning systems in the commercial and industrial sectors. To 

account for HVAC energy savings, DOE used the analysis completed by the 2000 

Fluorescent Ballast rulemaking, which calculates 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 energy 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 assumed that over the analysis period, the building 

stock would move from the 5-percent HVAC factor toward the 10-percent HVAC factor. 

With simple scaling methods, DOE used 6.25 percent 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 used 6.25 percent of total energy savings as 

the HVAC energy savings in the commercial sector for both GSFL and IRL and in the 

industrial sector for GSFL. DOE assumed negligible HVAC interactions in the 

residential sector. 

11-44
 

11.3.2.5 Rebound Rate 

 In its analysis, DOE considered the rebound effect1 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 lighting. Therefore, in the calculation of national energy 

savings due to energy conservation standards on lighting, DOE used a rebound rate of 8.5 

percent in the residential sector and 1 percent in the commercial and industrial sectors. 

 The take-back in energy consumption associated with the rebound effect provides 

consumers with increased value (e.g., increased 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 increase in consumer value in the life-cycle 

cost (LCC) analysis. If it were able to monetize 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 have occurred without the rebound effect. 

Therefore, the economic impacts on consumers with or without the rebound effect, as 

measured in the LCC and NPV analyses, are the same. 

11.4 NET PRESENT VALUE 

11.4.1Net 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: 

NPV   PVCPVS 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 efficient equipment in a manner that actually 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, “Energy efficiency and consumption—the rebound effect—

a survey,” 28 Energy Policy (2000), pp. 389–401. 

11-45
 

PVS    DFOCS tt Eq. 11.5

PVC   DFTIC tt 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 estimating the operating cost savings beyond 2042 

because the average lamp lifetimes in the base and standards cases often differ. For 

example, a baseline halogen IRL may have 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 calculated 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 discounted net savings (which is equivalent to 

the approach shown in Equations 10.4 – 10.6). 

11.4.2Net 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 those 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 calculation, DOE also includes the cost of a retrofit 

11-46
 

kit for replacing a two-lamp 8-foot single pin 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 minutes 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 retrofit 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 discounted blue-book prices (See the LCC and 

payback period (PBP) analysis descriptions in Chapter 8 for a further description of 

installation costs and lamp and ballast prices). Although GSFL 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 electricity prices. (The only component of 

annual operating cost for lamps is the cost of electricity consumption.) 

   Eq. 11.7

ld

OCS STOCKld UECld priceyelectricit

DOE calculates total 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 each sector and lamp type in calculating 

the UEC of each lamp design. 

For GSFL, DOE uses national average commercial 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 miniature bipin high output lamps. For IRL, 

DOE uses national-average commercial and residential prices for it analysis in the 

commercial and residential sectors, 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 following equation describes how to calculate the 

discount factor: 

11-47
 

 

  p tt DF r  11  Eq. 11.8

where 

r = discount rate, 

t = year of the monetary value, and 

tp = year in which the present value is being determined. 

DOE estimates national impacts with both a 3-percent and a 7-percent real 

discount rate as the average real rate of return on private investment in the U.S. economy. 

These discount rates are used in accordance with the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB)’s guidance to Federal agencies 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 SAVINGS AND NET PRESENT 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 Excelspreadsheets, accessible at 

http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/incandescent_lamp

s.html. Appendix 11A provides instructions for using the spreadsheets. 

11.5.1National 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. 

11-48
 

Table 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 lamps 

and/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 Characterization, TSD Chapter 6, by 

lamp or lamp-and-ballast design and sector. 

Total Installed Cost Established in the Product 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 Energy Information Agency (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook 

forecasts (to 2030) and extrapolation 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 energy 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 savings 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, respectively, in both the Emerging and Existing 

Technologies scenarios. As Figure 11.5.1 shows, DOE projects the energy consumption 

of 4-foot medium 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. Additionally, DOE expects energy consumption from 4-

foot T5 miniature bipin standard output lamps to grow due to new construction, fixture 

replacement, renovation in the commercial sector. Similarly, energy consumption from 4-

foot T5 miniature bipin high output lamps is expected to grow as their stock grows from 

shipments servicing new construction and renovation demand in the industrial sector. 

11-49
 

The stock and energy consumption of 8-foot recessed double contact high output lamps 

declines as these T5 high output lamps and other 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 Technologies scenario for 4-foot medium bipin 

and 4-foot T5 miniature bipin standard output lamps, as their 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 2042

Energy Consumption (Quads)

Year

8‐foot RDC HO 8‐foot SP Slimline 4‐foot T5 SO 4‐foot T5 HO 4‐footMBP

Figure 11.5.1 National Energy Consumption, General Service Fluorescent Lamps, 

Existing Technologies Base Case (quads of source energy) 

11-50
 

 

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 2030 2033 2036 2039 2042

Energy Consumption (Quads)

Year

8‐foot RDC HO 8‐foot SP Slimline 4‐foot T5 SO 4‐foot T5 HO 4‐footMBP

Figure 11.5.2 National Energy Consumption, General Service Fluorescent Lamps, 

Emerging Technologies Base Case (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 time in both 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 scenario declines due the penetration of RCFL and other technologies. For this reason, energy consumption is lower in the 

Emerging Technologies base case than in the Existing Technologies base case. 

11-51
 

0.00

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 2042

Energy Consumption Source (Quads)

Year

Figure 11.5.3 National Energy Consumption, Incandescent Reflector Lamps, 

Existing Technologies Base Case (quads of source energy) 

11-52
 

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 2030 2033 2036 2039 2042

Energy Consumption Source (Quads)

Year

Figure 11.5.4 National Energy Consumption, Incandescent Reflector Lamps, 

Emerging Technologies Base Case (quads of source energy) 

11.5.3National Energy Savings Results 

The following section provides NES results (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 miniature bipin standard output and high output results are 

representative of the combination of the low correlated color temperature (CCT) (less 

than or equal to 4,500K) and the high CCT (greater than 4,500K) product 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 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 NES of 2-

foot U-Shaped product classes. As historical shipments 4-foot medium bipin lamps were 

22 times that of 2-foot U-shaped lamp shipments, DOE used this scaling factor to 

approximate the energy savings of 2-foot U-shaped lamps. For IRL, results in this 

chapter represent a combination of the standard-spectrum and modified-spectrum product 

classes. As discussed earlier, DOE analyzes several shipment scenarios for GSFL and 

IRL. In this section DOE presents only upper- and lower-bound energy savings and net 

11-53
 

present value results. Appendix 11B presents 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 combinations of base and standards case 

scenarios, yielding eight possible 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 Emerging, 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 savings 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 Segment-Based Lighting Expertise scenario 

results in lower energy savings than the High Lighting Expertise scenario. Finally, 

because in the Shift scenario more consumers 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” savings). The table also reports national energy savings due to 

individually regulating each type of GSFL (presented next to the lamp type names), 

assuming no amended standard on all other lamp types. For this reason, individual lamp 

type energy savings (due to separate 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 provided 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 energy 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 systems. At TSL1 and TSL2 all T8 lamps are 

standards-compliant and, therefore, unaffected 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 retrofitted to T8 lamp systems because no T12 

standards-compliant lamps are available in the 4-foot medium bipin, 8-foot single pin 

slimline, and 8-foot recessed double contact HO product classes. 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. 

11-54
 

Table 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

11-55
 

Table 11.17 Cumulative National Energy Savings for General Service Fluorescent 

Lamps Under the Emerging, Roll-up, Market Segment-Based Scenario (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, Shift, R-CFL Product Substitution scenario and the Emerging 

Technologies, Roll-up, BR Product substitution scenario, respectively. Table 11.18

reflects the upper-bound energy savings scenario, and Table 11.19 reflects the lowerbound energy savings scenario. In total, there are eight possible combinations of base and 

11-56
 

standards 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 highest energy savings for both the upper- and 

lower-bound scenarios. Energy savings are, in general, greater for the Existing 

Technologies, Shift, R-CFL Product Substitution scenario primarily because there is 

more covered IRL stock for this scenario, because consumers can shift to above 

minimum-efficacy covered IRL, and because there 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 Substitution 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 Substitution 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 

11.5.4Annual 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 GSFL and IRL in the upper and lower 

bound scenarios. The figures also show the net annual savings, which is the difference 

11-57
 

between the savings and costs for each year. Both annual total installed cost increases 

and annual operating costs savings accumulate from 2012 to 2042. A net residual value 

is applied at the end of 2042 to account for the 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 cost 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 medium bipin 

under the Existing Technologies, Shift, High expertise scenario and the Emerging 

Technologies, Roll-up, Market Segment-Based expertise scenario, respectively. Both 

figures illustrate a similar pattern though at different scales: smaller annual operating 

cost savings initially compared to the increases in annual total installed equipment costs, 

resulting in negative net annual savings in the first years after the standard takes effect. 

However, operating and equipment cost savings generally increase with time, as more 

standards-compliant lamps are installed (and the initial ballast stock is replaced). As a 

result, total savings increases rapidly. Near the middle of the analysis period, after much 

of initial ballast stock has retired and been replaced, the net annual savings begins to level 

out and gradually decline, although savings remain positive. As the blue line depicts, net 

annual savings decline for a few years during the middle of the analysis 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 standards 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 2042

Billion $

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 2042

Billion $

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 combined commercial 

and residential IRL at TSL4 under the Existing Technologies, Shift, R-CFL Product 

Substitution and Emerging Technologies, Roll-up, BR Product Substitution scenarios, 

respectively. In general, operating cost savings 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 Product 

Substitution 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 2041

Billion $

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 2041

Billion $

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 miniature bipin standard output and high output, 

and 2-foot U-shaped results are representative of the combination of the low CCT (less 

than or equal to 4,500K) and the high CCT (greater than 4,500K) product classes. As 

discussed earlier, 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 

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-Shaped product classes. 

As historical shipments 4-foot medium bipin lamps were 22 times that of 2-foot Ushaped lamp shipments, DOE used this scaling 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 modified-spectrum product classes. 

11-62
 

NPV results are cumulative and shown as the discounted value of these savings in 

dollar terms. DOE uses national average electricity 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 values as in the LCC and PBP analyses. 

The present value of increased total installed costs is the total installed cost 

increase (i.e., the difference between the standards 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 effective date of standards, 2012, to 2042). 

 Savings are decreases in operating costs 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 scenario, which reflects the upper bound NPV of 

standards, and the Emerging, Roll-up, Market Segment-Based scenario, which reflects 

the lower bound, respectively. NPV is presented at both 7-percent and 3-percent discount 

rates. DOE based all results on electricity price forecasts from the AEO 2009 Reference 

Case. In general, the NPV results at each trial 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 shipments) 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 Expertise scenario models consumers who purchase 

higher-first-cost lamps, but may not achieve energy savings. As these consumers 

generally have overall lower NPV (and often negative NPV) than their energy-saving 

counterparts, the Market Segment-Based Lighting 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 standard 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-efficacious T8 lamps into both commercial stocks 

and residential stocks. In the Emerging Technologies, Roll-up, Market Segment-Based 

Lighting Expertise scenario shows 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 are forced to purchase much 

higher cost lamps, but do not take advantage of the energy savings they provide. 

11-63
 

Under 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 discussed), 2-foot U-shaped (which is scaled from 

4-foot MPB product class), and 8-foot RDC high output lamps, which all realize slightly 

higher NPVs at TSL4. The majority of the NPV 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 slimline systems, as well as the larger stock of 

these lamps relative to other product classes. The 4-foot medium bipin lamp results in 

positive NPV because increasingly efficacious lamp-and-ballast designs generally have 

higher LCC savings relative to each other and the base case lamp-and-ballast designs. 

At TSL4 and TSL5 for 4-foot medium bipin, 8-foot single pin slimline lamps, and 

8-foot recessed double contact HO lamps, large 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 efficacy and a decrease in energy consumption 

results in large operating cost savings and, therefore, 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 because there are only two efficacy levels for 

standard output lamps and one for high output lamps. 

11-64
 

Table 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

11-65
 

Table 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 Substitution scenario and the Emerging Technologies, Roll-up, BR 

product substitution scenario, respectively. Table 11.22 reflects the upper-bound NPV 

scenario, and Table 11.23 reflects the lower-bound NPV scenario. As seen in Table 11.22

11-66
 

and Table 11.23 NPV increases with TSL, consistent with LCC savings generally 

increasing with 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 highest 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. Relative to other scenarios, the Baseline 

Lifetime scenario results in lower NPV because it assumes lamps meeting TSL4 and 

TSL5 have relatively shorter lifetimes, forcing consumers to replace their lamps more 

frequently and increasing their equipment costs. 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

11-67
 

Table 11.25 Cumulative NPV Results for IRL: Emerging Technologies, Roll-up, 

BR Product Substitution, Baseline Lifetime scenario (2012-2042) (billion 2008$) 

TSL NPV at 7% NPV at 3%

4 1.83 3.78

5 2.53 5.12

11-68
 

11-69

 

REFERENCES 

i

 U.S. Department of Energy—Energy Efficiency 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/appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/appendix_b.

pdf>. 

ii U.S. Department of EnergyCEnergy 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. Circular A-4. September 2003. Washington, D.C. 

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