APPENDIX C. CASH FLOW IMPACTS

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

APPENDIX C. CASH FLOW IMPACTS 

C-l 

APPENDIX C. CASH FLOW IMPACTS 

C-l 
Table C.1.A Base Case Industry Cash flow--Manufacturer Submittal , 5% Shipment Scenario (1998 - 2012)

Fluorrrecot Lahr r B ill ut ii)Electrook ),Rl),rst St Igderd ci

BASE CASE SCENARIO Base Year

1998

Income Statement I

Price/Unit 7.54

Unit Sales (Total in millions) 31.41

Magnetic 30.23

Cathode Cutout 0.00

Electronic 1.18

Revenues 236.39

Production Costs - SG&A (excl. Depreciation) 185.9

(Production Costs=Labor-Material-Overhrud)

Depreciation 4.5

Product Conversion Expense (CC)

Product Conversion Expense (Elec)

One Time Charges

Restructuring Cost (Plant Closure) -

Asset Write Off -

Profit Before Tax 46.0

Taxes 16.3

Net Income Before Financing 29.7

Cash Flosv Statement I

Net Income 29.7

Depreciation 4.5

Asset Write Off -

Change in Working Capital -

Cash Flows from Operations 34.2

Ordinary Capital Expenditures (4.8)

Conversion Capital Exp. (CC) -

Conversion Capital Exp.(Elec) (2.0)

Cash Used In Investment (6.8)

Net Cash Flow 27.3

Terminal Value

Present Value Factor

Discounted Cash Flow 27.3

Industry Value (Net Present Value) $ 216.3

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

7.88 8.05 8.17 8.27 8.32 8.42 8.57 8.73 8.89 9.05 9.22 9.39 9.57 9.75

31.00 30.59 30.18 29.77 29.36 28.95 28.55 28.14 27.73 27.32 26.91 26.50 26.09 25.69

28.63 27.04 25.45 23.86 22.27 20.68 /9.09 17.511 15.91 14.32 12.73 11.14 9.55 7.95

0.101 0.(1(1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0(1 0.0(1 /1.110 (1.0(1 11.0(1 0.00 (1.0(1 0.01)

2.36 3.55 4.73 5.91 7.09 8?7 9.46 10.64 11.82 13.(1(1 14.18 15.37 16.55 17.73

244.31 246.41 246.67 246.22 244.54 243.87 244.74 245.59 246.41 247.21 247.99 248.79 249.58 250.36

194.5 197.8 199.4 200.3 200.2 200.9 203.1 205.3 207.5 209.7 211.9 214.1 216.3 218.6

4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.5 5.6

0.5 - - - - - 0.8 0.2

0.3 - - - - - - (0.4)

44.3 43.9 42.5 41.0 39.5 38.0 35.8 35.4 33.7 32.2 30.7 292 27.7 26.2

15.7 15.6 15.1 14.6 14.0 13.5 12.7 12.6 12.0 11.5 10.9 10.4 9.9 9.3

28.6 28.3 27.4 26.5 25.5 1--4.5 23.1 22.8 21.7 20.7 19.8 18.8 17.8 16.8

28.6 28.3 27.4 26.5 25.5 24.5 23.1 22.8 21.7 20.7 19.8 18.8 17.8 16.8

4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.5 5.6

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

(1.2) (0.3) (0.1) 0.1 0.2 0.1 (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2)

32.0 32.7 32.2 31.4 30.6 29.5 27.9 27.7 26.7 25.9 25.0 24.1 23.2 22.3

(5.0) (5.1) (5.2) (5.2) (5.3) (5.4) (5.4) (5.5) (5.6) (5.7) (5.8) (5.9) (6.0) (6.1)

- - - - - - - - - - - -

(2.0) (2.0) (2.0) (2.0) (2.0) (2.1) (4.3) (2.0) (2.0) (2.0) (2.0) (2.0) (2.0) (2.0)

(7.0) (7.1) (7.2) (7.3) (7.3) (7.5) (9.8) (7.5) (7.6) (7.7) (7.8) (7.9) (8.0) (8.1)

25.0 25.6 25.0 24.1 23.3 22.1 18.2 20.2 19.1 18.1 17.2 16.2 15.2 14.2

22.2 20.1 17.5 15.0 12.9 10.9 8.2 8.0 6.9 5.9 5.1 4.4 3.8 3.3

C-2

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

Table C.1.A Base Case Industry Cash flow--Manufacturer Submittal, 5% Shipment Scenario (1998 - 2012) 

l"l~o.ii$~¢!1ft>i#tI~l~i$iEj~(;iQiii~~ili\~(St~W~t41 

BASE CASE SCENARIO 

Income Statement 

PriceiUnit 

Unit Sales (Total in millions) 

Magnetic 

Cathode Cutout 

Electronic 

Revenues 

Prodm.:tion Cost..., - SG&A (excl. Depreciation) 

(Production Co~ts=Labor-Material-overhead) 

Depreciation 

Product Conversion Expense (ee) 

Product Conversion Expense (Elee) 

One Time ChOl"j;es 

Re~trl1cturing Cost (plant Closure) 

Asset Write OfT 

Profit Before Tax 

Taxes 

Net fncome Before Financing 

Cash Flow Statement 

Net Income 

Depreciation 

Asset Write OfT 

Change in Working Capital 

Cash Flows from Operations 

Ordinary Capital Ex.penditures 

Conversion Capital Exp. (CC) 

Conversion Capital Exp. (Elec) 

Cash Used In Investment 

Net Cash Flow 

Terminal Value 

Pres~nt Value Factor 

Discounted Ca..'ih Flow 

IndostryValue (Net Present Value) $ 216.3 

Base Year 

1998 

7.54 

31.41 

3(1.]3 

(WII 

1.18 

236.39 

185.9 

4.5 

46.0 

16.3 

29.7 

29.7 

4.5 

34.2 

(4.8) 

(2.0) 

(6.8) 

27.3 

27.3 

1999 

7.88 

31.00 

28.63 

(!.1m 

2.36 

244.31 

194.5 

4.6 

0.5 

0.3 

44.3 

15.7 

28.6 

28.6 

4.6 

(1.2) 

32.0 

(5.0) 

(2.0) 

(7.0) 

25.0 

22.2 

2000 

8.05 

30.59 

27.114 

(WO 

3.55 

246.41 

197.8 

4.7 

43.9 

15.6 

28.3 

28.3 

4.7 

(0.3) 

32.7 

(5.1) 

(t.O) 

(7.1) 

25.6 

20.1 

2001 

8.17 

30.18 

25.45 

11.1111 

4.73 

246.67 

199.4 

4.8 

42.5 

15.1 

27.4 

27.4 

4.8 

(0.1) 

32.2 

(5.2) 

(2.0) 

(7.2) 

25.0 

17.5 

2002 

8.27 

29.77 

23.86 

(!.IN! 

5.91 

246.22 

200.3 

4.9 

41.0 

14.6 

26.5 

26.5 

4.9 

0.1 

31.4 

(5.2) 

(2.0) 

(7.3) 

24.1 

15.0 

2003 

8.32 

29.36 

22.27 

(J.lJII 

7.IJ9 

244.54 

200.2 

4.9 

39.5 

14.0 

25.5 

25.5 

4.9 

0.2 

30.6 

(5.3) 

(2.0) 

(7.3) 

23.3 

12.9 

2004 

8.42 

28.95 

20.68 

0.1111 

8.17 

243.87 

200.9 

5.0 

38.0 

13.5 

24.5 

24.5 

5.0 

0.1 

29.5 

(5.4) 

(2.1) 

(7.5) 

22.1 

10.9 

C-2 

2005 

8.57 

28.55 

19.09 

0.00 

9.46 

244.74 

203.1 

5.0 

0.8 

35.8 

12.7 

23.1 

23.1 

5.0 

(0.2) 

27.9 

(5.4) 

(4.3) 

(9.8) 

18.2 

8.2 

2006 

8.73 

28.14 

17.50 

(J.lJO 

111.64 

245.59 

205.3 

5.1 

0.2 

(0.4) 

35.4 

12.6 

22.8 

22.8 

5.1 

(0.2) 

27.7 

(5.5) 

(2.0) 

(7.5) 

20.2 

8.0 

2007 

8.89 

27.73 

15.91 

O.(JO 

II.S2 

246.41 

207.5 

5.2 

33.7 

12.0 

21.7 

21.7 

5.2 

(0.2) 

26.7 

(5.6) 

(2.0) 

(7.6) 

19.1 

6.9 

2008 

9.05 

27.32 

14.32 

(!.IIII 

13.0() 

247.21 

209.7 

5.3 

32.2 

11.5 

20.7 

20.7 

5.3 

(0.2) 

25.9 

(5.7) 

(2.0) 

(7.7) 

18.1 

5.9 

2009 

9.22 

26.91 

12.73 

O.IJO 

14.18 

247.99 

211.9 

5.4 

30.7 

10.9 

19.8 

19.8 

5.4 

(0.2) 

25.0 

(5.8) 

(2.0) 

(7.8) 

17.2 

5.1 

2010 

9.39 

26.50 

2011 

9.57 

26.09 

11.14 9.55 

(WO O.O(J 

IB7 16.55 

248.79 249.58 

214.1 

5.5 

lOA 

18.8 

18.8 

5.5 

(0.2) 

24.1 

(5.9) 

(2.0) 

(7.9) 

16.2 

4.4 

216.3 

5.5 

27.7 

9.9 

17.8 

17.8 

5.5 

(0.2) 

23.2 

(6.0) 

(2.0) 

(8.0) 

15.2 

3.8 

2012 

9.75 

25.69 

7.95 

0.00 

17.73 

250.36 

218.6 

5.6 

26.2 

9.3 

16.8 

16.8 

5.6 

(0.2) 

22.3 

(6.1) 

(2.0) 

(8.1) 

14.2 

3.3 

Table C.1.A Base Case Industry Cash flow--Manufacturer Submittal, 5% Shipment Scenario (1998 - 2012) 

l"l~o.ii$~¢!1ft>i#tI~l~i$iEj~(;iQiii~~ili\~(St~W~t41 

BASE CASE SCENARIO 

Income Statement 

PriceiUnit 

Unit Sales (Total in millions) 

Magnetic 

Cathode Cutout 

Electronic 

Revenues 

Prodm.:tion Cost..., - SG&A (excl. Depreciation) 

(Production Co~ts=Labor-Material-overhead) 

Depreciation 

Product Conversion Expense (ee) 

Product Conversion Expense (Elee) 

One Time ChOl"j;es 

Re~trl1cturing Cost (plant Closure) 

Asset Write OfT 

Profit Before Tax 

Taxes 

Net fncome Before Financing 

Cash Flow Statement 

Net Income 

Depreciation 

Asset Write OfT 

Change in Working Capital 

Cash Flows from Operations 

Ordinary Capital Ex.penditures 

Conversion Capital Exp. (CC) 

Conversion Capital Exp. (Elec) 

Cash Used In Investment 

Net Cash Flow 

Terminal Value 

Pres~nt Value Factor 

Discounted Ca..'ih Flow 

IndostryValue (Net Present Value) $ 216.3 

Base Year 

1998 

7.54 

31.41 

3(1.]3 

(WII 

1.18 

236.39 

185.9 

4.5 

46.0 

16.3 

29.7 

29.7 

4.5 

34.2 

(4.8) 

(2.0) 

(6.8) 

27.3 

27.3 

1999 

7.88 

31.00 

28.63 

(!.1m 

2.36 

244.31 

194.5 

4.6 

0.5 

0.3 

44.3 

15.7 

28.6 

28.6 

4.6 

(1.2) 

32.0 

(5.0) 

(2.0) 

(7.0) 

25.0 

22.2 

2000 

8.05 

30.59 

27.114 

(WO 

3.55 

246.41 

197.8 

4.7 

43.9 

15.6 

28.3 

28.3 

4.7 

(0.3) 

32.7 

(5.1) 

(t.O) 

(7.1) 

25.6 

20.1 

2001 

8.17 

30.18 

25.45 

11.1111 

4.73 

246.67 

199.4 

4.8 

42.5 

15.1 

27.4 

27.4 

4.8 

(0.1) 

32.2 

(5.2) 

(2.0) 

(7.2) 

25.0 

17.5 

2002 

8.27 

29.77 

23.86 

(!.IN! 

5.91 

246.22 

200.3 

4.9 

41.0 

14.6 

26.5 

26.5 

4.9 

0.1 

31.4 

(5.2) 

(2.0) 

(7.3) 

24.1 

15.0 

2003 

8.32 

29.36 

22.27 

(J.lJII 

7.IJ9 

244.54 

200.2 

4.9 

39.5 

14.0 

25.5 

25.5 

4.9 

0.2 

30.6 

(5.3) 

(2.0) 

(7.3) 

23.3 

12.9 

2004 

8.42 

28.95 

20.68 

0.1111 

8.17 

243.87 

200.9 

5.0 

38.0 

13.5 

24.5 

24.5 

5.0 

0.1 

29.5 

(5.4) 

(2.1) 

(7.5) 

22.1 

10.9 

C-2 

2005 

8.57 

28.55 

19.09 

0.00 

9.46 

244.74 

203.1 

5.0 

0.8 

35.8 

12.7 

23.1 

23.1 

5.0 

(0.2) 

27.9 

(5.4) 

(4.3) 

(9.8) 

18.2 

8.2 

2006 

8.73 

28.14 

17.50 

(J.lJO 

111.64 

245.59 

205.3 

5.1 

0.2 

(0.4) 

35.4 

12.6 

22.8 

22.8 

5.1 

(0.2) 

27.7 

(5.5) 

(2.0) 

(7.5) 

20.2 

8.0 

2007 

8.89 

27.73 

15.91 

O.(JO 

II.S2 

246.41 

207.5 

5.2 

33.7 

12.0 

21.7 

21.7 

5.2 

(0.2) 

26.7 

(5.6) 

(2.0) 

(7.6) 

19.1 

6.9 

2008 

9.05 

27.32 

14.32 

(!.IIII 

13.0() 

247.21 

209.7 

5.3 

32.2 

11.5 

20.7 

20.7 

5.3 

(0.2) 

25.9 

(5.7) 

(2.0) 

(7.7) 

18.1 

5.9 

2009 

9.22 

26.91 

12.73 

O.IJO 

14.18 

247.99 

211.9 

5.4 

30.7 

10.9 

19.8 

19.8 

5.4 

(0.2) 

25.0 

(5.8) 

(2.0) 

(7.8) 

17.2 

5.1 

2010 

9.39 

26.50 

2011 

9.57 

26.09 

11.14 9.55 

(WO O.O(J 

IB7 16.55 

248.79 249.58 

214.1 

5.5 

lOA 

18.8 

18.8 

5.5 

(0.2) 

24.1 

(5.9) 

(2.0) 

(7.9) 

16.2 

4.4 

216.3 

5.5 

27.7 

9.9 

17.8 

17.8 

5.5 

(0.2) 

23.2 

(6.0) 

(2.0) 

(8.0) 

15.2 

3.8 

2012 

9.75 

25.69 

7.95 

0.00 

17.73 

250.36 

218.6 

5.6 

26.2 

9.3 

16.8 

16.8 

5.6 

(0.2) 

22.3 

(6.1) 

(2.0) 

(8.1) 

14.2 

3.3 
Table C.I.B Base Case Industry Cash flow--Manufacturer Submittal , 5% Shipment Scenario (2013 - 2027)

1* Iu9resee/1t Lump 139(lasts:;r,)ert,pnlC Jll'd)laS(. Standard

BASE CASE SCENARIO .......cominued

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027

Income Statement I

Price/Unit

Unit Sales (Total in millions)

Magnetic

Cathode Cutout

Electronic

Revenues

Production Costs - SG&A (excl. Depreciation)

(Production Costs=Labor-Material-Overhead)

Depreciation

9.94

25.28

6.36

(1.10

18.91

251.11

220.8

5.7

10.13

24.87

4.77

200

20.09

251.86

223.0

5.8

10.33

24.46

3.18

0110

21.28

252.59

225.2

5.9

10.33

24.46

3.18

11.(1(1

21.28

252.59

225.2

5.9

10.33

24.46

3.18

200

21.28

252.59

225.2

5.9

10.33

24.46

3.18

11.00

21.28

252.59

225.2

5.9

10.33

24.46

3.18

0.011

21.28

252.59

225.2

5.9

10.33

24.46

3.18

0.00

21.28

252.59

225.2

5.9

10.33

24.46

3.18

0.00

21.28

252.59

225.2

5.9

10.33

24.46

3.18

(1.0(1

21.28

252.59

225.2

5.9

10.33

24.46

3.18

9.011

21.28

252.59

225.2

5.9

10.33

24.46

3.18

().01)

21.28

252.59

225.2

5.9

10.33

24.46

3.18

(1.00

21.28

252.59

225.2

5.9

10.33

24.46

3.18

0.00

21.28

252.59

225.2

5.9

10.33

24.46

3.18

0.011

21.28

252.59

225.2

5.9

Product Conversion Expense (CC)

Product Conversion Expense (Flee)

One Time Charger

Restructuring Cost (Plant Closure)

Asset Write Off

Profit Before Tax 24.7 23.1 21.6 21.6 21.6 21.6 21.6 21.6 21.6 21.6 21.6 21.6 21.6 21.6 21.6

Taxes 8.8 8.3 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7

Net Income Before Financing 15.8 14.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8

Cash Flow Statement I

Net Income 15.8 14.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 118

Depreciation 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9

Asset Write Off - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Change in Working Capital (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) - - - - - - - - - - . - -

Cash Flows from Operations 21.4 20.5 19.5 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7

Ordinary Capital Expenditures (6.2) (6.2) (6.3) (6.3) (6.3) (6.3) (6.3) (6.3) (6.3) (6.3) (6.3) (6.3) (6.3) (6.3) (6.3)

Conversion Capital Exp. (CC) - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Conversion Capital Exp. (Elec) (2.0) (2.0) (0.3) - (0.3) - (0.3) - (0.3) - - (0.3) - - (0.3)

Cash Used In Investment (8.2) (8.3) (6.6) (6.3) (6.6) (6.3) (6.6) (6.3) (6.6) (6.3) (6.3) (6.6) (6.3) (6.3) (6.6)

Net Cash Flow 13.2 12.2 12.9 13.4 13.1 13.4 13.1 13.4 13.1 13.4 13.4. 13.1 13.4 13.4 13.1

Terminal Value 140.4

Present Value Factor

Discounted Cash Flow 2.9 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.2 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 18.1

Industry Value (Net Present Value) S 216.3

C-3

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

Table C.1.B Base Case Industry Cash flow--Manufacturer Submittal, 5% Shipment Scenario (2013 - 2027) 

Ifl@fI,$~eAft;.'repa~II~\$il\i~fi'iii\j¢'iiiiii~~Hitandard 

BASE CASE SCENARIO 

Income Statement 

PricelUnit 

Unit Sales (Total in millions) 

lrfo[:netic 

Lathode CutOlit 

Electronic 

Revenues 

Production Costo; - SG&i\ (excL Depreciation) 

(Production Costs=Labor-Material-Overhea.d) 

Depreciation 

Product Conversion Expense (ee) 

Product Conversion Expense (EJec) 

One Time Charges 

Re~1ructuring Cost (Plant Closure) 

Asset Write Off 

Profit Before Tax 

Taxes 

Net Income Before Financing 

Cash Flow Statement 

Net Income 

Depreciation 

Asset Write Off 

Change in \Vorking Capillil 

Cash Flows from Opemtions 

Ordinary Capital Expenditures 

Conversion Capital Exp. (CC) 

Conversion Capital Exp. (Elec) 

Cash Used In Investment 

Net Cash Flow 

Terminal Value 

Present Value Factor 

Discounted Ca..'ih Flow 

Industry Value (Net Present Value) $ 216.3 

...•... continued 

2013 

9.94 

25.28 

6.36 

(J.(N! 

/8.9/ 

251.11 

220.8 

5.7 

24.7 

8.8 

15.8 

15.8 

5.7 

(0.2) 

21.4 

(6.2) 

(2.0) 

(8.2) 

13.2 

2.9 

2014 

10.13 

24.87 

4.77 

0.00 

20.09 

251.86 

223.0 

5.8 

23.1 

8.3 

14.8 

14.8 

5.8 

(0.2) 

20.5 

(6.2) 

(2.0) 

(8.3) 

12.2 

2.5 

2015 

10.33 

24.46 

2016 

10.33 

24.46 

2017 

10.33 

24.46 

3./8 3./8 3./8 

o}}() o}}() (J.(N! 

1/.28 1/.28 21.18 

252.59 252.59 252.59 

225.2 

5.9 

21.6 

7.7 

13.8 

13.8 

5.9 

(0.2) 

19.5 

(6.3) 

(0.3) 

(6.6) 

12.9 

2.5 

225.2 

5.9 

21.6 

7.7 

13.8 

13.8 

5.9 

19.7 

(6.3) 

(6.3) 

13.4 

2.5 

225.2 

5.9 

21.6 

7.7 

13.8 

13.8 

5.9 

19.7 

(6.3) 

(0.3) 

(6.6) 

13.1 

2.2 

2018 

10.33 

24.46 

3./8 

0.00 

11.28 

252.59 

225.2 

5.9 

21.6 

7.7 

13.8 

13.8 

5.9 

19.7 

(6.3) 

(6.3) 

13.4 

2.1 

2019 

10.33 

24.46 

2020 

10.33 

24.46 

3./8 3./8 

0.00 o.o() 

11.18 1/.28 

252.59 252.59 

225.2 

5.9 

21.6 

7.7 

13.8 

13.8 

5.9 

19.7 

(6.3) 

(0.3) 

(6.6) 

13.1 

1.9 

C-3 

225.2 

5.9 

21.6 

7.7 

13.8 

13.8 

5.9 

19.7 

(6.3) 

(6.3) 

13.4 

1.8 

2021 

10.33 

24.46 

2022 

10.33 

24.46 

3./8 3./8 

(W() 0.00 

2/.28 1/.28 

252.59 252.59 

225.2 

5.9 

21.6 

7.7 

13.8 

13.8 

5.9 

19.7 

(6.3) 

(0.3) 

(6.6) 

13.1 

1.6 

225.2 

5.9 

21.6 

7.7 

13.8 

13.8 

5.9 

19.7 

(6.3) 

(6.3) 

13.4 

1.5 

2023 

10.33 

24.46 

2024 

10.33 

24.46 

3./8 3./8 

(J.(}() 0.00 

1/.28 21.28 

252.59 252.59 

225.2 

5.9 

21.6 

7.7 

13.8 

13.8 

5.9 

19.7 

(6.3) 

(6.3) 

13.4 

1.4 

225.2 

5.9 

21.6 

7.7 

13.8 

13.8 

5.9 

19.7 

(6.3) 

(0.3) 

(6.6) 

13.1 

1.3 

2025 

10.33 

24.46 

2026 

10.33 

24.46 

3./8 3.18 

0.00 (WO 

21.28 21.18 

252.59 252.59 

225.2 

5.9 

21.6 

7.7 

13.8 

13.8 

5.9 

19.7 

(6.3) 

(6.3) 

13.4 

1.2 

225.2 

5.9 

21.6 

7.7 

13.8 

13.8 

5.9 

19.7 

(6.3) 

(6.3) 

13.4 

1.1 

2027 

10.33 

24.46 

3.(8 

0.00 

11.18 

252.59 

225.2 

5.9 

21.6 

7.7 

13.8 

13.8 

5.9 

19.7 

(6.3) 

(0.3) 

(6.6) 

13.1 

140.4 

18.1 

Table C.1.B Base Case Industry Cash flow--Manufacturer Submittal, 5% Shipment Scenario (2013 - 2027) 

Ifl@fI,$~eAft;.'repa~II~\$il\i~fi'iii\j¢'iiiiii~~Hitandard 

BASE CASE SCENARIO 

Income Statement 

PricelUnit 

Unit Sales (Total in millions) 

lrfo[:netic 

Lathode CutOlit 

Electronic 

Revenues 

Production Costo; - SG&i\ (excL Depreciation) 

(Production Costs=Labor-Material-Overhea.d) 

Depreciation 

Product Conversion Expense (ee) 

Product Conversion Expense (EJec) 

One Time Charges 

Re~1ructuring Cost (Plant Closure) 

Asset Write Off 

Profit Before Tax 

Taxes 

Net Income Before Financing 

Cash Flow Statement 

Net Income 

Depreciation 

Asset Write Off 

Change in \Vorking Capillil 

Cash Flows from Opemtions 

Ordinary Capital Expenditures 

Conversion Capital Exp. (CC) 

Conversion Capital Exp. (Elec) 

Cash Used In Investment 

Net Cash Flow 

Terminal Value 

Present Value Factor 

Discounted Ca..'ih Flow 

Industry Value (Net Present Value) $ 216.3 

...•... continued 

2013 

9.94 

25.28 

6.36 

(J.(N! 

/8.9/ 

251.11 

220.8 

5.7 

24.7 

8.8 

15.8 

15.8 

5.7 

(0.2) 

21.4 

(6.2) 

(2.0) 

(8.2) 

13.2 

2.9 

2014 

10.13 

24.87 

4.77 

0.00 

20.09 

251.86 

223.0 

5.8 

23.1 

8.3 

14.8 

14.8 

5.8 

(0.2) 

20.5 

(6.2) 

(2.0) 

(8.3) 

12.2 

2.5 

2015 

10.33 

24.46 

2016 

10.33 

24.46 

2017 

10.33 

24.46 

3./8 3./8 3./8 

o}}() o}}() (J.(N! 

1/.28 1/.28 21.18 

252.59 252.59 252.59 

225.2 

5.9 

21.6 

7.7 

13.8 

13.8 

5.9 

(0.2) 

19.5 

(6.3) 

(0.3) 

(6.6) 

12.9 

2.5 

225.2 

5.9 

21.6 

7.7 

13.8 

13.8 

5.9 

19.7 

(6.3) 

(6.3) 

13.4 

2.5 

225.2 

5.9 

21.6 

7.7 

13.8 

13.8 

5.9 

19.7 

(6.3) 

(0.3) 

(6.6) 

13.1 

2.2 

2018 

10.33 

24.46 

3./8 

0.00 

11.28 

252.59 

225.2 

5.9 

21.6 

7.7 

13.8 

13.8 

5.9 

19.7 

(6.3) 

(6.3) 

13.4 

2.1 

2019 

10.33 

24.46 

2020 

10.33 

24.46 

3./8 3./8 

0.00 o.o() 

11.18 1/.28 

252.59 252.59 

225.2 

5.9 

21.6 

7.7 

13.8 

13.8 

5.9 

19.7 

(6.3) 

(0.3) 

(6.6) 

13.1 

1.9 

C-3 

225.2 

5.9 

21.6 

7.7 

13.8 

13.8 

5.9 

19.7 

(6.3) 

(6.3) 

13.4 

1.8 

2021 

10.33 

24.46 

2022 

10.33 

24.46 

3./8 3./8 

(W() 0.00 

2/.28 1/.28 

252.59 252.59 

225.2 

5.9 

21.6 

7.7 

13.8 

13.8 

5.9 

19.7 

(6.3) 

(0.3) 

(6.6) 

13.1 

1.6 

225.2 

5.9 

21.6 

7.7 

13.8 

13.8 

5.9 

19.7 

(6.3) 

(6.3) 

13.4 

1.5 

2023 

10.33 

24.46 

2024 

10.33 

24.46 

3./8 3./8 

(J.(}() 0.00 

1/.28 21.28 

252.59 252.59 

225.2 

5.9 

21.6 

7.7 

13.8 

13.8 

5.9 

19.7 

(6.3) 

(6.3) 

13.4 

1.4 

225.2 

5.9 

21.6 

7.7 

13.8 

13.8 

5.9 

19.7 

(6.3) 

(0.3) 

(6.6) 

13.1 

1.3 

2025 

10.33 

24.46 

2026 

10.33 

24.46 

3./8 3.18 

0.00 (WO 

21.28 21.18 

252.59 252.59 

225.2 

5.9 

21.6 

7.7 

13.8 

13.8 

5.9 

19.7 

(6.3) 

(6.3) 

13.4 

1.2 

225.2 

5.9 

21.6 

7.7 

13.8 

13.8 

5.9 

19.7 

(6.3) 

(6.3) 

13.4 

1.1 

2027 

10.33 

24.46 

3.(8 

0.00 

11.18 

252.59 

225.2 

5.9 

21.6 

7.7 

13.8 

13.8 

5.9 

19.7 

(6.3) 

(0.3) 

(6.6) 

13.1 

140.4 

18.1 
Table C.2.A Standard Case Industry Cash flow--Manufacturer Submittal, 5% Shipment Scenario (1998 - 2012)

Fluor accent Lonp It ll.rsft:lldctrnniclI) FastStE diDI

STANDARD CASE SCENARIO

I Income Statement

Announce Standard

Base Year Year Year

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Price/Unit 7.54 7.88 8.05 8.17 8.16 10.77 10.56 10.55 10.55 10.54 10.53 10.52 10.51 10.51 10.50

Unit Sales (Total in millions) 31.41 31.00 30.59 30.18 33.93 21.11 23.64 23.64 23.64 23.64 23.64 23.64 23.64 23.64 23.64

Magnetic 30.23 28.63 27.04 25.45 28.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (1.00 11.011 0.00 0.00 (1.00 (1.0(1

Cathode Cutout 0.10 (1.(0 (1.00 200 ((011 0.00 0.110 (1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.110 0.011 0.00 0.00

Electronic 1.18 2.36 3.55 4.73 5.91 21.11 23.64 23.64 23.64 23.64 23.64 23.64 23.64 23.64 23.64

Revenues 236.39 244.31 246.41 246.68 277.07 227.64 249.69 249.46 249.23 249.00 248.78 248.55 248.40 248.25 248.10

Production Costs - SG&A (excl. Depreciation)

(Production Costs=Labor-Material-Overhead)

185.9 194.1 197.5 199.2 224.1 207.8 227.5 227.5 227.5 227.5 227.5 227.5 227.5 1227.5 227.5

Depreciation 4.5 4.7 4.9 5.0 5.6 6.0 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7

Product Conversion Expense (CC) - - - - - -

Product Conversion Expense (Elec) - 0.1 0.7 1.4 1.8 0.1

One Time Charges

Restructuring Cost (Plant Closure) - 0.5 - - 4.1 37.5 1.0 -

Asset Write Off - 0.3 - - - 6.6 (0.4) (0.2)

Profit Before Tax 46.0 44.6 43.4 41.1 41.5 (30.3) 14.9 15.5 15.0 14.8 14.6 14.4 14.3 14.1 14.0

Taxes 16.3 15.8 15.4 14.6 14.7 (10.7) 5.4 5.6 5.4 5.3 5.3 5.2 5.1 5.1 5.0

Net Income Before Financing 29.7 28.8 28.0 26.5 26.8 (19.6) 9.5 9.9 9.6 9.5 9.4 9.2 9.1 9.0 8.9

I Cash Flow Statement I

Net Income 29.7 28.8 28.0 26.5 26.8 (19.6) 9.5 9.9 9.6 9.5 9.4 9.2 9.1 9.0 8.9

Depreciation 4.5 4.7 4.9 5.0 5.6 6.0 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7

Asset Write Off - - - - - 6.7 - - - - - - - - -

Change in Working Capital - (1.2) (0.3) (0.1) (5.3) 8.0 (4.1) - 0.0 (0.0) - - - - -

Cash Flows from Operations 34.2 32.3 32.6 31.5 27.1 1.1 12.0 16.6 16.3 16.2 16.0 15.9 15.8 15.7 15.6

Ordinary Capital Expenditures (4.8) (5.0) (5.1) (5.2) (5.8) (5.3) (5.9) (5.9) (5.9) (5.9) (5.9) (14.8) (5.9) (5.9) (5.9)

Conversion Capital Exp. (CC) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Conversion Capital Exp. (Elec) (2.0) (2.0) (2.0) (4.1) (39.0) (4.1) - 0.0 (0.0) - - - - - (0.0)

Cash Used In Investment (6.8) (7.0) (7.1) (9.3) (44.8) (9.4) (5.9) (5.9) (5.9) (5.9) (5.9) (14.8) (5.9) (5.9) (5.9)

Net Cash Flow

Terminal Value

Present Value Factor

27.3 25.3 25.4 22.2 (17.8) (8.2) 6.2 10.7 10.4 10.3 10.1 1.1 9.9 9.8 9.7

Discounted Cash Flow

Industry Value (Net Present Value) S 146.6

273 22.4 20.0 15.5 (11.5 ) (4.9) 3.7 5.7 5.1 4.7 4.2 1.7 3.5 3.3 3.0

C-4

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

Table C.2.A Standard Case Industry Cash flow--Manufacturer Submittal, 5% Shipment Scenario (1998 - 2012) 

ll"i~ffli~~lit.tm~~ii;.,siSi··Ei~h~iik·~ili\~(.Sti\M~fij;·.· •• 1 

STANDARD CASE SCENARIO 

Income S'bltement 

PricelUnit 

Unit Sales (Total in millions) 

Alagl1etic 

Cathode Cutoul 

Electronic 

Revenues 

Production Costs - SG&J\. (excl. Depreciation) 

(Production Cm,ts=Labor-Material-Overhead) 

Depreciation 

Product Com'ersion Expense (ee) 

Product Conversion Expense (EJec) 

One Time Charges 

Restructuring Cost (plant Closure) 

i\s.<;et Write Off 

Profit Before Tax 

Taxes 

Net fncome Before Financing 

Cash Flow Statement 

Net Income 

Depreciation 

As.'iet Write Off 

Change in Working Oipital 

Cash Flows from Operations 

Ordinary Capital Expenditures 

Conversion Capital Exp. (CC) 

Conversion Capital Exp. (Elec) 

Casb Used In Investment 

Net Cash Flow 

Terminal Value 

Present Value Factor 

Discounted Ca..o;;h Flow 

Indostry Value (Net Present Value) $ 146.6 

Announce 

Base Year Year 

1998 

7.54 

31.41 

31i.23 

Ii.lX! 

1.18 

236.39 

185.9 

4.5 

46.0 

16.3 

29.7 

29.7 

4.5 

34.2 

(4.8) 

(2.0) 

(6.8) 

27.3 

27.3 

1999 

7.88 

31.00 

28.63 

O.f}(} 

2.36 

244.31 

194.1 

4.7 

0.1 

0.5 

0.3 

44.6 

15.8 

28.8 

28.8 

4.7 

(1.2) 

32.3 

(5.0) 

(2.0) 

(7.0) 

25.3 

22.4 

2000 

8.05 

30.59 

27.li4 

(!.III! 

3.55 

246.41 

197.5 

4.9 

0.7 

43.4 

15.4 

28.0 

28.0 

4.9 

(0.3) 

32.6 

(5.1) 

(2.0) 

(7.1) 

25.4 

20.0 

2001 

8.17 

30.18 

15.45 

1i.1i1i 

4.73 

246.68 

199.2 

5.0 

1.4 

41.1 

14.6 

26.5 

26.5 

5.0 

(0.1) 

31.5 

(5.2) 

(4.1) 

(9.3) 

22.2 

15.5 

2002 

8.16 

33.93 

28.li2 

(WO 

5.91 

277.07 

224.1 

5.6 

1.8 

4.1 

41.5 

14.7 

26.8 

26.8 

5.6 

(5.3) 

27.1 

(5.8) 

(39.0) 

(44.8) 

(17.8) 

(11.5) 

Standard 

Year 

2003 

10.77 

21.11 

(!.II1i 

(!.II1i 

21.11 

227.64 

207.8 

6.0 

0.1 

37.5 

6.6 

(30.3) 

(10.7) 

(19.6) 

(19.6) 

6.0 

6.7 

8.0 

1.1 

(5.3) 

(4.1) 

(9.4) 

(8.2) 

(4.9) 

2004 

10.56 

23.64 

1i.lllJ 

1i.1i1i 

23.64 

249.69 

227.5 

6.7 

1.0 

(0.4) 

14.9 

5.4 

9.5 

9.5 

6.7 

(4.1) 

12.0 

(5.9) 

(5.9) 

6.2 

3.7 

C-4 

2005 

10.55 

23.64 

(!.II1i 

O.O(J 

23.64 

249.46 

227.5 

6.7 

(0.2) 

15.5 

5.6 

9.9 

9.9 

6.7 

16.6 

(5.9) 

0.0 

(5.9) 

10.7 

5.7 

2006 

10.55 

23.64 

f).on 

(!.II1i 

23.64 

249.23 

227.5 

6.7 

15.0 

5.4 

9.6 

9.6 

6.7 

0.0 

16.3 

(5.9) 

(0.0) 

(5.9) 

10.4 

5.1 

2007 

10.54 

23.64 

(!.II1i 

1i.1i1i 

23.64 

249.00 

227.5 

6.7 

14.8 

5.3 

9.5 

9.5 

6.7 

(0.0) 

16.2 

(5.9) 

(5.9) 

10.3 

4.7 

2008 

10.53 

23.64 

(!.II1i 

1i.1i1i 

23.64 

248.78 

227.5 

6.7 

14.6 

5.3 

9.4 

9.4 

6.7 

16.0 

(5.9) 

(5.9) 

10.1 

4.2 

2009 

10.52 

23.64 

(!.II1i 

(!.II1i 

23.64 

248.55 

227.5 

6.7 

14.4 

5.2 

9.2 

9.2 

6.7 

15.9 

(14.8) 

(14.8) 

1.1 

1.7 

2010 

10.51 

23.64 

1i.1i1i 

f). 00 

23.64 

248.40 

227.5 

6.7 

14.3 

5.1 

9.1 

9.1 

6.7 

15.8 

(5.9) 

(5.9) 

9.9 

3.5 

2011 

10.51 

23.64 

(J.f}() 

(!.II1i 

23.64 

248.25 

227.5 

6.7 

14.1 

5.1 

9.0 

9.0 

6.7 

15.7 

(5.9) 

(5.9) 

9.8 

3.3 

2012 

10.50 

23.64 

(!.II1i 

O,O(J 

23.64 

248.10 

227.5 

6.7 

14.0 

5.0 

8.9 

8.9 

6.7 

15.6 

(5.9) 

(0.0) 

(5.9) 

9.7 

3.0 

Table C.2.A Standard Case Industry Cash flow--Manufacturer Submittal, 5% Shipment Scenario (1998 - 2012) 

ll"i~ffli~~lit.tm~~ii;.,siSi··Ei~h~iik·~ili\~(.Sti\M~fij;·.· •• 1 

STANDARD CASE SCENARIO 

Income S'bltement 

PricelUnit 

Unit Sales (Total in millions) 

Alagl1etic 

Cathode Cutoul 

Electronic 

Revenues 

Production Costs - SG&J\. (excl. Depreciation) 

(Production Cm,ts=Labor-Material-Overhead) 

Depreciation 

Product Com'ersion Expense (ee) 

Product Conversion Expense (EJec) 

One Time Charges 

Restructuring Cost (plant Closure) 

i\s.<;et Write Off 

Profit Before Tax 

Taxes 

Net fncome Before Financing 

Cash Flow Statement 

Net Income 

Depreciation 

As.'iet Write Off 

Change in Working Oipital 

Cash Flows from Operations 

Ordinary Capital Expenditures 

Conversion Capital Exp. (CC) 

Conversion Capital Exp. (Elec) 

Casb Used In Investment 

Net Cash Flow 

Terminal Value 

Present Value Factor 

Discounted Ca..o;;h Flow 

Indostry Value (Net Present Value) $ 146.6 

Announce 

Base Year Year 

1998 

7.54 

31.41 

31i.23 

Ii.lX! 

1.18 

236.39 

185.9 

4.5 

46.0 

16.3 

29.7 

29.7 

4.5 

34.2 

(4.8) 

(2.0) 

(6.8) 

27.3 

27.3 

1999 

7.88 

31.00 

28.63 

O.f}(} 

2.36 

244.31 

194.1 

4.7 

0.1 

0.5 

0.3 

44.6 

15.8 

28.8 

28.8 

4.7 

(1.2) 

32.3 

(5.0) 

(2.0) 

(7.0) 

25.3 

22.4 

2000 

8.05 

30.59 

27.li4 

(!.III! 

3.55 

246.41 

197.5 

4.9 

0.7 

43.4 

15.4 

28.0 

28.0 

4.9 

(0.3) 

32.6 

(5.1) 

(2.0) 

(7.1) 

25.4 

20.0 

2001 

8.17 

30.18 

15.45 

1i.1i1i 

4.73 

246.68 

199.2 

5.0 

1.4 

41.1 

14.6 

26.5 

26.5 

5.0 

(0.1) 

31.5 

(5.2) 

(4.1) 

(9.3) 

22.2 

15.5 

2002 

8.16 

33.93 

28.li2 

(WO 

5.91 

277.07 

224.1 

5.6 

1.8 

4.1 

41.5 

14.7 

26.8 

26.8 

5.6 

(5.3) 

27.1 

(5.8) 

(39.0) 

(44.8) 

(17.8) 

(11.5) 

Standard 

Year 

2003 

10.77 

21.11 

(!.II1i 

(!.II1i 

21.11 

227.64 

207.8 

6.0 

0.1 

37.5 

6.6 

(30.3) 

(10.7) 

(19.6) 

(19.6) 

6.0 

6.7 

8.0 

1.1 

(5.3) 

(4.1) 

(9.4) 

(8.2) 

(4.9) 

2004 

10.56 

23.64 

1i.lllJ 

1i.1i1i 

23.64 

249.69 

227.5 

6.7 

1.0 

(0.4) 

14.9 

5.4 

9.5 

9.5 

6.7 

(4.1) 

12.0 

(5.9) 

(5.9) 

6.2 

3.7 

C-4 

2005 

10.55 

23.64 

(!.II1i 

O.O(J 

23.64 

249.46 

227.5 

6.7 

(0.2) 

15.5 

5.6 

9.9 

9.9 

6.7 

16.6 

(5.9) 

0.0 

(5.9) 

10.7 

5.7 

2006 

10.55 

23.64 

f).on 

(!.II1i 

23.64 

249.23 

227.5 

6.7 

15.0 

5.4 

9.6 

9.6 

6.7 

0.0 

16.3 

(5.9) 

(0.0) 

(5.9) 

10.4 

5.1 

2007 

10.54 

23.64 

(!.II1i 

1i.1i1i 

23.64 

249.00 

227.5 

6.7 

14.8 

5.3 

9.5 

9.5 

6.7 

(0.0) 

16.2 

(5.9) 

(5.9) 

10.3 

4.7 

2008 

10.53 

23.64 

(!.II1i 

1i.1i1i 

23.64 

248.78 

227.5 

6.7 

14.6 

5.3 

9.4 

9.4 

6.7 

16.0 

(5.9) 

(5.9) 

10.1 

4.2 

2009 

10.52 

23.64 

(!.II1i 

(!.II1i 

23.64 

248.55 

227.5 

6.7 

14.4 

5.2 

9.2 

9.2 

6.7 

15.9 

(14.8) 

(14.8) 

1.1 

1.7 

2010 

10.51 

23.64 

1i.1i1i 

f). 00 

23.64 

248.40 

227.5 

6.7 

14.3 

5.1 

9.1 

9.1 

6.7 

15.8 

(5.9) 

(5.9) 

9.9 

3.5 

2011 

10.51 

23.64 

(J.f}() 

(!.II1i 

23.64 

248.25 

227.5 

6.7 

14.1 

5.1 

9.0 

9.0 

6.7 

15.7 

(5.9) 

(5.9) 

9.8 

3.3 

2012 

10.50 

23.64 

(!.II1i 

O,O(J 

23.64 

248.10 

227.5 

6.7 

14.0 

5.0 

8.9 

8.9 

6.7 

15.6 

(5.9) 

(0.0) 

(5.9) 

9.7 

3.0 
Table C.2.B Standard Case Industry Cash flow--Manufacturer Submittal, 5% Shipment Scenario (2013 - 2015)

f laoresctpt (amp IT last .E(ectr4nicOal

STANDARD CASE SCENARIO

Income Statement

77;;;o

2013 2014 2015

I

Price/Unit

Unit Sales (Total in millions)

Magnetic

Cathode Caroni

Electronic

Revenues

Production Costs- SG&A (excl. Depreciation)

(Production Costs=Labor-Material-Overhead)

Depreciation

10.49

23.64

(1.0(1

(1.101

23.64

247.95

227.5

6.7

10.49

23.64

(1.(1(1

0.01)

23.64

247.80

227.5

6.7

10.48

23.64

0.00

11.00

23.64

247.65

227.4

6.7

Product Conversion Expense (CC)

Product Conversion Expense (Elec)

One Time C hm-ger

Restructuring Cost (Plant Closure)

Asset Write Off

Profit Before Tax 13.8 13.7 13.5

Taxes 5.0 4.9 4.9

Net Income Before Financing 8.8 8.8 8.7

Cash Flow Statement

Net Income 8.8 8.8 8.7

Depreciation 6.7 6.7 6.7

Asset Write Off - -

Change in Working Capital - - (0.0)

Cash Flows from Operations 15.5 15.4 15.3

Ordinary Capital Expenditures (5.9) (5.9) (7.1)

Conversion Capital Exp. (CC) - - -

Conversion Capital Exp. (Elec) (0.0) (0.0) 0.0

Cash Used In Investment (5.9) (5.9) (7.1)

Net Cash Flow 9.6 9.5 8.2

Terminal Value 108.3

Present Value Factor

Discounted Cash Flow 2.7 2.5 37.1

Industry Value (Net Present Value) S 146.6

C-5

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

Table C.2.B Standard Case Industry Cash flow--Manufacturer Submittal, 5% Shipment Scenario (2013 - 2015) 

Il'i~iiR$iiiiiitlil§i~*li~\$lEl¢l;i~iii¢.jjjilliijiill~M~tji; ••• , 

STANDARD CASE SCENARIO 

Income Statement 

PricelUnit 

Unit Sales (Total in millions) 

Magnetic 

Cathode Cutout 

Electronic 

Revenues 

Production Costs - SG&J\ (excl. Depreciation) 

(Production Costs=Labor-Material-Overhead) 

Depreciation 

Product Conversion Expense (CC) 

Product Conversion Expense (Elec) 

One Time Lna1"Res 

Re!.tructuring Cost (Phmt Closure) 

Asset Write Off 

Profit Before Tax 

Taxes 

Net Income Before Financing 

Cash Flow Statement 

Net Income 

Depreciation 

Asset Write Off 

Change in Working Capital 

Cash Flows from Opemtions 

Ordinary Capital Expenditures 

Conversion Capital Exp. (cq 

Conversion Capital Exp. (flee) 

Cash Used In Investment 

Net Cash Flow 

Terminal Value 

Present Value Factor 

Discounted Cash Flow 

[ndustry Value (Net Present Value) $ 146.6 

2013 

10.49 

23.64 

(WI) 

(um 

23.64 

247.95 

227.5 

6.7 

13.8 

5.0 

8.8 

8.8 

6.7 

15.5 

(5.9) 

(0.0) 

(5.9) 

9.6 

2.7 

2014 2015 

10.49 10.48 

23.64 23.64 

(um (WI) 

(um (1.1111 

13.64 13.64 

247.80 247.65 

227.5 227.4 

6.7 6.7 

13.7 13.5 

4.9 4.9 

8.8 8.7 

8.8 8.7 

6.7 6.7 

(0.0) 

15.4 15.3 

(5.9) (7.1) 

(0.0) 0.0 

(5.9) (7.1 ) 

9.5 8.2 

108.3 

2.5 37.1 

C-5 

Table C.2.B Standard Case Industry Cash flow--Manufacturer Submittal, 5% Shipment Scenario (2013 - 2015) 

Il'i~iiR$iiiiiitlil§i~*li~\$lEl¢l;i~iii¢.jjjilliijiill~M~tji; ••• , 

STANDARD CASE SCENARIO 

Income Statement 

PricelUnit 

Unit Sales (Total in millions) 

Magnetic 

Cathode Cutout 

Electronic 

Revenues 

Production Costs - SG&J\ (excl. Depreciation) 

(Production Costs=Labor-Material-Overhead) 

Depreciation 

Product Conversion Expense (CC) 

Product Conversion Expense (Elec) 

One Time Lna1"Res 

Re!.tructuring Cost (Phmt Closure) 

Asset Write Off 

Profit Before Tax 

Taxes 

Net Income Before Financing 

Cash Flow Statement 

Net Income 

Depreciation 

Asset Write Off 

Change in Working Capital 

Cash Flows from Opemtions 

Ordinary Capital Expenditures 

Conversion Capital Exp. (cq 

Conversion Capital Exp. (flee) 

Cash Used In Investment 

Net Cash Flow 

Terminal Value 

Present Value Factor 

Discounted Cash Flow 

[ndustry Value (Net Present Value) $ 146.6 

2013 

10.49 

23.64 

(WI) 

(um 

23.64 

247.95 

227.5 

6.7 

13.8 

5.0 

8.8 

8.8 

6.7 

15.5 

(5.9) 

(0.0) 

(5.9) 

9.6 

2.7 

2014 2015 

10.49 10.48 

23.64 23.64 

(um (WI) 

(um (1.1111 

13.64 13.64 

247.80 247.65 

227.5 227.4 

6.7 6.7 

13.7 13.5 

4.9 4.9 

8.8 8.7 

8.8 8.7 

6.7 6.7 

(0.0) 

15.4 15.3 

(5.9) (7.1) 

(0.0) 0.0 

(5.9) (7.1 ) 

9.5 8.2 

108.3 

2.5 37.1 

C-5 
Table C.3.A Base Case Industry Cash flow--Manufacturer Submittal , 3% Shipment Scenario (1998 - 2012)

Fliitin:pcept 3..:11-1) 6-41's I ':

BASE CASE SCENARIO

cct rook Ballast Standard

Income Statement

Base Year

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

I

Price/Unit 7.50 7.71 7.81 7.87 7.93 7.96 8.01 8.10 8.18 8.27 8.35 8.44 8.53 8.62 8.71

Unit Sales (Total in millions) 31.57 31.33 31.08 30.84 30.59 30. 34 30.10 29.85 29.61 29.36 29.12 28. 87 28.63 28.38 28.14

Magnetic 30.86 29.91 28.95 28.0(1 27.04 26.(19 25.13 24.18 23,23 22.27 21.32 20.36 19.41 18.45 17.50

Cathode Cutout 11.(X/ (1.110 0.00 0.00 (1.110 0.00 (1.00 0.11(1 0.00 0.00 11.(10 (1.00 0.011 (1.00 2011

Electronic (1.71 1.42 2.13 2.84 3.55 4.26 4.96 5.67 6.38 7.(19 7.80 8.5/ 9.22 9.93 10.64

Revenues 236.69 241 .44 242.69 242.85 242 . 59 241.57 241 . 17 241.69 242.20 242.70 243 . 18 243.64 244.13 244.60 245.06

Production Costs - SG&A (excl. Depreciation )

(Production Costs=Labor-Material-Overhead)

185.7 190.9 192.8 193.8 194.4 194.3 194.7 196.0 197.4 198.7 200.0 201 . 3 202.7 204.0 205.3

Depreciation

Product Conversion Expense (CC)

Product Conversion Expense (Elec)

One Time C)rmgec

4.4 4.5 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.8 4.8 4.9 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.1 5.1

Restructuring Cost (Plant Closure) - 0.5 - - - - - 0.8 02

Asset Write Off - 0.3 - - - - - -

Profit Before Tax 46.5 45.2 45.3 44.4 43.5 42.6 41.7 40.1 40.2 39.1 38.2 37.3 36.4 35.5 34.6

Taxes 16.5 16.0 16.1 15.8 15.5 15.1 14.8 14.2 14.3 13.9 13.6 13.3 13.0 12.6 12.3

Net Income Before Financing 30.0 29.2 29.2 28.7 28.1 27.5 26.9 25.8 25 .9 25.2 24.7 24.1 23.5 22.9 22.3

Cash Flow Statement

Net Income 30.0 29.2 29 .2 28.7 28.1 27 . 5 26.9 25.8 25 .9 25.2 24.7 24.1 23.5 22.9 22.3

Depreciation 4.4 4.5 4. 6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.8 4.8 4 . 9 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.1 5.1

Asset Write Off - - - - - -

Change in Working Capital - (0.7) (0.2) (0.0) 0.0 0.1 0.0 (0.1 ) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1)

Cash Flows from Operations 34.5 33.0 33.6 33 . 3 32.8 32.3 31.7 30.5 30.7 30.0 29.5 28.9 28.4 27.9 27.3

Ordinary Capital Expenditures

Conversion Capital Exp. (CC)

( 4.8) (4.9) (5.0) (5.0 ) ( 5.0) (5.1) (5 . 1) (5.2) (5.2) (5.3) (5.3 ) ( 5.4) (5.4) ( 5.5) (5.5)

Conversion CapitalExp .(Elec) (1.2) ( 1.2) (1.2) (1.2) (1.2) (1.2) (1.3) (3.5 ) (1.2) (1.2) (1.2) (1.2) (1.2) (1.2) (1.2)

Cash Used In Investment (6.0) (6.1) (6 .2) (6.2) (6.2) (6.3) (6.4) (8.7) (6.4) (6.5) (6.5) ( 6.6) (6.6) (6.7) (6.7)

Net Cash Flow

Terminal Value

Present Value Factor

28.5 26 .9 27.4 27.1 26.6 26.1 25.3 21.9 24.3 23 . 5 23.0 22.4 21.8 21.2 20.6

Discounted Cash Flow

Industry Value (Net Present Value) $ 237.0

28.5 23.8 21.6 18.9 16.5 14.4 12.4 9.7 9.5 8.3 7.2 6.3 5.5 4.9 4.3

C-6

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

Table C3.A Base Case Industry Cash flow--Manufacturer Submittal, 3% Shipment Scenario (J 998 - 2012) 

IF'~~i~~~{t#ijij~1li$1$il;;i~t:~nl~U~iiil$tSt~M~t41 

BASE CASE SCENARIO 

Income Statement 

PricelUnit 

Unit Sales (Total in millions) 

Magnetic 

C.athode Cutout 

Electronic 

Revenues 

Production Costs - SG&A (excl. Depreciation) 

(Production Co~ts=Labor-Material-overhe-.id) 

Depreciation 

Product Conversion Expense (CC) 

Product Conversion Expense (EJec) 

One Time Char~es 

Re~tructuring Cost (Plant Closure) 

Asset W fite Off 

Profit Before Tax 

Taxes 

Net Income Before Financing 

Cash Flow Statement 

Net Income 

Depreciation 

i\s..'iet \Vrite Off 

Change in Working Capital 

Cash Flows from Operations 

Ordinary Capital Ex.penditures 

Conversion Capital Ex.p. (CC) 

Conversion CapitJ.1 Ex.p. (Elee) 

Cash Used rn Investment 

Net Cash Flow 

Terminal Value 

Present Value Factor 

Discounted Cash Flow 

Industry Value (Net Present Value) $ 237.0 

Base Year 

1998 

7.50 

31.57 

3f).H6 

f).IN} 

11.71 

236.69 

185.7 

4.4 

46.5 

16.5 

30.0 

30.0 

4.4 

34.5 

(4.8) 

(1.2) 

(6.0) 

28.5 

28.5 

1999 

7.71 

31.33 

29.91 

(J.I)f) 

1:42 

241.44 

190.9 

4.5 

0.5 

0.3 

45.2 

16.0 

29.2 

29.2 

4.5 

(0.7) 

33.0 

(4.9) 

(1.2) 

(6.1) 

26.9 

23.8 

2000 

7.81 

31.08 

28.95 

f).f)f) 

2.13 

242.69 

192.8 

4.6 

45.3 

16.1 

29.2 

29.2 

4.6 

(0.2) 

33.6 

(5.0) 

(1.2) 

(6.2) 

27.4 

21.6 

2001 

7.87 

30.84 

2H.f)f) 

(J.I)f) 

2.84 

242.85 

193.8 

4.6 

44.4 

15.8 

28.7 

28.7 

4.6 

(0.0) 

33.3 

(5.0) 

(1.2) 

(6.2) 

27.1 

18.9 

2002 

7.93 

30.59 

27.f)4 

(J.I)f) 

3.55 

242.59 

194.4 

4.7 

43.5 

15.5 

28.1 

28.1 

4.7 

0.0 

32.8 

(5.0) 

(1.2) 

(6.2) 

26.6 

16.5 

2003 

7.96 

30.34 

26.f)9 

(J.I)f) 

4.26 

241.57 

194.3 

4.7 

42.6 

15.1 

27.5 

27.5 

4.7 

0.1 

32.3 

(5.1) 

(1.2) 

(6.3) 

26.1 

14.4 

2004 

8.01 

30.10 

25.13 

(J.I)f) 

4.96 

241.17 

194.7 

4.7 

41.7 

14.8 

26.9 

26.9 

4.7 

0.0 

31.7 

(5.1) 

(1.3) 

(6.4) 

25.3 

12.4 

C-6 

2005 

8.10 

29.85 

24.IH 

(J.I)f) 

5.67 

241.69 

196.0 

4.8 

0.8 

40.1 

14.2 

25.S 

25.8 

4.8 

(0.1) 

30.5 

(5.2) 

(3.5) 

(S.7) 

21.9 

9.7 

2006 

8.18 

29.61 

23.23 

f).lIf) 

6.38 

242.20 

197.4 

4.8 

0.2 

(0.4) 

40.2 

14.3 

25.9 

25.9 

4.8 

(0.1) 

30.7 

(5.2) 

(1.2) 

(6.4) 

24.3 

9.5 

2007 

8.27 

29.36 

22.27 

f).OO 

7.09 

242.70 

198.7 

4.9 

39.1 

13.9 

25.2 

25.2 

4.9 

(0.1) 

30.0 

(5.3) 

(1.2) 

(6.5) 

23.5 

8.3 

2008 

8.35 

29.12 

21.32 

f).f)f) 

7.81) 

243.18 

200.0 

4.9 

38.2 

13.6 

24.7 

24.7 

4.9 

(0.1) 

29.5 

(5.3) 

(1.2) 

(6.5) 

23.0 

7.2 

2009 

8.44 

28.87 

2f).36 

I).f)f) 

8.51 

243.64 

201.3 

5.0 

37.3 

13.3 

24.1 

24.1 

5.0 

(0.1) 

28.9 

(5.4) 

(1.2) 

(6.6) 

22.4 

6.3 

2010 

8.53 

28.63 

19.41 

2011 

8.62 

28.38 

18.45 

f).f)f) f).{){) 

9.22 9.93 

244.13 244.60 

202.7 

5.0 

36.4 

13.0 

23.5 

23.5 

5.0 

(0.1) 

28.4 

(5.4) 

(1.2) 

(6.6) 

21.8 

5.5 

204.0 

5.1 

35.5 

12.6 

22.9 

22.9 

5.1 

(0.1) 

27.9 

(5.5) 

(1.2) 

(6.7) 

21.2 

4.9 

2012 

8.71 

28.14 

17.5f) 

(J.I)f) 

/IJ.64 

245.06 

205.3 

5.1 

34.6 

12.3 

22.3 

22.3 

5.1 

(0.1) 

27.3 

(5.5) 

(1.2) 

(6.7) 

20.6 

4.3 

Table C3.A Base Case Industry Cash flow--Manufacturer Submittal, 3% Shipment Scenario (J 998 - 2012) 

IF'~~i~~~{t#ijij~1li$1$il;;i~t:~nl~U~iiil$tSt~M~t41 

BASE CASE SCENARIO 

Income Statement 

PricelUnit 

Unit Sales (Total in millions) 

Magnetic 

C.athode Cutout 

Electronic 

Revenues 

Production Costs - SG&A (excl. Depreciation) 

(Production Co~ts=Labor-Material-overhe-.id) 

Depreciation 

Product Conversion Expense (CC) 

Product Conversion Expense (EJec) 

One Time Char~es 

Re~tructuring Cost (Plant Closure) 

Asset W fite Off 

Profit Before Tax 

Taxes 

Net Income Before Financing 

Cash Flow Statement 

Net Income 

Depreciation 

i\s..'iet \Vrite Off 

Change in Working Capital 

Cash Flows from Operations 

Ordinary Capital Ex.penditures 

Conversion Capital Ex.p. (CC) 

Conversion CapitJ.1 Ex.p. (Elee) 

Cash Used rn Investment 

Net Cash Flow 

Terminal Value 

Present Value Factor 

Discounted Cash Flow 

Industry Value (Net Present Value) $ 237.0 

Base Year 

1998 

7.50 

31.57 

3f).H6 

f).IN} 

11.71 

236.69 

185.7 

4.4 

46.5 

16.5 

30.0 

30.0 

4.4 

34.5 

(4.8) 

(1.2) 

(6.0) 

28.5 

28.5 

1999 

7.71 

31.33 

29.91 

(J.I)f) 

1:42 

241.44 

190.9 

4.5 

0.5 

0.3 

45.2 

16.0 

29.2 

29.2 

4.5 

(0.7) 

33.0 

(4.9) 

(1.2) 

(6.1) 

26.9 

23.8 

2000 

7.81 

31.08 

28.95 

f).f)f) 

2.13 

242.69 

192.8 

4.6 

45.3 

16.1 

29.2 

29.2 

4.6 

(0.2) 

33.6 

(5.0) 

(1.2) 

(6.2) 

27.4 

21.6 

2001 

7.87 

30.84 

2H.f)f) 

(J.I)f) 

2.84 

242.85 

193.8 

4.6 

44.4 

15.8 

28.7 

28.7 

4.6 

(0.0) 

33.3 

(5.0) 

(1.2) 

(6.2) 

27.1 

18.9 

2002 

7.93 

30.59 

27.f)4 

(J.I)f) 

3.55 

242.59 

194.4 

4.7 

43.5 

15.5 

28.1 

28.1 

4.7 

0.0 

32.8 

(5.0) 

(1.2) 

(6.2) 

26.6 

16.5 

2003 

7.96 

30.34 

26.f)9 

(J.I)f) 

4.26 

241.57 

194.3 

4.7 

42.6 

15.1 

27.5 

27.5 

4.7 

0.1 

32.3 

(5.1) 

(1.2) 

(6.3) 

26.1 

14.4 

2004 

8.01 

30.10 

25.13 

(J.I)f) 

4.96 

241.17 

194.7 

4.7 

41.7 

14.8 

26.9 

26.9 

4.7 

0.0 

31.7 

(5.1) 

(1.3) 

(6.4) 

25.3 

12.4 

C-6 

2005 

8.10 

29.85 

24.IH 

(J.I)f) 

5.67 

241.69 

196.0 

4.8 

0.8 

40.1 

14.2 

25.S 

25.8 

4.8 

(0.1) 

30.5 

(5.2) 

(3.5) 

(S.7) 

21.9 

9.7 

2006 

8.18 

29.61 

23.23 

f).lIf) 

6.38 

242.20 

197.4 

4.8 

0.2 

(0.4) 

40.2 

14.3 

25.9 

25.9 

4.8 

(0.1) 

30.7 

(5.2) 

(1.2) 

(6.4) 

24.3 

9.5 

2007 

8.27 

29.36 

22.27 

f).OO 

7.09 

242.70 

198.7 

4.9 

39.1 

13.9 

25.2 

25.2 

4.9 

(0.1) 

30.0 

(5.3) 

(1.2) 

(6.5) 

23.5 

8.3 

2008 

8.35 

29.12 

21.32 

f).f)f) 

7.81) 

243.18 

200.0 

4.9 

38.2 

13.6 

24.7 

24.7 

4.9 

(0.1) 

29.5 

(5.3) 

(1.2) 

(6.5) 

23.0 

7.2 

2009 

8.44 

28.87 

2f).36 

I).f)f) 

8.51 

243.64 

201.3 

5.0 

37.3 

13.3 

24.1 

24.1 

5.0 

(0.1) 

28.9 

(5.4) 

(1.2) 

(6.6) 

22.4 

6.3 

2010 

8.53 

28.63 

19.41 

2011 

8.62 

28.38 

18.45 

f).f)f) f).{){) 

9.22 9.93 

244.13 244.60 

202.7 

5.0 

36.4 

13.0 

23.5 

23.5 

5.0 

(0.1) 

28.4 

(5.4) 

(1.2) 

(6.6) 

21.8 

5.5 

204.0 

5.1 

35.5 

12.6 

22.9 

22.9 

5.1 

(0.1) 

27.9 

(5.5) 

(1.2) 

(6.7) 

21.2 

4.9 

2012 

8.71 

28.14 

17.5f) 

(J.I)f) 

/IJ.64 

245.06 

205.3 

5.1 

34.6 

12.3 

22.3 

22.3 

5.1 

(0.1) 

27.3 

(5.5) 

(1.2) 

(6.7) 

20.6 

4.3 
Table C.3.B Base Case Industry Cash flow--Manufacturer Submittal , 3% Shipment Scenario (2013 - 2027)

l+:lFtnreuent I:;:+mp iTdllaSQ > +lectronic .I3all.+st 5tondurd

BASE CASE SCENARIO

2013

Income Statement

Price/Unit 8.80

Unit Sales (Total in millions) 27.89

Magnetic 1654

Cathode Cutout /9(91

Electronic 11.35

Revenues 245.52

Production Costs - SG&A (excl. Depreciation) 206.6

(Production Costs=Labor-Material-Overhead)

Depreciation 5.2

Product Conversion Expense (CC)

Product Conversion Expense (Elec)

One Time Charger

Restructuring Cost (Plant Closure)

Asset Write Off

BASE CASE SCENARIO continued

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027

8.90 8.99 9.09 9.20 9.30 9.41 9.51 9.62 9.74 9.85 9.97 10.08 10.21 10.33

27.65 27.40 27.16 26.91 26.67 26.42 26.18 25.93 25.69 25.44 25.19 24.95 24.70 24.46

15.59 14.64 13.68 12.73 11.77 10.82 9.86 8.91 7.95 7.00 6.05 5.09 4.14 3.18

8.00 0.011 0.00 0.(10 0.110 0.110 0.00 0.00 /1.90 0.00 0.011 0.00 0.00 0.110

12.06 12.77 13.48 14.18 14.89 15.60 16.31 17.02 17.73 18.44 19.15 19.86 20.57 21.28

245.97 246.40 246.92 247.43 247.95 248.46 248.98 249.49 250.01 250.53 251.04 251.56 252.07 252.59

208.0 209.3 210.6 211.9 213.3 214.6 215.9 217.2 218.6 219.9 221.2 222.5 223.9 225.2

5.2 5.3 5.3 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.5 5.6 5.6 5.7 5.7 5.8 5.8 5.9

Profit Before Tax 33.7 32.8 31.9 31.0 30.1 29.3 28.4 27.6 26.7 25.8 25.0 24.1 23.3 22.4 21.6

Taxes 12.0 11.7 11.3 11.0 10.7 10.4 10.1 9.8 9.5 9.2 8.9 8.6 8.3 8.0 7.7

Net Income Before Financing 21.7 21.1 20.5 20.0 19.4 18.8 18.3 17.7 17.2 16.6 16.1 15.5 14.9 14.4 13.8

Cash Flow Statement 1

Net Income 21.7 21.1 20.5 20.0 19.4 18.8 18.3 17.7 17.2 16.6 16.1 15.5 14.9 14.4 13.8

Depreciation 5.2 5.2 5.3 5.3 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.5 5.6 5.6 5.7 5.7 5.8 5.8 5.9

Asset Write Off

Change in Working Capital (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1)

Cash Flows from Operations 26.8 26.2 25.7 25.2 24.7 24.2 23.7 23.2 22.6 22.1 21.6 21.1 20.6 20.1 19.6

Ordinary Capital Expenditures (5.6) (5.6) (5.7) (5.7) (5.8) (5.9) (5.9) (6.0) (6.0) (6.1) (6.1) (6.2) (6.2) (6.3) (6.3)

Conversion Capital Exp. (CC)

Conversion Capital Exp.(Elec) (1.2) (1.2) (1.2) (1.2) (1.2) (1.2) (1.2) (1.2) (1.2) (1.2) (1.2) (1.2) (1.2) (1.2) (0.3)

Cash Used In Investment (6.8) (6.8) (6.9) (7.0) (7.0) (7.1) (7.2) (7.2) (7.3) (7.3) (7.3) (7.4) (7.4) (7.5) (6.6)

Net Cash Flow 20.0 19.4 18.8 18.2 17.6 17.1 16.5 16.0 15.4 14.9 14.3 13.7 13.2 12.6 13.0

Terminal Value 136.9

Present Value Factor

Discounted Cash Flow 3.8 3.3 2.9 2.6 2.3 2.1 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 17.1

Industry Value (Net Present Value) $ 237.0

C-7

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

Table C.3.B Base Case Indnstry Cash flow--Manufacturer Submittal, 3% Shipment Scenario (2013 - 2027) 

Itj~~~¢e~ttiii@~~ii~\$ij;;i~iiiinl¢~l\~~iSt~~~;:jj ••• , 

BASE CASE SCENARIO 

Income Statement 

PricelUnit 

Unit Sales (Total in millions) 

Magnetic 

Cathode Cutout 

Electronic 

Revenues 

Production Cost.o; - SG&A (excl. Depreciation) 

(Production Co~t.<;=Labor-Material-Overhead) 

Depreciation 

Product Conven;ion Expense (CC) 

Product Conversion Expense (Elec) 

One Time Charges 

Restructuring Cost (Plant Closure) 

Asset \Vrite Off 

Profit Before Tax 

Taxes 

Net Income Before Financing 

Cash Flow Statement 

Net Income 

Depreciation 

A!i.'iet Write Off 

Change in Working Capital 

C<e;h Flows from Opemtions 

Ordinary Capital Expenditures 

Conversion Capital Exp. (CC) 

Conversion Capital Exp. (Elec) 

Cash Used In Investment 

Net Cash Flow 

Terminal Value 

Present Value Factor 

Discounted Cash Flow 

Indostry Va10e (Net Present Va1oe) $ 237.0 

2013 

8.80 

27.89 

2014 

8.90 

27.65 

16.54 15.59 

{Uff} lUff} 

11.35 12.116 

245.52 245.97 

206.6 

5.2 

33.7 

12.0 

21.7 

21.7 

5.2 

(0.1) 

26.8 

(5.6) 

(1.2) 

(6.8) 

20.0 

3.8 

20S.0 

5.2 

32.8 

11.7 

21.1 

21.1 

5.2 

(0.1) 

26.2 

(5.6) 

(1.2) 

(6.8) 

19.4 

3.3 

2015 

8.99 

27.40 

14.64 

11.1111 

12.77 

246.40 

209.3 

5.3 

31.9 

11.3 

20.5 

20.5 

5.3 

(0.1) 

25.7 

(5.7) 

(1.2) 

(6.9) 

18.8 

2.9 

BASE CASE SCENARIO ..••.•• contlnued 

2016 

9.09 

27.16 

13.68 

{!.Oil 

13.48 

246.92 

210.6 

5.3 

31.0 

11.0 

20.0 

20.0 

5.3 

(0.1) 

25.2 

(5.7) 

(1.2) 

(7.0) 

18.2 

2.6 

2017 

9.20 

26.91 

12.73 

{!.Oil 

14.18 

247.43 

211.9 

5.4 

30.1 

10.7 

19.4 

19.4 

5.4 

(0.1) 

24.7 

(5.8) 

(1.2) 

(7.0) 

17.6 

2.3 

2018 

9.30 

26.61 

11.77 

{!.Oil 

14.89 

247.95 

213.3 

5.4 

29.3 

10.4 

18.8 

18.8 

5.4 

(0.1) 

24.2 

(5.9) 

(1.2) 

(7.1) 

17.1 

2.1 

2019 

9.41 

26.42 

111.82 

{!.Oil 

15.611 

248.46 

214.6 

5.5 

28.4 

10.1 

18.3 

18.3 

5.5 

(0.1) 

23.7 

(5.9) 

(1.2) 

(7.2) 

16.5 

1.9 

C-7 

2020 

9.51 

26.18 

9.86 

{!.Oil 

16.31 

248.98 

215.9 

5.5 

27.6 

9.8 

17.7 

17.7 

5.5 

(0.1) 

23.2 

(6.0) 

(1.2) 

(7.2) 

16.0 

1.7 

2021 

9.62 

25.93 

2022 

9.74 

25.69 

8.91 7.95 

{WII {!.Oil 

17.112 17.73 

249.49 250.01 

217.2 

5.6 

26.7 

9.5 

17.2 

17.2 

5.6 

(0.1) 

22.6 

(6.0) 

(1.2) 

(7.3) 

15.4 

1.5 

218.6 

5.6 

25.8 

9.2 

16.6 

16.6 

5.6 

(0.1) 

22.1 

(6.1) 

(1.2) 

(7.3) 

14.9 

1.4 

2023 

9.S5 

25.44 

7.1111 

{WII 

18.44 

250.53 

219.9 

5.7 

25.0 

8.9 

16.1 

16.1 

5.7 

(0.1) 

21.6 

(6.1) 

(1.2) 

(7.3) 

14.3 

I.3 

2024 

9.97 

25.19 

2025 

10.0S 

24.95 

(W5 5.09 

f).Of) (J,OO 

19.15 19.86 

251.04 251.56 

221.2 

5.7 

24.1 

8.6 

15.5 

15.5 

5.7 

(0.1) 

21.1 

(6.2) 

(1.2) 

(7.4) 

13.7 

1.2 

222.5 

5.8 

23.3 

8.3 

14.9 

14.9 

5.8 

(0.1) 

20.6 

(6.2) 

(1.2) 

(7.4) 

13.2 

1.1 

2026 

10.21 

24.70 

4.14 

II.lJI) 

111.57 

252.07 

223.9 

5.8 

22.4 

8.0 

14.4 

14.4 

5.8 

(0.1) 

20.1 

(6.3) 

(1.2) 

(7.5) 

12.6 

1.0 

2027 

10.33 

24.46 

3./8 

{WII 

21.18 

252.59 

225.2 

5.9 

21.6 

7.7 

13.8 

13.8 

5.9 

(0.1) 

19.6 

(6.3) 

(0.3) 

(6.6) 

13.0 

136.9 

17.1 

Table C.3.B Base Case Indnstry Cash flow--Manufacturer Submittal, 3% Shipment Scenario (2013 - 2027) 

Itj~~~¢e~ttiii@~~ii~\$ij;;i~iiiinl¢~l\~~iSt~~~;:jj ••• , 

BASE CASE SCENARIO 

Income Statement 

PricelUnit 

Unit Sales (Total in millions) 

Magnetic 

Cathode Cutout 

Electronic 

Revenues 

Production Cost.o; - SG&A (excl. Depreciation) 

(Production Co~t.<;=Labor-Material-Overhead) 

Depreciation 

Product Conven;ion Expense (CC) 

Product Conversion Expense (Elec) 

One Time Charges 

Restructuring Cost (Plant Closure) 

Asset \Vrite Off 

Profit Before Tax 

Taxes 

Net Income Before Financing 

Cash Flow Statement 

Net Income 

Depreciation 

A!i.'iet Write Off 

Change in Working Capital 

C<e;h Flows from Opemtions 

Ordinary Capital Expenditures 

Conversion Capital Exp. (CC) 

Conversion Capital Exp. (Elec) 

Cash Used In Investment 

Net Cash Flow 

Terminal Value 

Present Value Factor 

Discounted Cash Flow 

Indostry Va10e (Net Present Va1oe) $ 237.0 

2013 

8.80 

27.89 

2014 

8.90 

27.65 

16.54 15.59 

{Uff} lUff} 

11.35 12.116 

245.52 245.97 

206.6 

5.2 

33.7 

12.0 

21.7 

21.7 

5.2 

(0.1) 

26.8 

(5.6) 

(1.2) 

(6.8) 

20.0 

3.8 

20S.0 

5.2 

32.8 

11.7 

21.1 

21.1 

5.2 

(0.1) 

26.2 

(5.6) 

(1.2) 

(6.8) 

19.4 

3.3 

2015 

8.99 

27.40 

14.64 

11.1111 

12.77 

246.40 

209.3 

5.3 

31.9 

11.3 

20.5 

20.5 

5.3 

(0.1) 

25.7 

(5.7) 

(1.2) 

(6.9) 

18.8 

2.9 

BASE CASE SCENARIO ..••.•• contlnued 

2016 

9.09 

27.16 

13.68 

{!.Oil 

13.48 

246.92 

210.6 

5.3 

31.0 

11.0 

20.0 

20.0 

5.3 

(0.1) 

25.2 

(5.7) 

(1.2) 

(7.0) 

18.2 

2.6 

2017 

9.20 

26.91 

12.73 

{!.Oil 

14.18 

247.43 

211.9 

5.4 

30.1 

10.7 

19.4 

19.4 

5.4 

(0.1) 

24.7 

(5.8) 

(1.2) 

(7.0) 

17.6 

2.3 

2018 

9.30 

26.61 

11.77 

{!.Oil 

14.89 

247.95 

213.3 

5.4 

29.3 

10.4 

18.8 

18.8 

5.4 

(0.1) 

24.2 

(5.9) 

(1.2) 

(7.1) 

17.1 

2.1 

2019 

9.41 

26.42 

111.82 

{!.Oil 

15.611 

248.46 

214.6 

5.5 

28.4 

10.1 

18.3 

18.3 

5.5 

(0.1) 

23.7 

(5.9) 

(1.2) 

(7.2) 

16.5 

1.9 

C-7 

2020 

9.51 

26.18 

9.86 

{!.Oil 

16.31 

248.98 

215.9 

5.5 

27.6 

9.8 

17.7 

17.7 

5.5 

(0.1) 

23.2 

(6.0) 

(1.2) 

(7.2) 

16.0 

1.7 

2021 

9.62 

25.93 

2022 

9.74 

25.69 

8.91 7.95 

{WII {!.Oil 

17.112 17.73 

249.49 250.01 

217.2 

5.6 

26.7 

9.5 

17.2 

17.2 

5.6 

(0.1) 

22.6 

(6.0) 

(1.2) 

(7.3) 

15.4 

1.5 

218.6 

5.6 

25.8 

9.2 

16.6 

16.6 

5.6 

(0.1) 

22.1 

(6.1) 

(1.2) 

(7.3) 

14.9 

1.4 

2023 

9.S5 

25.44 

7.1111 

{WII 

18.44 

250.53 

219.9 

5.7 

25.0 

8.9 

16.1 

16.1 

5.7 

(0.1) 

21.6 

(6.1) 

(1.2) 

(7.3) 

14.3 

I.3 

2024 

9.97 

25.19 

2025 

10.0S 

24.95 

(W5 5.09 

f).Of) (J,OO 

19.15 19.86 

251.04 251.56 

221.2 

5.7 

24.1 

8.6 

15.5 

15.5 

5.7 

(0.1) 

21.1 

(6.2) 

(1.2) 

(7.4) 

13.7 

1.2 

222.5 

5.8 

23.3 

8.3 

14.9 

14.9 

5.8 

(0.1) 

20.6 

(6.2) 

(1.2) 

(7.4) 

13.2 

1.1 

2026 

10.21 

24.70 

4.14 

II.lJI) 

111.57 

252.07 

223.9 

5.8 

22.4 

8.0 

14.4 

14.4 

5.8 

(0.1) 

20.1 

(6.3) 

(1.2) 

(7.5) 

12.6 

1.0 

2027 

10.33 

24.46 

3./8 

{WII 

21.18 

252.59 

225.2 

5.9 

21.6 

7.7 

13.8 

13.8 

5.9 

(0.1) 

19.6 

(6.3) 

(0.3) 

(6.6) 

13.0 

136.9 

17.1 
Table C.4.A Standard Case Industry Cash flow--Manufacturer Submittal, 3% Shipment Scenario (1998 - 2012)

F"lubre.6Qent . If6l1c ty:.I3(ctrVA)c>Ballrtst Stacducd.

STANDARD CASE SCENARIO

I

Income Statement

Announce Standard

Base Year Year Year

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

1

Price/Unit 7.50 7.71 7.81 7.87 7.87 10.76 10.56 10.55 10.55 10.54 10.53 10.52 10.51 10.51 10.50

Unit Sales (Total in millions) 31.57 31.33 31.08 30.84 34.84 20.82 23.64 23.64 23.64 23.64 23.64 23.64 23.64 23.64 23.64

Magnetic 30.86 29.91 28.95 28.00 31.29 0.00 (1.0(1 0.118 (1.11(1 (1.0(1 0.011 0.00 2(1(1 0.00 0.00

Cathode Cutout (1.10 0(0) (1.0(1 0.00 0.(X1 0.00 2(1(1 (1.0(1 0.00 0.00 11.00 0.00 0.00 0.110 0.10

Electronic 11.71 1.42 2.13 2.84 3.55 20.82 23,64 23.64 23.64 23.64 23.64 23.64 23.64 23.64 23.64

Revenues 236.69 241.44 242.70 242.86 274.13 224.33 249.69 249.46 249.23 249.00 248.78 248.55 248.40 248.25 248.10

Production Costs - SG&A (excl. Depreciation)

(Production Costs=Labor-Material-Overhead)

185.7 190.3 192.3 193.4 218.5 204.9 227.5 227.5 227.5 227.5 227.5 227.5 227.5 227.5 227.5

Depreciation

Product Conversion Expense (CC)

4.4 4.6 4.7 4.7 5.4 5.9 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7

Product Conversion Expense (Flee)

One Time Charger

- 0.1 0.7 1.4 1.8 0.1

Restructuring Cost (Plant Closure)

Asset Write Off

- 0.5

0 3

- - 4.1 37.5 1.0

Profit Before Tax

-

46.5

, .

45.7

-

45.0

-

43.3

-

44.4

6.6

(30.7)

(0.4)

14.9

(0.2)

15.5

-

15.0

-

14.8

-

14.6

-

14.4

-

14.3 14.1 14.0

Taxes 16.5 16.2 16.0 15.4 15.8 (10.8) 5.4 5.6 5.4 5.3 5.3 5.2 5.1 5.1 5.0

Net Income Before Financing 30.0 29.5 29.1 28.0 28,7 (19.8) 9.5 9.9 9.6 9.5 9.4 9.2 9.1 9.0 8.9

Cash Flow Statement

Net Income 30.0 29.5 29.1 28.0 28.7 (19.8) 9.5 9.9 9.6 9.5 9.4 9.2 9.1 9.0 8.9

Depreciation 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.7 5.4 5.9 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7

Asset Write Off - - - - - 6.7 - - - - - - - - -

Change in Working Capital - (0.7) (0.2) (0.0) (5.5) 8.3 (4.8) - 0.0 (0.0) - - -

Cash Flows from Operations 34.5 33.3 33.5 32.7 28.5 1.1 11.4 16.6 16.3 16.2 16.0 15.9 15.8 15.7 15.6

Ordinary Capital Expenditures

Conversion Capital Exp. (CC)

(4.8) (4.9) (5.0) (5.0) (5.7) (5.2) (5.9) (5.9) (5.9) (5.9) (5.9) (14.8) (5.9) (5.9) (5.9)

Conversion Capital Exp. (Elec) (1.2) (1.2) (1.2) (3.4) (41.6) (4.7) - 0.0 (0.0)

Cash Used In Investment (6.0) (6.1) (6.2) (8.4) (47.2) (9.8) (5.9) (5.9) (5.9) (5.9) (5.9) (14.8) (5.9) (5.9) (5.9)

Net Cash Flow

Terminal Value

Present Value Factor

28.5 27.2 27.4 24.2 (18.8) (8.7) 5.5 10.7 10.4 10.3 10.1 1.1 9.9 9.8 9.7

Discounted Cash Flow

Industry Value (Net Present Value) $ 150.8

28.5 24.2 21.5 17.0 (12.3) (5.4) 3.4 5.7 5.1 4.7 4.2 1.7 3.5 3.3 3.0

C-8

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

Table C.4.A Standard Case Industry Cash flow--Manufacturer Submittal, 3% Shipment Scenario (1998 - 2012) 

11'1~;;rt~(i~t_~$l)~l$i:ti~t~ij;~~li~iSt~i\lI~hl<1 Announce 

STANDARD CASE SCENARIO Base Year Year 

Income Statement 

PricelUnit 

Unit Sales (Total in millions) 

!vfagnetic 

Cathode Culoul 

Electronic 

Revenues 

Production COSl"i - SG&A (excl. Depreciation) 

(Production Costs=Labor-Material-Overhead) 

Depreciation 

Product Conversion Expense (CC) 

Product Conversion Expense (Elec) 

One Time Charges 

Restructuring Cost (plant Closure) 

Asset Write Off 

Profit Before Tax 

Taxes 

Net fncome Before Financing 

Cash Flow Statement 

Net {ncome 

Depreciation 

Asset \Vrite Off 

Change in Working Capital 

Ca.'ih Flows from Opemtions 

Ordinary Capital Expenditures 

Conversion Capital Exp. (CC) 

Conversion Capitdl Exp. (Elec) 

Cash Used In Investment 

Net Cash Flow 

Terminal Value 

Present Value Factor 

Discounted Cash Flow 

Industry Value (Net Present Value) 150.8 

1998 

7.50 

31.57 

311.86 

lI.lm 

11.71 

236.69 

185.7 

4.4 

46.5 

16.5 

30.0 

30.0 

4.4 

34.5 

(4.8) 

(1.2) 

(6.0) 

28.5 

28.5 

1999 

7.71 

31.33 

29.91 

2000 

7.81 

31.08 

28.95 

2001 

7.87 

30.84 

28.f)1I 

2002 

7.87 

34.84 

31.29 

(J.llf) f).f)1I f).lJ(} (!.1m 

1.42 2.13 2.84 3.55 

241.44 242.70 242.86 274.13 

190.3 

4.6 

0.1 

0.5 

0.3 

45.7 

16.2 

29.5 

29.5 

4.6 

(0.7) 

33.3 

(4.9) 

(1.2) 

(6.1) 

27.2 

24.2 

192.3 

4.7 

0.7 

45.0 

16.0 

29.1 

29.1 

4.7 

(0.2) 

33.5 

(5.0) 

(1.2) 

(6.2) 

27.4 

21.5 

193.4 

4.7 

1.4 

43.3 

15.4 

28.0 

28.0 

4.7 

(0.0) 

32.7 

(5.0) 

(3.4) 

(S.4) 

24.2 

17.0 

21S.5 

5.4 

1.8 

4.1 

44.4 

15.S 

2S.7 

2S.7 

5.4 

(5.5) 

28.5 

(5.7) 

(41.6) 

(47.2) 

(18.8) 

(12.3) 

Standard 

Year 

2003 

10.76 

20.82 

f).f)f) 

f).IIf) 

2f).82 

224.33 

204.9 

5.9 

0.1 

37.5 

6.6 

(30.7) 

(lO.S) 

(19.8) 

(19.8) 

5.9 

6.7 

8.3 

1.1 

(5.2) 

(4.7) 

(9.8) 

(S.7) 

(5.4) 

2004 

10.56 

23.64 

(J.f)(J 

11.1111 

23.64 

249.69 

227.5 

6.7 

1.0 

(0.4) 

14.9 

5.4 

9.5 

9.5 

6.7 

(4.8) 

11.4 

(5.9) 

(5.9) 

5.5 

3.4 

C-8 

2005 

10.55 

23.64 

(1.011 

2006 

10.55 

23.64 

(!.Of) 

f).f)1I (!.Of) 

13.64 23.64 

249.46 249.23 

227.5 

6.7 

(0.2) 

15.5 

5.6 

9.9 

9.9 

6.7 

16.6 

(5.9) 

0.0 

(5.9) 

10.7 

5.7 

227.5 

6.7 

15.0 

5.4 

9.6 

9.6 

6.7 

0.0 

16.3 

(5.9) 

(0.0) 

(5.9) 

10.4 

5.1 

2007 

10.54 

23.64 

1I.l1IJ 

2008 

10.53 

23.64 

11.1111 

(!.Oil f).1I1I 

23.64 13.64 

249.00 24S.78 

227.5 

6.7 

14.8 

5.3 

9.5 

9.5 

6.7 

(0.0) 

16.2 

(5.9) 

(5.9) 

10.3 

4.7 

227.5 

6.7 

14.6 

5.3 

9.4 

9.4 

6.7 

16.0 

(5.9) 

(5.9) 

10.1 

4.2 

2009 

10.52 

23.64 

(!.Oil 

(1.011 

23.64 

24S.55 

227.5 

6.7 

14.4 

5.2 

9.2 

9.2 

6.7 

15.9 

(14.8) 

(14.8) 

1.1 

1.7 

2010 

10.51 

23.64 

(!.Oil 

2011 

10.51 

23.64 

(!.Oil 

fWO 0.00 

13.M 13.64 

248.40 24S.25 

227.5 

6.7 

14.3 

5.1 

9.1 

9.1 

6.7 

15.8 

(5.9) 

(5.9) 

9.9 

3.5 

227.5 

6.7 

14.1 

5.1 

9.0 

9.0 

6.7 

15.7 

(5.9) 

(5.9) 

9.8 

3.3 

2012 

10.50 

23.64 

(!.Oil 

(l.on 

23.64 

248.10 

227.5 

6.7 

14.0 

5.0 

S.9 

S.9 

6.7 

15.6 

(5.9) 

(5.9) 

9.7 

3.0 

Table C.4.A Standard Case Industry Cash flow--Manufacturer Submittal, 3% Shipment Scenario (1998 - 2012) 

11'1~;;rt~(i~t_~$l)~l$i:ti~t~ij;~~li~iSt~i\lI~hl<1 Announce 

STANDARD CASE SCENARIO Base Year Year 

Income Statement 

PricelUnit 

Unit Sales (Total in millions) 

!vfagnetic 

Cathode Culoul 

Electronic 

Revenues 

Production COSl"i - SG&A (excl. Depreciation) 

(Production Costs=Labor-Material-Overhead) 

Depreciation 

Product Conversion Expense (CC) 

Product Conversion Expense (Elec) 

One Time Charges 

Restructuring Cost (plant Closure) 

Asset Write Off 

Profit Before Tax 

Taxes 

Net fncome Before Financing 

Cash Flow Statement 

Net {ncome 

Depreciation 

Asset \Vrite Off 

Change in Working Capital 

Ca.'ih Flows from Opemtions 

Ordinary Capital Expenditures 

Conversion Capital Exp. (CC) 

Conversion Capitdl Exp. (Elec) 

Cash Used In Investment 

Net Cash Flow 

Terminal Value 

Present Value Factor 

Discounted Cash Flow 

Industry Value (Net Present Value) 150.8 

1998 

7.50 

31.57 

311.86 

lI.lm 

11.71 

236.69 

185.7 

4.4 

46.5 

16.5 

30.0 

30.0 

4.4 

34.5 

(4.8) 

(1.2) 

(6.0) 

28.5 

28.5 

1999 

7.71 

31.33 

29.91 

2000 

7.81 

31.08 

28.95 

2001 

7.87 

30.84 

28.f)1I 

2002 

7.87 

34.84 

31.29 

(J.llf) f).f)1I f).lJ(} (!.1m 

1.42 2.13 2.84 3.55 

241.44 242.70 242.86 274.13 

190.3 

4.6 

0.1 

0.5 

0.3 

45.7 

16.2 

29.5 

29.5 

4.6 

(0.7) 

33.3 

(4.9) 

(1.2) 

(6.1) 

27.2 

24.2 

192.3 

4.7 

0.7 

45.0 

16.0 

29.1 

29.1 

4.7 

(0.2) 

33.5 

(5.0) 

(1.2) 

(6.2) 

27.4 

21.5 

193.4 

4.7 

1.4 

43.3 

15.4 

28.0 

28.0 

4.7 

(0.0) 

32.7 

(5.0) 

(3.4) 

(S.4) 

24.2 

17.0 

21S.5 

5.4 

1.8 

4.1 

44.4 

15.S 

2S.7 

2S.7 

5.4 

(5.5) 

28.5 

(5.7) 

(41.6) 

(47.2) 

(18.8) 

(12.3) 

Standard 

Year 

2003 

10.76 

20.82 

f).f)f) 

f).IIf) 

2f).82 

224.33 

204.9 

5.9 

0.1 

37.5 

6.6 

(30.7) 

(lO.S) 

(19.8) 

(19.8) 

5.9 

6.7 

8.3 

1.1 

(5.2) 

(4.7) 

(9.8) 

(S.7) 

(5.4) 

2004 

10.56 

23.64 

(J.f)(J 

11.1111 

23.64 

249.69 

227.5 

6.7 

1.0 

(0.4) 

14.9 

5.4 

9.5 

9.5 

6.7 

(4.8) 

11.4 

(5.9) 

(5.9) 

5.5 

3.4 

C-8 

2005 

10.55 

23.64 

(1.011 

2006 

10.55 

23.64 

(!.Of) 

f).f)1I (!.Of) 

13.64 23.64 

249.46 249.23 

227.5 

6.7 

(0.2) 

15.5 

5.6 

9.9 

9.9 

6.7 

16.6 

(5.9) 

0.0 

(5.9) 

10.7 

5.7 

227.5 

6.7 

15.0 

5.4 

9.6 

9.6 

6.7 

0.0 

16.3 

(5.9) 

(0.0) 

(5.9) 

10.4 

5.1 

2007 

10.54 

23.64 

1I.l1IJ 

2008 

10.53 

23.64 

11.1111 

(!.Oil f).1I1I 

23.64 13.64 

249.00 24S.78 

227.5 

6.7 

14.8 

5.3 

9.5 

9.5 

6.7 

(0.0) 

16.2 

(5.9) 

(5.9) 

10.3 

4.7 

227.5 

6.7 

14.6 

5.3 

9.4 

9.4 

6.7 

16.0 

(5.9) 

(5.9) 

10.1 

4.2 

2009 

10.52 

23.64 

(!.Oil 

(1.011 

23.64 

24S.55 

227.5 

6.7 

14.4 

5.2 

9.2 

9.2 

6.7 

15.9 

(14.8) 

(14.8) 

1.1 

1.7 

2010 

10.51 

23.64 

(!.Oil 

2011 

10.51 

23.64 

(!.Oil 

fWO 0.00 

13.M 13.64 

248.40 24S.25 

227.5 

6.7 

14.3 

5.1 

9.1 

9.1 

6.7 

15.8 

(5.9) 

(5.9) 

9.9 

3.5 

227.5 

6.7 

14.1 

5.1 

9.0 

9.0 

6.7 

15.7 

(5.9) 

(5.9) 

9.8 

3.3 

2012 

10.50 

23.64 

(!.Oil 

(l.on 

23.64 

248.10 

227.5 

6.7 

14.0 

5.0 

S.9 

S.9 

6.7 

15.6 

(5.9) 

(5.9) 

9.7 

3.0 
Table C.4.B Standard Case Industry Cash flow--Manufacturer Submittal, 3% Shipment Scenario (2013 - 2015)

Fluorescent Lamp Ryll

STANDARD CASE SCENARIO

;::ElkctrDart::A:allaSt Spiidgi

2013 2014 2015

Income Statement

Price/Unit 10.49 10.49 10.48

Unit Sales (Total in millions) 23.64 23.64 23.64

Magnetic (1.(10 (10(1 0.00

Cathode Cutout 0.(1(1 0.00 0.(10

Electronic 23.64 23.64 23.64

Revenues 247.95 247.80 247.65

Production Costs - SO&A (excl. Depreciation) 227.5 227.5 227.4

(Production Costs=Labor-Material-Overhead)

Depreciation 6.7 6.7 6.7

Product Conversion Expense (CC)

Product Conversion Expense (Elec)

One Tine Chargec

Restructuring Cost (Plant Closure)

Asset Write Off

Profit Before Tax 13.8 13.7 13.5

Taxes 5.0 4.9 4.9

Net Income Before Financing 8.8 8.8 8.7

Cash Flow Statement

Net Income 8.8 8.8 8.7

Depreciation 6.7 6.7 6.7

Asset Write Off - - -

Change in Working Capital - - -

Cash Flows from Operations 15.5 15.4 15.3

Ordinary Capital Expenditures (5.9) (5.9) (7.1)

Conversion Capital Exp. (CC) - - -

Conversion Capital Exp. (Elec) - - -

Cash Used In Investment (5.9) (5.9) (7.1)

Net Cash Flow 9.6 9.5 8.2

Terminal Value 108.3

Present Value Factor

Discounted Cash Flow 2.7 2.5 37.1

Industry Value (Net Present Value) $ 150.8

C-9

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

Table C.4.B Standard Case Industry Cash flow--Manufacturer Submittal, 3% Shipment Scenario (2013 - 2015) 

ll"i~~fi,~~~i:L~#j~ll~~i$ii;;i~i!(iii~kUiiil*$fStili\(j~tlll 

STANDARD CASE SCENARIO 

Income Statement 

PricelUnit 

Unit Sales (Total in millions) 

Alagnetic 

(othode Cutout 

Electronic 

Revenues 

Production Costs - SG&A (excl. Depreciation) 

(Production Costs=Labor-Material-Overhead) 

Depreciation 

Product Conversion Expense (CC) 

Product Conversion Expense (Elee) 

One Time Charges 

Restructuring Cost (Plant Closure) 

Ao,;set Write Off 

Profit Before Tax 

Taxes 

Net Income Before Financing 

Cash Flow Statement 

Net Income 

Depreciation 

Asset Write Off 

Change in Working Capital 

Cash Flows from Operations 

Ordinary Capital Expenditures 

Conversion Capital Exp. (CC) 

Conversion Capital Exp. (Elee) 

Cash Used In Inveshnent 

Net Cash Flow 

Terminal Value 

Present Value Factor 

Discounted Cash Flow 

Industry Value (Net Present Value) $ 150.8 

2013 

10.49 

23.64 

1I.l1I! 

(J.fJ(J 

13.64 

247.95 

227.5 

6.7 

13.8 

5.0 

8.8 

8.8 

6.7 

15.5 

(5.9) 

(5.9) 

9.6 

2.7 

2014 2015 

10.49 10.48 

23.64 23.64 

(WII 11.1111 

(!.III! (WII 

23.M 23.M 

247.80 247.65 

227.5 227.4 

6.7 6.7 

13.7 13.5 

4.9 4.9 

8.8 8.7 

8.8 8.7 

6.7 6.7 

15.4 15.3 

(5.9) (7.1) 

(5.9) (7.1) 

9.5 8.2 

108.3 

2.5 37.1 

C-9 

Table C.4.B Standard Case Industry Cash flow--Manufacturer Submittal, 3% Shipment Scenario (2013 - 2015) 

ll"i~~fi,~~~i:L~#j~ll~~i$ii;;i~i!(iii~kUiiil*$fStili\(j~tlll 

STANDARD CASE SCENARIO 

Income Statement 

PricelUnit 

Unit Sales (Total in millions) 

Alagnetic 

(othode Cutout 

Electronic 

Revenues 

Production Costs - SG&A (excl. Depreciation) 

(Production Costs=Labor-Material-Overhead) 

Depreciation 

Product Conversion Expense (CC) 

Product Conversion Expense (Elee) 

One Time Charges 

Restructuring Cost (Plant Closure) 

Ao,;set Write Off 

Profit Before Tax 

Taxes 

Net Income Before Financing 

Cash Flow Statement 

Net Income 

Depreciation 

Asset Write Off 

Change in Working Capital 

Cash Flows from Operations 

Ordinary Capital Expenditures 

Conversion Capital Exp. (CC) 

Conversion Capital Exp. (Elee) 

Cash Used In Inveshnent 

Net Cash Flow 

Terminal Value 

Present Value Factor 

Discounted Cash Flow 

Industry Value (Net Present Value) $ 150.8 

2013 

10.49 

23.64 

1I.l1I! 

(J.fJ(J 

13.64 

247.95 

227.5 

6.7 

13.8 

5.0 

8.8 

8.8 

6.7 

15.5 

(5.9) 

(5.9) 

9.6 

2.7 

2014 2015 

10.49 10.48 

23.64 23.64 

(WII 11.1111 

(!.III! (WII 

23.M 23.M 

247.80 247.65 

227.5 227.4 

6.7 6.7 

13.7 13.5 

4.9 4.9 

8.8 8.7 

8.8 8.7 

6.7 6.7 

15.4 15.3 

(5.9) (7.1) 

(5.9) (7.1) 

9.5 8.2 

108.3 

2.5 37.1 

C-9 
Table C.5.A Base Case Industry Cash flow--Existing Dynamics , 5% Shipment Scenario (1998 - 2012)

F luomscenC amp 'Hallntv 'Electronic Ballast Standard

Base

BASE CASE SCENARIO

Income Statement

Year

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

I

Price/Unit 7.54 7.88 8.05 8.17 8.27 8.32 8.42 8.57 8.73 8.89 9.05 9.22 9.39 9.57 9.75

Unit Sales (Total in millions) 31.41 31.00 30.59 30.18 29.77 29.36 28.95 28.55 28.14 27.73 27.32 26.91 26.50 26.09 25.69

Magnetic 30.23 28.63 27.04 25.45 23.86 22.27 20.68 19.09 17.50 15.91 14.32 12.73 11.14 9.55 7.95

Cathode Cutout 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Electronic 1.18 2.36 3.55 4.73 5.91 7.09 8.27 9.46 10.64 11.82 13.00 14.18 15.37 16.55 17.73

Revenues 236.39 244.31 246.41 246.67 246.22 244.54 243.87 244.74 245.59 246.41 247.21 247.99 248.79 249.58 250.36

Production Costs + SG&A (excl. Deprecis 185.9 194.5 197.8 199.4 200.3 200.2 200.9 203.1 205.3 207.5 209.7 211.9 214.1 216.3 218.6

(Production Costs=Labor+Material+Overhead)

Depreciation

Product Conversion Expense

Product Conversion Expense

One Time Charges

4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.5 5.6

Restructuring Cost (Plant Clos - 0.5 0.8 0.2

Asset Write Off - 0.3 (0.4)

Profit Before Tax 46.0 44.3 43.9 42.5 41.0 39.5 38.0 35.8 35.4 33.7 32.2 30.7 29.2 27.7 26.2

Taxes 16.3 15.7 15.6 15.1 14.6 14.0 13.5 12.7 12.6 12.0 11.5 10.9 10.4 9.9 9.3

Net Income Before Financing 29.7 28.6 28.3 27.4 26.5 25.5 24.5 23.1 22.8 21.7 20.7 19.8 18.8 17.8 16.8

Cash Flow Statement I

Net Income 29.7 28.6 28.3 27.4 26.5 25.5 24.5 23.1 22.8 21.7 20.7 19.8 18.8 17.8 16.8

Depreciation 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.5 5.6

Asset Write Off - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Change in Working Capital - (1.2) (0.3) (0.1) 0.1 0.2 0.1 (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2)

Cash Flows from Operations 34.2 32.0 32.7 32.2 31.4 30.6 29.5 27.9 27.7 26.7 25.9 25.0 24.1 23.2 22.3

Ordinary Capital Expenditures

Conversion Capital Exp. (CC)

(4.8) (5.0) (5.1) (5.2) (5.2) (5.3) (5.4) (5.4) (5.5) (5.6) (5.7) (5.8) (5.9) (6.0) (6.1)

Conversion Capital Exp. (Elec (2.0) (2.0) (2.0) (2.0) (2.0) (2.0) (2.1) (4.3) (2.0) (2.0) (2.0) (2.0) (2.0) (2.0) (2.0)

Cash Used In Investment (6.8) (7.0) (7.1) (7.2) (7.3) (7.3) (7.5) (9.8) (7.5) (7.6) (7.7) (7.8) (7.9) (8.0) (8.1)

Net Cash Flow

Terminal Value

Present Value Factor

27.3 25.0 25.6 25.0 24.1 23.3 22.1 18.2 20.2 19.1 18.1 17.2 16.2 15.2 14.2

Discounted Cash Flow

Industry Value (Net Present Vs $ 216.3

27.3 22.2 20.1 17.5 15.0 12.9 10.9 8.2 8.0 6.9 5.9 5.1 4.4 3.8 3.3

C-10

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

Table C.5.A Base Case Industry Cash flow--Existing Dynamics, 5% Shipment Scenario (1998 - 2012) 

BASE CASE SCENARIO 

Income Statement 

PricefUnit 

Unit Sales (Total in millions) 

Magnetic 

Cathode Cutout 

Electronic 

Revenues 

ase 

Year 

1998 1999 2000 2001 

7.54 7.88 8.05 

31.41 31.00 30.59 

30.23 28.63 27.04 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

1.18 2.36 3.55 

8.17 

30.18 

25.45 

0.00 

4.73 

2002 2003 

8.27 

29.77 

23.86 

0.00 

5.91 

8.32 

29.36 

22.27 

0.00 

7.09 

2004 2005 

8.42 8.57 

28.95 28.55 

20.68 19.09 

0.00 0.00 

8.27 9.46 

236.39 244.31 246.41 246.67 246.22 244.54 243.87 244.74 

2006 2007 2008 

8.73 

28.14 

17.50 

0.00 

10.64 

8.89 

27.73 

15.91 

0.00 

11.82 

9.05 

27.32 

14.32 

0.00 

13.00 

2009 2010 2011 

9.22 

26.91 

12.73 

0.00 

14.18 

9.39 

26.50 

11.14 

0.00 

15.37 

9.57 

26.09 

9.55 

0.00 

16.55 

2012 

9.75 

25.69 

7.95 

0.00 

17.73 

245.59 246.41 247.21 247.99 248.79 249.58 250.36 

Production Costs + SG&A(excl. Deprecif 185.9 194.5 197.8 199.4 200.3 200.2 200.9 203.1 205.3 207.5 209.7 211.9 214.1 216.3 218.6 

(Production Costs=Labor+Material+Overhead) 

Depreciation 

Product Conversion Expense ( 

Product Conversion Expense ( 

One Time Charges 

Restructuring Cost (plant Clos 

Asset Write Off 

Profit Before Tax 

Taxes 

Net Income Before Financing 

Cash Flow Statement 

4.5 

46.0 

16.3 

29.7 

Net Income 29.7 

Depreciation 4.5 

Asset Write Off 

Change in Working Capital 

Cash Flows from Operations 34.2 

Ordinary Capital Expenditures (4.8) 

Conversion Capital Exp. (CC) 

Conversion Capital Exp. (Elec (2.0) 

Cash Used In Investment (6.8) 

Net Cash Flow 27.3 

Terminal Value 

Present Value Factor 

Discounted Cash Flow 27.3 

Industry Value (Net Present Vf $ 216.3 

4.6 

LJ.V 

0.5 

0.3 

44.3 

15.7 

28.6 

28.6 

4.6 

(1.2) 

32.0 

(5.0) 

(2.0) 

(7.0) 

25.0 

22.2 

4.7 

43.9 

15.6 

28.3 

28.3 

4.7 

(0.3) 

32.7 

(5.1) 

(2.0) 

(7.1) 

25.6 

20.1 

4.8 

42.5 

15.1 

2704 

2704 

4.8 

(0.1) 

32.2 

(5.2) 

(2.0) 

(7.2) 

25.0 

17.5 

4.9 

41.0 

14.6 

26.5 

4.9 

39.5 

14.0 

25.5 

26.5 25.5 

4.9 4.9 

0.1 0.2 

31.4 30.6 

(5.2) (5.3) 

(2.0) (2.0) 

(7.3) (7.3) 

24.1 23.3 

15.0 12.9 

5.0 

38.0 

13.5 

24.5 

5.0 

0.8 

35.8 

12.7 

23.1 

24.5 23.1 

5.0 5.0 

0.1 (0.2) 

29.5 27.9 

(504) (504) 

(2.1) (4.3) 

(7.5) (9.8) 

22.1 18.2 

10.9 8.2 

C-IO 

5.1 

0.2 

(004) 

3504 

12.6 

22.8 

5.2 

33.7 

12.0 

21.7 

22.8 21.7 

5.1 5.2 

(0.2) (0.2) 

27.7 26.7 

(5.5) (5.6) 

(2.0) (2.0) 

(7.5) (7.6) 

20.2 19.1 

8.0 6.9 

5.3 

32.2 

11.5 

20.7 

20.7 

5.3 

(0.2) 

25.9 

(5.7) 

(2.0) 

(7.7) 

18.1 

5.9 

504 

30.7 

10.9 

19.8 

19.8 

504 

(0.2) 

25.0 

(5.8) 

(2.0) 

(7.8) 

17.2 

5.1 

5.5 

29.2 

lOA 

18.8 

18.8 

5.5 

(0.2) 

24.1 

(5.9) 

(2.0) 

(7.9) 

16.2 

4.4 

5.5 

'27.7 

9.9 

17.8 

17.8 

5.5 

(0.2) 

23.2 

(6.0) 

(2.0) 

(8.0) 

15.2 

3.8 

5.6 

26.2 

9.3 

16.8 

16.8 

5.6 

(0.2) 

22.3 

(6.1) 

(2.0) 

(8.1) 

14.2 

3.3 

Table C.5.A Base Case Industry Cash flow--Existing Dynamics, 5% Shipment Scenario (1998 - 2012) 

BASE CASE SCENARIO 

Income Statement 

PricefUnit 

Unit Sales (Total in millions) 

Magnetic 

Cathode Cutout 

Electronic 

Revenues 

ase 

Year 

1998 1999 2000 2001 

7.54 7.88 8.05 

31.41 31.00 30.59 

30.23 28.63 27.04 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

1.18 2.36 3.55 

8.17 

30.18 

25.45 

0.00 

4.73 

2002 2003 

8.27 

29.77 

23.86 

0.00 

5.91 

8.32 

29.36 

22.27 

0.00 

7.09 

2004 2005 

8.42 8.57 

28.95 28.55 

20.68 19.09 

0.00 0.00 

8.27 9.46 

236.39 244.31 246.41 246.67 246.22 244.54 243.87 244.74 

2006 2007 2008 

8.73 

28.14 

17.50 

0.00 

10.64 

8.89 

27.73 

15.91 

0.00 

11.82 

9.05 

27.32 

14.32 

0.00 

13.00 

2009 2010 2011 

9.22 

26.91 

12.73 

0.00 

14.18 

9.39 

26.50 

11.14 

0.00 

15.37 

9.57 

26.09 

9.55 

0.00 

16.55 

2012 

9.75 

25.69 

7.95 

0.00 

17.73 

245.59 246.41 247.21 247.99 248.79 249.58 250.36 

Production Costs + SG&A(excl. Deprecif 185.9 194.5 197.8 199.4 200.3 200.2 200.9 203.1 205.3 207.5 209.7 211.9 214.1 216.3 218.6 

(Production Costs=Labor+Material+Overhead) 

Depreciation 

Product Conversion Expense ( 

Product Conversion Expense ( 

One Time Charges 

Restructuring Cost (plant Clos 

Asset Write Off 

Profit Before Tax 

Taxes 

Net Income Before Financing 

Cash Flow Statement 

4.5 

46.0 

16.3 

29.7 

Net Income 29.7 

Depreciation 4.5 

Asset Write Off 

Change in Working Capital 

Cash Flows from Operations 34.2 

Ordinary Capital Expenditures (4.8) 

Conversion Capital Exp. (CC) 

Conversion Capital Exp. (Elec (2.0) 

Cash Used In Investment (6.8) 

Net Cash Flow 27.3 

Terminal Value 

Present Value Factor 

Discounted Cash Flow 27.3 

Industry Value (Net Present Vf $ 216.3 

4.6 

LJ.V 

0.5 

0.3 

44.3 

15.7 

28.6 

28.6 

4.6 

(1.2) 

32.0 

(5.0) 

(2.0) 

(7.0) 

25.0 

22.2 

4.7 

43.9 

15.6 

28.3 

28.3 

4.7 

(0.3) 

32.7 

(5.1) 

(2.0) 

(7.1) 

25.6 

20.1 

4.8 

42.5 

15.1 

2704 

2704 

4.8 

(0.1) 

32.2 

(5.2) 

(2.0) 

(7.2) 

25.0 

17.5 

4.9 

41.0 

14.6 

26.5 

4.9 

39.5 

14.0 

25.5 

26.5 25.5 

4.9 4.9 

0.1 0.2 

31.4 30.6 

(5.2) (5.3) 

(2.0) (2.0) 

(7.3) (7.3) 

24.1 23.3 

15.0 12.9 

5.0 

38.0 

13.5 

24.5 

5.0 

0.8 

35.8 

12.7 

23.1 

24.5 23.1 

5.0 5.0 

0.1 (0.2) 

29.5 27.9 

(504) (504) 

(2.1) (4.3) 

(7.5) (9.8) 

22.1 18.2 

10.9 8.2 

C-IO 

5.1 

0.2 

(004) 

3504 

12.6 

22.8 

5.2 

33.7 

12.0 

21.7 

22.8 21.7 

5.1 5.2 

(0.2) (0.2) 

27.7 26.7 

(5.5) (5.6) 

(2.0) (2.0) 

(7.5) (7.6) 

20.2 19.1 

8.0 6.9 

5.3 

32.2 

11.5 

20.7 

20.7 

5.3 

(0.2) 

25.9 

(5.7) 

(2.0) 

(7.7) 

18.1 

5.9 

504 

30.7 

10.9 

19.8 

19.8 

504 

(0.2) 

25.0 

(5.8) 

(2.0) 

(7.8) 

17.2 

5.1 

5.5 

29.2 

lOA 

18.8 

18.8 

5.5 

(0.2) 

24.1 

(5.9) 

(2.0) 

(7.9) 

16.2 

4.4 

5.5 

'27.7 

9.9 

17.8 

17.8 

5.5 

(0.2) 

23.2 

(6.0) 

(2.0) 

(8.0) 

15.2 

3.8 

5.6 

26.2 

9.3 

16.8 

16.8 

5.6 

(0.2) 

22.3 

(6.1) 

(2.0) 

(8.1) 

14.2 

3.3 
Table C.S.B Base Case Industry Cash flow--Existing Dynamics, 5% Shipment Scenario (2013 - 2027)

Etnorksecu Ear 'B6lMt$5: cc trMii '13a11Js(Stan4ord<:'-

BASE CASE SCENARIO

I Income Statement I

BASE CASE SCENARIO continued

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027

Price/Unit

Unit Sales (Total in millions)

Magnetic

Cathode Cutout

Electronic

Revenues

Production Costs - SG&A (excl. Depreciation)

(Production Costs=Labor-Material-Overhead)

Depreciation

9.94

25.28

6.36

0.0X1

18.91

251.11

220.8

5.7

10. 13

24.87

4.77

0.00

20. 09

251.86

223.0

5.8

10.33

24.46

3.18

0.00

21.28

252 . 59

225.2

5.9

10 .33

24.46

3.18

0.11(1

21.28

252.59

225.2

5.9

1033

24.46

3.18

200

21.28

252 .59

225 .2

5.9

10.33

24.46

3.18

2110

21.28

252.59

225.2

5.9

10 .33

24.46

3.18

0.110

21.28

252. 59

225 . 2

5.9

10.33

24.46

3.18

(1.11(1

21.28

252. 59

225.2

5.9

10.33

24.46

3.18

11.00

21 . 28

252.59

225.2

5.9

10.33

24.46

3.18

11.((0

21.28

252. 59

225.2

5.9

10. 33

24.46

3.18

(1.00

21.28

252.59

225 .2

5.9

10.33

24.46

3.18

0.00

21.28

252 . 59

225.2

5.9

10.33

24.46

3.18

(1.0n

21 . 28

252.59

225.2

5.9

10.33

24.46

3.18

11.0(1

21.28

252.59

225.2

5.9

10.33

24.46

3.18

(1.00

21.28

252.59

225.2

5.9

Product Conversion Expense (CC)

Product Conversion Expense (Flee)

One Time Charges

Restructuring Cost (Plant Closure)

Asset Write Off

Profit Before Tax 24.7 23 . 1 21.6 21.6 21 .6 21.6 21 .6 21.6 21.6 21.6 21 .6 21.6 21.6 21.6 21.6

Taxes 8.8 8 .3 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7

Net income Before Financing 15.8 14.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13 . 8 13 . 8

I Cash Flow Statement I

Net Income 15.8 14.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8

Depreciation 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5 .9 5.9 5 .9 5.9 5 .9 5.9 5.9

Asset Write Off

Change in Working Capital (0-2) (0.2) (0.2) - - - - - - - - - - - -

Cash Flows from Operations 21.4 20.5 19.5 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7

Ordinary Capital Expenditures (6.2) (6.2) (6.3) (6.3) (6.3) (6.3 ) (6.3) (6.3 ) (6.3) (6.3 ) (6.3) (6.3) (6.3) (6.3) (6.3)

Conversion Capital Exp . (CC)

Conversion Capital Exp. (Flee ) (2.0) (2.0) (0.3) - (0.3 ) - (0.3) - (0.3 ) - - (0.3) - - (0.3)

Cash Used In investment ( 8.2) (8.3) (6.6) (6.3 ) (6.6) (6.3) (6.6) (6.3) (6.6) (6.3 ) (6.3) (6.6) (6.3) (6.3) (6.6)

Net Cash Flow 13.2 12.2 12.9 13.4 13.1 13.4 13.1 13.4 13.1 13.4 13 .4 13.1 13.4 13.4 13.1

Terminal Value 140.4

Present Value Factor

Discounted Cash Flow 2.9 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.2 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.6 I.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 18.1

Industry Value (Net Present Value) $ 216.3

C-11

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

Table C.5.B Base Case Ind,ustry Cash flow--Existing Dynamics, 5% Shipment Scenario (2013 - 2027) 

11'I~Ii~s~e~i:Lm~~il~i$ij;;i~(ii>~i~$)iil~~iSt~M~i'a •• 1 

BASE CASE SCENARIO 

Income Statement 

PricefUnit 

Unit Sales (Total in millions) 

Nfagnetic 

Cathode (utou! 

Electronic 

Revenues 

Production Costs - SG&i\ (excl. Depreciation) 

(Production Co~ts=Labor-Material-overhe-.td) 

Depreciation 

Product Conversion Expense (CC) 

Product Conversion Expense (Elec) 

One Time (nOl:r;.es 

Restructuring Cost (plant Closure) 

Asset Write Off 

Profit Before Tax 

Taxes 

Net Income Before Financing 

Cash Flow Statement 

Net Income 

Depreciation 

Asset Write Off 

Change in Working Capit..d 

Cash Flows from Opemtions 

Ordinary Capital Expenditures 

Conversion Gipital Exp. (CC) 

Conversion Capita'l E~p. (Elec) 

Cash Used In Investment 

Net Cash Flow 

Terminal Value 

Present Value Factor 

Discounted Cash Flow 

Indostry Value (Net Present Value) $ 216.3 

2013 

9.94 

25.28 

6.36 

(UX) 

/8.9/ 

251.11 

220.8 

5.7 

24.7 

8.8 

15.8 

15.8 

5.7 

(0.2) 

21.4 

(6.2) 

(2.0) 

(8.2) 

13.2 

2.9 

2014 

10.13 

24.87 

4.77 

(Um 

2(J.I)9 

251.86 

223.0 

5.8 

23.1 

8.3 

14.8 

14.8 

5.8 

(0.2) 

20.5 

(6.2) 

(2.0) 

(8.3) 

12.2 

2.5 

BASE CASE SCENARIO •.••••• contlnued 

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 

10.33 

24.46 

3./8 

(}.(}() 

2/.28 

252.59 

225.2 

5.9 

21.6 

7.7 

13.8 

13.8 

5.9 

(0.2) 

19.5 

(6.3) 

(0.3) 

(6.6) 

12.9 

2.5 

10.33 

24.46 

3./8 

(Wf) 

2/.28 

252.59 

225.2 

5.9 

21.6 

7.7 

13.8 

13.8 

5.9 

19.7 

(6.3) 

(6.3) 

13.4 

2.5 

10.33 

24.46 

3./8 

(J.I)f) 

2/.28 

252.59 

225.2 

5.9 

21.6 

7.7 

13.8 

13.8 

5.9 

19.7 

(6.3) 

(0.3) 

(6.6) 

13.1 

2.2 

10.33 

24.46 

3.18 

(W() 

2/.28 

252.59 

225.2 

5.9 

21.6 

7.7 

13.8 

13.8 

5.9 

19.7 

(6.3) 

(6.3) 

13.4 

2.1 

10.33 

24.46 

3./8 

(Wf) 

2/.28 

252.59 

225.2 

5.9 

21.6 

7.7 

13.8 

13.8 

5.9 

19.7 

(6.3) 

(0.3) 

(6.6) 

13.1 

1.9 

C-ll 

2020 

10.33 

24.46 

3./8 

(J.llf) 

2/.28 

252.59 

225.2 

5.9 

21.6 

7.7 

13.8 

13.8 

5.9 

19.7 

(6.3) 

(6.3) 

13.4 

1.8 

2021 

10.33 

24.46 

3./8 

(Wf) 

2/.28 

252.59 

225.2 

5.9 

21.6 

7.7 

13.8 

13.8 

5.9 

19.7 

(6.3) 

(0.3) 

(6.6) 

13.1 

1.6 

2022 

10.33 

24.46 

3./8 

(}.(}f) 

2/.28 

252.59 

225.2 

5.9 

21.6 

7.7 

13.8 

13.8 

5.9 

19.7 

(6.3) 

(6.3) 

13.4 

1.5 

2023 

10.33 

24.46 

3./8 

(J.I){) 

21.28 

252.59 

225.2 

5.9 

21.6 

7.7 

13.8 

13.8 

5.9 

19.7 

(6.3) 

(6.3) 

13.4 

1.4 

2024 

10.33 

24.46 

3./8 

(Wf) 

21.28 

252.59 

225.2 

5.9 

21.6 

7.7 

13.8 

13.8 

5.9 

19.7 

(6.3) 

(0.3) 

(6.6) 

13.1 

1.3 

2025 

10.33 

24.46 

3./8 

2026 

10.33 

24.46 

3./8 

(!.IJ{) (Wf) 

21.18 21.18 

252.59 252.59 

225.2 

5.9 

21.6 

7.7 

13.8 

13.8 

5.9 

19.7 

(6.3) 

(6.3) 

13.4 

1.2 

225.2 

5.9 

21.6 

7.7 

13.8 

13.8 

5.9 

19.7 

(6.3) 

(6.3) 

13.4 

1.1 

2027 

10.33 

24.46 

3./8 

f).f)f) 

21.28 

252.59 

225.2 

5.9 

21.6 

7.7 

13.8 

13.8 

5.9 

19.7 

(6.3) 

(0.3) 

(6.6) 

13.1 

140.4 

18.1 

Table C.5.B Base Case Ind,ustry Cash flow--Existing Dynamics, 5% Shipment Scenario (2013 - 2027) 

11'I~Ii~s~e~i:Lm~~il~i$ij;;i~(ii>~i~$)iil~~iSt~M~i'a •• 1 

BASE CASE SCENARIO 

Income Statement 

PricefUnit 

Unit Sales (Total in millions) 

Nfagnetic 

Cathode (utou! 

Electronic 

Revenues 

Production Costs - SG&i\ (excl. Depreciation) 

(Production Co~ts=Labor-Material-overhe-.td) 

Depreciation 

Product Conversion Expense (CC) 

Product Conversion Expense (Elec) 

One Time (nOl:r;.es 

Restructuring Cost (plant Closure) 

Asset Write Off 

Profit Before Tax 

Taxes 

Net Income Before Financing 

Cash Flow Statement 

Net Income 

Depreciation 

Asset Write Off 

Change in Working Capit..d 

Cash Flows from Opemtions 

Ordinary Capital Expenditures 

Conversion Gipital Exp. (CC) 

Conversion Capita'l E~p. (Elec) 

Cash Used In Investment 

Net Cash Flow 

Terminal Value 

Present Value Factor 

Discounted Cash Flow 

Indostry Value (Net Present Value) $ 216.3 

2013 

9.94 

25.28 

6.36 

(UX) 

/8.9/ 

251.11 

220.8 

5.7 

24.7 

8.8 

15.8 

15.8 

5.7 

(0.2) 

21.4 

(6.2) 

(2.0) 

(8.2) 

13.2 

2.9 

2014 

10.13 

24.87 

4.77 

(Um 

2(J.I)9 

251.86 

223.0 

5.8 

23.1 

8.3 

14.8 

14.8 

5.8 

(0.2) 

20.5 

(6.2) 

(2.0) 

(8.3) 

12.2 

2.5 

BASE CASE SCENARIO •.••••• contlnued 

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 

10.33 

24.46 

3./8 

(}.(}() 

2/.28 

252.59 

225.2 

5.9 

21.6 

7.7 

13.8 

13.8 

5.9 

(0.2) 

19.5 

(6.3) 

(0.3) 

(6.6) 

12.9 

2.5 

10.33 

24.46 

3./8 

(Wf) 

2/.28 

252.59 

225.2 

5.9 

21.6 

7.7 

13.8 

13.8 

5.9 

19.7 

(6.3) 

(6.3) 

13.4 

2.5 

10.33 

24.46 

3./8 

(J.I)f) 

2/.28 

252.59 

225.2 

5.9 

21.6 

7.7 

13.8 

13.8 

5.9 

19.7 

(6.3) 

(0.3) 

(6.6) 

13.1 

2.2 

10.33 

24.46 

3.18 

(W() 

2/.28 

252.59 

225.2 

5.9 

21.6 

7.7 

13.8 

13.8 

5.9 

19.7 

(6.3) 

(6.3) 

13.4 

2.1 

10.33 

24.46 

3./8 

(Wf) 

2/.28 

252.59 

225.2 

5.9 

21.6 

7.7 

13.8 

13.8 

5.9 

19.7 

(6.3) 

(0.3) 

(6.6) 

13.1 

1.9 

C-ll 

2020 

10.33 

24.46 

3./8 

(J.llf) 

2/.28 

252.59 

225.2 

5.9 

21.6 

7.7 

13.8 

13.8 

5.9 

19.7 

(6.3) 

(6.3) 

13.4 

1.8 

2021 

10.33 

24.46 

3./8 

(Wf) 

2/.28 

252.59 

225.2 

5.9 

21.6 

7.7 

13.8 

13.8 

5.9 

19.7 

(6.3) 

(0.3) 

(6.6) 

13.1 

1.6 

2022 

10.33 

24.46 

3./8 

(}.(}f) 

2/.28 

252.59 

225.2 

5.9 

21.6 

7.7 

13.8 

13.8 

5.9 

19.7 

(6.3) 

(6.3) 

13.4 

1.5 

2023 

10.33 

24.46 

3./8 

(J.I){) 

21.28 

252.59 

225.2 

5.9 

21.6 

7.7 

13.8 

13.8 

5.9 

19.7 

(6.3) 

(6.3) 

13.4 

1.4 

2024 

10.33 

24.46 

3./8 

(Wf) 

21.28 

252.59 

225.2 

5.9 

21.6 

7.7 

13.8 

13.8 

5.9 

19.7 

(6.3) 

(0.3) 

(6.6) 

13.1 

1.3 

2025 

10.33 

24.46 

3./8 

2026 

10.33 

24.46 

3./8 

(!.IJ{) (Wf) 

21.18 21.18 

252.59 252.59 

225.2 

5.9 

21.6 

7.7 

13.8 

13.8 

5.9 

19.7 

(6.3) 

(6.3) 

13.4 

1.2 

225.2 

5.9 

21.6 

7.7 

13.8 

13.8 

5.9 

19.7 

(6.3) 

(6.3) 

13.4 

1.1 

2027 

10.33 

24.46 

3./8 

f).f)f) 

21.28 

252.59 

225.2 

5.9 

21.6 

7.7 

13.8 

13.8 

5.9 

19.7 

(6.3) 

(0.3) 

(6.6) 

13.1 

140.4 

18.1 
Table C.6.A Standard Case Industry Cash flow--Existing Dynamics, 5% Shipment Scenario (1998 - 2012)

F'[0,okseent:Iiuilfi 0411iist

STANDARD CASE SCENARIO

Income Statement I

Price/Unit 7.54 7.88 8.05 8.17 8.16 10.86 10.65 10.64 10.63 10.62 10.61 10.60 10.60 10.59 10.58

Unit Sales (Total in millions) 31.41 31.00 30.59 30.18 33.93 21.11 23.64 23.64 23.64 23.64 23.64 23.64 23.64 23.64 23.64

Magnetic 30.23 28.63 27.04 25.45 23.02 0.00 (1.(10 ((.(1(1 (1.00 (1.00 0.00 (1.00 0.1X1 11.(1(1 0.00

Cathode Cutout 201 11.101 0.00 0.00 0.0 (1.0(1 0.011 (1.0(1 (1.00 0.00 200 (1.00 11.1X( 200 0.00'

Electronic 1.18 2.36 3.55 4.73 5.91 21.11 23.64 23.64 23.64 23.64 23.64 23.64 23.64 23.64 23.64

Revenues 236.39 244.31 246.41 246.68 277.07 229.55 251.81 251.58 251.34 251.11 250.88 250.64 250.49 250.33 250.18

Production Costs-SG&A(excl.Depreciation)

(Production Costs Labor-Material-Overhead)

185.9 194.1 197.5 199.2 224.1 205.9 225.9 225.9 225.9 225.9 225.9 225.9 225.9 225.9 225.9

Depreciation 4.5 4.7 4.9 5.0 5.6 6.0 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7

Product Conversion Expense (CC) - - - - - -

Product Conversion Expense (Elec)

One Time Charger

- 0.1 0.7 1.4 1.8 0.1

Restructuring Cost (Plant Closure) - 0.5 - - 4.1 37.5 1.0 -

Asset Write Off - 0.3 - - - 6.6 (0.4) (0.2)

Profit Before Tax 46.0 44.6 43.4 41.1 41.5 (26.6) 18.6 19.2 18.7 18.5 18.3 18.0 17.9 17.7 17.6

Taxes 16.3 15.8 15.4 14.6 14.7 (9.4) 6.7 6.9 6.7 6.7 6.6 6.5 6.4 6.4 6.3

Net Income Before Financing 29.7 28.8 28.0 26.5 26.8 (17.2) 11.9 12.3 12.0 11.9 11.7 11.6 11.5 11.4 11.3

Cash Flow Statement

Net Income 29.7 28.8 28,0 26.5 26.8 (17.2) 11.9 12.3 12.0 11.9 11.7 1 1.6 11.5 11.4 11.3

Depreciation 4.5 4.7 4.9 5.0 5.6 6.0 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7

Asset Write Off - - - - - 6.7 - - - - - - - - -

Change in Working Capital - (1.2) (0.3) (0.1) (5.3) 8.0 (4.1) - 0.0 (0.0) - - - - -

Cash Flows from Operations 34.2 32.3 32.6 31.5 27.1 3.5 14.4 18.9 18.7 18.5 18.4 18.2 18.1 18.0 17.9

Ordinary Capital Expenditures (4.8) (5.0) (5.1) (5.2) (5.8) (5.3) (5.9) (5.9) (5.9) (5.9) (5.9) (14.8) (5.9) (5.9) (5.9)

Conversion Capital Exp. (CC) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Conversion Capital Exp. (Elec) (2.0) (2.0) (2.0) (4.1) (39.0) (4.1) - 0.0 (0.0) - - - - - (0.0)

Cash Used In Investment (6.8) (7.0) (7.1) (9.3) (44.8) (9.4) (5.9) (5.9) (5.9) (5.9) (5.9) (14.8) (5.9) (5.9) (5.9)

Net Cash Flow

Terminal Value

Present Value Factor

27.3 25.3 25.4 22.2 (17.8) (5.8) 8.6 13.1 12.8 12.6 12.5 3.5 12.2 12.1 12.0

Discounted Cash Flow 27.3 22.4 20.0 15.5 (11.5) (3.7) 4.8 6.7 6.0 5.4 4.9 2.2 4.0 3.7 3.3

Industry Value (Net Present Value) S 155.6

Announce Standard

Base Year Year Year

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Electrnnii 01 rllast Stpnd4rd.

C-12

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

Table C.6.A Standard Case Industry Cash flow--Existing Dynamics, 5% Shipment Scenario (1998 - 2012) 

It'i~~i~~~i:tii#~~~i$ili:i~(iii~i!:'~ii$~~St~i\lI~fa •••• ·' 

Announce 

STANDARD CASE SCENARIO Base Year Year 

Income Statement 

PricelUnit 

Unit Sales (Total in millions) 

Magnetic 

La/hode Cutout 

Electronic 

Revenues 

Production Costs - SG&1\. (excl. Depreciation) 

(Production Costs=Lahor-Material-overhead) 

Depreciation 

Product Conversion Expense (CC) 

Product Conversion Expense (Elee) 

One Time Charges 

Restructuring Cost (plant Closure) 

Asset \Vrite Off 

Profit Before Tax 

Taxes 

Net Income Before Financing 

Cash Flow Statement 

Net Income 

Depreciation 

Asset Write Off 

Change in Working Capitc.ll 

Cash Flows from Operations 

Ordinary Capital Expenditures 

Conversion Capital Exp. (CC) 

Conversion Capital Exp. (Elec) 

Cash Used In Investment 

Net Cash Flow 

Terminal Value 

Present Value Factor 

Discounted Cash Flow 

Industry Value (Net Present Value) $ 155.6 

1998 

7.54 

31.41 

311.23 

II.lNi 

1.18 

236.39 

185.9 

4.5 

46.0 

16.3 

29.7 

29.7 

4.5 

34.2 

(4.8) 

(2.0) 

(6.S) 

27.3 

27.3 

1999 

7.88 

31.00 

28.63 

1I.1U1 

2.36 

244.31 

194.1 

4.7 

0.1 

0.5 

0.3 

44.6 

15.8 

2S.8 

2S.8 

4.7 

(1.2) 

32.3 

(5.0) 

(2.0) 

(7.0) 

25.3 

22.4 

2000 

8.05 

30.59 

27.114 

11.1111 

3.55 

246.41 

197.5 

4.9 

0.7 

43.4 

15.4 

28.0 

28.0 

4.9 

(0.3) 

32.6 

(5.1) 

(2.0) 

(7.1) 

25.4 

20.0 

2001 

8.17 

30.18 

25.45 

11.1111 

4.73 

246.68 

199.2 

5.0 

1.4 

41.1 

14.6 

26.5 

26.5 

5.0 

(0.1) 

31.5 

(5.2) 

(4.1) 

(9.3) 

22.2 

15.5 

2002 

8.16 

33.93 

28.112 

11.011 

5.91 

277.07 

224.1 

5.6 

1.8 

4.1 

41.5 

14.7 

26.8 

26.8 

5.6 

(5.3) 

27.1 

(5.8) 

(39.0) 

(44.8) 

(17.8) 

(11.5) 

Standard 

Year 

2003 

10.86 

21.11 

11.1111 

11.011 

21.11 

229.55 

205.9 

6.0 

0.1 

37.5 

6.6 

(26.6) 

(9.4) 

(17.2) 

(17.2) 

6.0 

6.7 

8.0 

3.5 

(5.3) 

(4.1) 

(9.4) 

(5.S) 

(3.7) 

2004 

10.65 

23.64 

11.1111 

11.011 

13.64 

251.81 

225.9 

6.7 

1.0 

(0.4) 

18.6 

6.7 

11.9 

11.9 

6.7 

(4.1) 

14.4 

(5.9) 

(5.9) 

8.6 

4.8 

C-12 

2005 

10.64 

23.64 

11.011 

11.011 

23.64 

251.58 

225.9 

6.7 

(0.2) 

19.2 

6.9 

12.3 

12.3 

6.7 

18.9 

(5.9) 

0.0 

(5.9) 

13.1 

6.7 

2006 

10.63 

23.64 

11.011 

11.00 

23.64 

251.34 

225.9 

6.7 

18.7 

6.7 

12.0 

12.0 

6.7 

0.0 

18.7 

(5.9) 

(0.0) 

(5.9) 

12.8 

6.0 

2007 

10.62 

23.64 

11.00 

11.00 

23.64 

251.11 

225.9 

6.7 

18.5 

6.7 

11.9 

11.9 

6.7 

(0.0) 

18.5 

(5.9) 

(5.9) 

12.6 

5.4 

2008 

10.61 

23.64 

11.00 

11.00 

23.64 

250.88 

225.9 

6.7 

18.3 

6.6 

11.7 

11.7 

6.7 

18.4 

(5.9) 

(5.9) 

12.5 

4.9 

2009 

10.60 

23.64 

11.110 

11.00 

13.64 

250.64 

225.9 

6.7 

18.0 

6.5 

11.6 

11.6 

6.7 

IS.2 

(14.8) 

(14.S) 

3.5 

2.2 

2010 

10.60 

23.64 

11.00 

I!.IUI 

23.64 

250.49 

225.9 

6.7 

17.9 

6.4 

11.5 

11.5 

6.7 

18.1 

(5.9) 

(5.9) 

12.2 

4.0 

2011 

10.59 

23.64 

11.00 

11.00 

23.64 

250.33 

225.9 

6.7 

17.7 

6.4 

11.4 

11.4 

6.7 

18.0 

(5.9) 

(5.9) 

12.1 

3.7 

2012 

10.58 

23.64 

IWII 

O.llli" 

23.64 

250.18 

225.9 

6.7 

17.6 

6.3 

11.3 

11.3 

6.7 

17.9 

(5.9) 

(0.0) 

(5.9) 

12.0 

3.3 

Table C.6.A Standard Case Industry Cash flow--Existing Dynamics, 5% Shipment Scenario (1998 - 2012) 

It'i~~i~~~i:tii#~~~i$ili:i~(iii~i!:'~ii$~~St~i\lI~fa •••• ·' 

Announce 

STANDARD CASE SCENARIO Base Year Year 

Income Statement 

PricelUnit 

Unit Sales (Total in millions) 

Magnetic 

La/hode Cutout 

Electronic 

Revenues 

Production Costs - SG&1\. (excl. Depreciation) 

(Production Costs=Lahor-Material-overhead) 

Depreciation 

Product Conversion Expense (CC) 

Product Conversion Expense (Elee) 

One Time Charges 

Restructuring Cost (plant Closure) 

Asset \Vrite Off 

Profit Before Tax 

Taxes 

Net Income Before Financing 

Cash Flow Statement 

Net Income 

Depreciation 

Asset Write Off 

Change in Working Capitc.ll 

Cash Flows from Operations 

Ordinary Capital Expenditures 

Conversion Capital Exp. (CC) 

Conversion Capital Exp. (Elec) 

Cash Used In Investment 

Net Cash Flow 

Terminal Value 

Present Value Factor 

Discounted Cash Flow 

Industry Value (Net Present Value) $ 155.6 

1998 

7.54 

31.41 

311.23 

II.lNi 

1.18 

236.39 

185.9 

4.5 

46.0 

16.3 

29.7 

29.7 

4.5 

34.2 

(4.8) 

(2.0) 

(6.S) 

27.3 

27.3 

1999 

7.88 

31.00 

28.63 

1I.1U1 

2.36 

244.31 

194.1 

4.7 

0.1 

0.5 

0.3 

44.6 

15.8 

2S.8 

2S.8 

4.7 

(1.2) 

32.3 

(5.0) 

(2.0) 

(7.0) 

25.3 

22.4 

2000 

8.05 

30.59 

27.114 

11.1111 

3.55 

246.41 

197.5 

4.9 

0.7 

43.4 

15.4 

28.0 

28.0 

4.9 

(0.3) 

32.6 

(5.1) 

(2.0) 

(7.1) 

25.4 

20.0 

2001 

8.17 

30.18 

25.45 

11.1111 

4.73 

246.68 

199.2 

5.0 

1.4 

41.1 

14.6 

26.5 

26.5 

5.0 

(0.1) 

31.5 

(5.2) 

(4.1) 

(9.3) 

22.2 

15.5 

2002 

8.16 

33.93 

28.112 

11.011 

5.91 

277.07 

224.1 

5.6 

1.8 

4.1 

41.5 

14.7 

26.8 

26.8 

5.6 

(5.3) 

27.1 

(5.8) 

(39.0) 

(44.8) 

(17.8) 

(11.5) 

Standard 

Year 

2003 

10.86 

21.11 

11.1111 

11.011 

21.11 

229.55 

205.9 

6.0 

0.1 

37.5 

6.6 

(26.6) 

(9.4) 

(17.2) 

(17.2) 

6.0 

6.7 

8.0 

3.5 

(5.3) 

(4.1) 

(9.4) 

(5.S) 

(3.7) 

2004 

10.65 

23.64 

11.1111 

11.011 

13.64 

251.81 

225.9 

6.7 

1.0 

(0.4) 

18.6 

6.7 

11.9 

11.9 

6.7 

(4.1) 

14.4 

(5.9) 

(5.9) 

8.6 

4.8 

C-12 

2005 

10.64 

23.64 

11.011 

11.011 

23.64 

251.58 

225.9 

6.7 

(0.2) 

19.2 

6.9 

12.3 

12.3 

6.7 

18.9 

(5.9) 

0.0 

(5.9) 

13.1 

6.7 

2006 

10.63 

23.64 

11.011 

11.00 

23.64 

251.34 

225.9 

6.7 

18.7 

6.7 

12.0 

12.0 

6.7 

0.0 

18.7 

(5.9) 

(0.0) 

(5.9) 

12.8 

6.0 

2007 

10.62 

23.64 

11.00 

11.00 

23.64 

251.11 

225.9 

6.7 

18.5 

6.7 

11.9 

11.9 

6.7 

(0.0) 

18.5 

(5.9) 

(5.9) 

12.6 

5.4 

2008 

10.61 

23.64 

11.00 

11.00 

23.64 

250.88 

225.9 

6.7 

18.3 

6.6 

11.7 

11.7 

6.7 

18.4 

(5.9) 

(5.9) 

12.5 

4.9 

2009 

10.60 

23.64 

11.110 

11.00 

13.64 

250.64 

225.9 

6.7 

18.0 

6.5 

11.6 

11.6 

6.7 

IS.2 

(14.8) 

(14.S) 

3.5 

2.2 

2010 

10.60 

23.64 

11.00 

I!.IUI 

23.64 

250.49 

225.9 

6.7 

17.9 

6.4 

11.5 

11.5 

6.7 

18.1 

(5.9) 

(5.9) 

12.2 

4.0 

2011 

10.59 

23.64 

11.00 

11.00 

23.64 

250.33 

225.9 

6.7 

17.7 

6.4 

11.4 

11.4 

6.7 

18.0 

(5.9) 

(5.9) 

12.1 

3.7 

2012 

10.58 

23.64 

IWII 

O.llli" 

23.64 

250.18 

225.9 

6.7 

17.6 

6.3 

11.3 

11.3 

6.7 

17.9 

(5.9) 

(0.0) 

(5.9) 

12.0 

3.3 
Table C.6.B Standard Case Industry Cash flow--Existing Dynamics, 5 % Shipment Scenario (2013 - 2015)

Flhoreseept3.,atnp/ albs(g:. lectnmicB^l)isf.^Y1andardl'

STANDARD CASE SCENARIO

Income Statement

2013 2014 2015

1

Price/Unit 10.58 10.57 10.57

Unit Sales (Total in millions) 23.64 23.64 23.64

Magnetic 0.00 11. (1(1 0.110

Cathode Cutout (1.11(1 ((10 (1.00

Electronic 23.64 23.64 23.64

Revenues 250.03 249.87 249.72

Production Costs - SG&A (excl. Depreciation)

(Production Costs=Labor-Material-Overhead)

225.9 225.9 225.9

Depreciation 6.7 6.7 6.7

Product Conversion Expense (CC)

Product Conversion Expense (Flee)

One Tine Charger

Restructuring Cost (Plant Closure)

Asset Write Off

Profit BeforeTax 17.4 17.3 17.1

Taxes 6.3 6.2 6.2

Net Income Before Financing 11.2 11.1 11.0

Cash Flow Statement 1

Net Income 11.2 11.1 11.0

Depreciation 6.7 6.7 6.7

Asset Write Off - - -

Change in Working Capital - - (0.0)

Cash Flows from Operations 17.8 17.7 17.6

Ordinary Capital Expenditures (5.9) (5.9) (7.1)

Conversion Capital Exp . (CC) - - -

Conversion Capital Exp . (Elec) (0.0) (0.0) 0.0

Cash Used In Investment (5.9) (5.9) (7.1)

Net Cash Flow 12.0 11.9 10.5

Terminal Value 123.8

Present Value Factor

Discounted Cash Flow 3.0 2.8 38.3

Industry Value (Net Present Value) S 155.6

C-13

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

Table C.6.B Standard Case Industry Cash flow--Existing Dynamics, 5% Shipment Scenario (2013 - 2015) 

IFi~~i~¢~tU#tt.ill.~\$iEI~~~~i~liiii\\~m~iiJl~ffl •.• , 

STANDARD CASE SCENARIO 

Income Statement 

PricelUnit 

Unit Sales (Total in millions) 

Magnetic 

Cathode (litou! 

Electronic 

Revenues 

Production Costs - SG&A (exc!. Depreciation) 

(Production Co~1s=Labor-Material-0verhead) 

Depreciation 

Product Conversion Expense (CC) 

Product Com'crsion Expense (Elec) 

One Time Gwrges 

Re~tructuring Cost (Plant Closure) 

Asset Write orr 

Profit Before Tax 

Taxes 

Net Income Before Financing 

Cash Flow Statement 

Net Inoome 

Depreciation 

Asset Write orr 

Change in Working Capital 

Cash Flows from Operdtions 

Ordinary Capital Expenditures 

Conversion Capital Exp. (CC) 

Conversion Capital Exp. (Elec) 

Cash Used In Investment 

Net Cash Flow 

Terminal Value 

Present Value Fa<..1or 

Discounted Cash Flow 

Industry Value (Net Present Value) S 155.6 

2013 

1058 

23.64 

IWO 

0.00 

23.64 

250.03 

225.9 

6.7 

17.4 

6.3 

11.2 

11.2 

6.7 

17.8 

(5.9) 

(0.0) 

(5.9) 

12.0 

3.0 

2014 2015 

1057 1057 

23.64 23.64 

IWO IUlO 

O.IW OJJIJ 

23.64 23.64 

249.87 249.72 

225.9 225.9 

6.7 6.7 

17.3 17.1 

6.2 6.2 

II.I 11.0 

ILl 11.0 

6.7 6.7 

(0.0) 

17.7 17.6 

(5.9) (7.1) 

(0.0) 0.0 

(5.9) (7.1 ) 

11.9 105 

123.8 

2.8 38.3 

C-13 

Table C.6.B Standard Case Industry Cash flow--Existing Dynamics, 5% Shipment Scenario (2013 - 2015) 

IFi~~i~¢~tU#tt.ill.~\$iEI~~~~i~liiii\\~m~iiJl~ffl •.• , 

STANDARD CASE SCENARIO 

Income Statement 

PricelUnit 

Unit Sales (Total in millions) 

Magnetic 

Cathode (litou! 

Electronic 

Revenues 

Production Costs - SG&A (exc!. Depreciation) 

(Production Co~1s=Labor-Material-0verhead) 

Depreciation 

Product Conversion Expense (CC) 

Product Com'crsion Expense (Elec) 

One Time Gwrges 

Re~tructuring Cost (Plant Closure) 

Asset Write orr 

Profit Before Tax 

Taxes 

Net Income Before Financing 

Cash Flow Statement 

Net Inoome 

Depreciation 

Asset Write orr 

Change in Working Capital 

Cash Flows from Operdtions 

Ordinary Capital Expenditures 

Conversion Capital Exp. (CC) 

Conversion Capital Exp. (Elec) 

Cash Used In Investment 

Net Cash Flow 

Terminal Value 

Present Value Fa<..1or 

Discounted Cash Flow 

Industry Value (Net Present Value) S 155.6 

2013 

1058 

23.64 

IWO 

0.00 

23.64 

250.03 

225.9 

6.7 

17.4 

6.3 

11.2 

11.2 

6.7 

17.8 

(5.9) 

(0.0) 

(5.9) 

12.0 

3.0 

2014 2015 

1057 1057 

23.64 23.64 

IWO IUlO 

O.IW OJJIJ 

23.64 23.64 

249.87 249.72 

225.9 225.9 

6.7 6.7 

17.3 17.1 

6.2 6.2 

II.I 11.0 

ILl 11.0 

6.7 6.7 

(0.0) 

17.7 17.6 

(5.9) (7.1) 

(0.0) 0.0 

(5.9) (7.1 ) 

11.9 105 

123.8 

2.8 38.3 

C-13 
Table C.7.A Base Case Industry Cash flow--Existing Dynamics , 3% Shipment Scenario (1998 - 2012)

1 Iaurestrn op Ral)a)s(s E(ectrnnic Ballast s4ndo'd

BASE CASE SCENARIO

Income Statement

Base Year

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

I

Price/Unit 7.50 7.71 7.81 7.87 7.93 7.96 8.01 8.10 8.18 8.27 8.35 8.44- 8.53 8.62 8.71

Unit Sales (Total in millions) 31.57 31.33 31.08 30.84 30.59 30.34 30.10 29.85 29.61 29.36 29.12 28.87 28.63 28.38 28.14

Magnetic 30.86 29.91 28.95 28.00 27.04 26.(19 25.13 24.18 23.23 22.27 21.32 20.36 19.41 18.45 17.50

Cathode Cutout 0.181 0.11(1 (1.00 0.01) 0.00 0.0(1 (1.00 (60(1 0.00 0.00 (1.00 (1.00 (1.00 (1.00 0.00

Electronic 0.71 1.42 2.13 2.84 3.55 4.26 4.96 5.67 6.38 7.09 7.80 8.51 9.22 9.93 10.64

Revenues 236.69 241.44 242.69 242.85 242.59 241.57 241.17 241.69 242.20 242.70 243.18 243.64 244.13 244.60 245.06

Production Costs- SG&A (excl. Depreciation)

(Production Costs=Labor-Material-Overhead)

185.7 190.9 192.8 193.8 194.4 194.3 194.7 196.0 197.4 198.7 200.0 201.3 202.7 204.0 205.3

Depreciation

Product Conversion Expense (CC)

Product Conversion Expense (Flee)

One Time Cha)ger

4.4 4.5 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.8 4.8 4.9 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.1 5.1

Restructuring Cost (Plant Closure) - 0.5 - - - - - 0.8 0.2

Asset Write Off - 0.3 - - - - - - (0.4)

Profit Before Tax 46.5 45.2 45.3 44.4 43,5 42.6 41.7 40.1 40.2 39.1 38.2 37.3 36.4 35.5 34.6

Taxes 16.5 16.0 16.1 15.8 15.5 15.1 14.8 14.2 14.3 13.9 13.6 13.3 13.0 12.6 12.3

Net Income Before Financing 30.0 29.2 29.2 28.7 28.1 27.5 26.9 25.8 25.9 25.2 24.7 24.1 23.5 22.9 22.3

Cash Flow Statement

Net Income 30.0 29.2 29.2 28.7 28.1 27.5 26.9 25.8 25.9 25.2 24.7 24.1 23.5 22.9 22.3

Depreciation 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.8 4.8 4.9 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.1 5.1

Asset Write Off - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ChangeinWorkingCapital - (0.7) (0.2) (0.0) 0.0 0.1 0.0 (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1)

Cash Flows from Operations 34.5 33.0 33.6 33.3 32.8 32.3 31.7 30.5 30.7 30.0 29.5 28.9 28.4 27.9 27.3

Ordinary Capital Expenditures (4.8) (4.9) (5.0) (5.0) (5.0) (5.1) (5.1) (5.2) (5.2) (5.3) (5.3) (5.4) (5.4) (5.5) (5.5)

Conversion Capital Exp. (CC) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Conversion Capital Exp. (Flee) (1.2) (1.2) (1.2) (1.2) (1.2) (1.2) (1.3) (3.5) (1.2) (1.2) (1.2) (1.2) (1.2) (1.2) (1.2)

Cash Used In investment (6.0) (6.1) (6.2) (6.2) (6.2) (6.3) (6.4) (8.7) (6.4) (6.5) (6.5) (6.6) (6.6) (6.7) (6.7)

Net Cash Flow

Terminal Value

Present Value Factor

28.5 26.9 27.4 27.1 26.6 26.1 25.3 21.9 24.3 23.5 23.0 22.4 21.8 21.2 20.6

Discounted Cash Flow

Industry Value (Net Present Value) $ 237.0

28.5 23.8 21.6 18.9 16.5 14.4 12.4 9.7 9.5 8.3 7.2 6.3 5.5 4.9 4.3

C-14

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

Table C.7.A Base Case Industry Cash flow--Existing Dynamics, 3% Shipment Scenario (1998 - 2012) 

Ifi~~i~li~i:tlimp:$i)ll~liiEl¢;:(i¥~i~JMlj~fSi:~M~tal 

BASE CASE SCENARIO 

Income Statement 

PricelUnit 

Unit Sales (Total in millions) 

Magnetic 

C'athode Culoul 

Electronic 

Revenues 

Production Costs - 5G&1\ (excl. Depreciation) 

(Production Costs=Labor-Material-Overhead) 

Depreciation 

Product Conversion Expense (CC) 

Protlm:t Conversion Expense (Elec) 

One Time Lnarges 

Re!.tructuring Cost (plant Closure) 

Asset Write Off 

Profit Before Tax 

Taxes 

Net Income Before Financing 

Cash Flow Statement 

Net Income 

Depreciation 

J\s.."iet \Vrite Off 

Change in \Vorking Capital 

Cash Flows from Opemtions 

Ordinary Capital Expenditures 

Conversion Capital Exp. (CC) 

Conversion Capital Exp. (Elec) 

Cash Used fn Investment 

Net Cash Flow 

Terminal Value 

Present Value Factor 

Discounted Cash Flow 

Industry Value (Net Present Value) $ 237.0 

Base Year 

1998 

7.50 

31.57 

30.86 

(I.(N) 

11.71 

236.69 

185.7 

4.4 

46.5 

16.5 

30.0 

30.0 

4.4 

34.5 

(4.8) 

(1.2) 

(6.0) 

28.5 

28.5 

1999 

7.71 

31.33 

29.91 

0.00 

1.42 

241.44 

190.9 

4.5 

0.5 

0.3 

45.2 

16.0 

29.2 

29.2 

4.5 

(0.7) 

33.0 

(4.9) 

(1.2) 

(6.1) 

26.9 

23.8 

2000 

7.81 

31.08 

28.95 

O.lJII 

1.13 

242.69 

192.8 

4.6 

45.3 

16.1 

29.2 

29.2 

4.6 

(0.2) 

33.6 

(5.0) 

(1.2) 

(6.2) 

27.4 

21.6 

2001 

7.87 

30.84 

28.01i 

IWO 

2.84 

242.85 

193.8 

4.6 

44.4 

15.8 

28.7 

28.7 

4.6 

(0.0) 

33.3 

(5.0) 

(1.2) 

(6.2) 

27.1 

18.9 

2002 

7.93 

30.59 

27.04 

O.lN) 

3.55 

242.59 

194.4 

4.7 

43.5 

15.5 

28.1 

28.1 

4.7 

0.0 

32.8 

(5.0) 

(1.2) 

(6.2) 

26.6 

16.5 

2003 

7.96 

30.34 

26.li9 

IWIi 

4.16 

241.57 

194.3 

4.7 

42.6 

15.1 

27.5 

27.5 

4.7 

0.1 

32.3 

(5.1) 

(1.2) 

(6.3) 

26.1 

14.4 

2004 

8.01 

30.10 

25.13 

1i.1i1i 

4.96 

241.17 

194.7 

4.7 

41.7 

14.8 

26.9 

26.9 

4.7 

0.0 

31.7 

(5.1) 

(1.3) 

(6.4) 

25.3 

12.4 

C-14 

2005 

8.10 

29.85 

24.18 

0.00 

5.67 

241.69 

196.0 

4.8 

0.8 

40.1 

14.2 

25.8 

25.8 

4.8 

(0.1) 

30.5 

(5.2) 

(3.5) 

(8.7) 

21.9 

9.7 

2006 

8.18 

29.61 

2007 

8.27 

29.36 

13.23 22.27 

IWO Ii.OIl 

6.38 7.09 

242.20 242.70 

197.4 

4.8 

0.2 

(0.4) 

40.2 

14.3 

25.9 

25.9 

4.8 

(0.1) 

30.7 

(5.2) 

(1.2) 

(6.4) 

24.3 

9.5 

198.7 

4.9 

39.1 

13.9 

25.2 

25.2 

4.9 

(0.1) 

30.0 

(5.3) 

(1.2) 

(6.5) 

23.5 

8.3 

2008 

8.35 

29.12 

21.32 

1!.OIi 

7.BO 

243.18 

200.0 

4.9 

38.2 

13.6 

24.7 

24.7 

4.9 

(0.1) 

29.5 

(5.3) 

(1.2) 

(6.5) 

23.0 

7.2 

2009 

8.44-

28.87 

2010 

8.53 

28.63 

2011 

8.62 

28.38 

21i.36 19.41 18.45 

(J.Of} tWO f).OO 

8.51 9.22 9.93 

243.64 244.13 244.60 

201.3 

5.0 

37.3 

13.3 

24.1 

24.1 

5.0 

(0.1) 

28.9 

(5.4) 

(1.2) 

(6.6) 

22.4 

6.3 

202.7 

5.0 

36.4 

13.0 

23.5 

23.5 

5.0 

(0.1) 

28.4 

(5.4) 

(1.2) 

(6.6) 

21.8 

5.5 

204.0 

5.1 

35.5 

12.6 

22.9 

22.9 

5.1 

(0.1) 

27.9 

(5.5) 

(1.2) 

(6.7) 

21.2 

4.9 

2012 

8.71 

28.14 

17.51i 

O.Of} 

111.64 

245.06 

205.3 

5.1 

34.6 

12.3 

22.3 

22.3 

5.1 

(0.1) 

27.3 

(5.5) 

(1.2) 

(6.7) 

20.6 

4.3 

Table C.7.A Base Case Industry Cash flow--Existing Dynamics, 3% Shipment Scenario (1998 - 2012) 

Ifi~~i~li~i:tlimp:$i)ll~liiEl¢;:(i¥~i~JMlj~fSi:~M~tal 

BASE CASE SCENARIO 

Income Statement 

PricelUnit 

Unit Sales (Total in millions) 

Magnetic 

C'athode Culoul 

Electronic 

Revenues 

Production Costs - 5G&1\ (excl. Depreciation) 

(Production Costs=Labor-Material-Overhead) 

Depreciation 

Product Conversion Expense (CC) 

Protlm:t Conversion Expense (Elec) 

One Time Lnarges 

Re!.tructuring Cost (plant Closure) 

Asset Write Off 

Profit Before Tax 

Taxes 

Net Income Before Financing 

Cash Flow Statement 

Net Income 

Depreciation 

J\s.."iet \Vrite Off 

Change in \Vorking Capital 

Cash Flows from Opemtions 

Ordinary Capital Expenditures 

Conversion Capital Exp. (CC) 

Conversion Capital Exp. (Elec) 

Cash Used fn Investment 

Net Cash Flow 

Terminal Value 

Present Value Factor 

Discounted Cash Flow 

Industry Value (Net Present Value) $ 237.0 

Base Year 

1998 

7.50 

31.57 

30.86 

(I.(N) 

11.71 

236.69 

185.7 

4.4 

46.5 

16.5 

30.0 

30.0 

4.4 

34.5 

(4.8) 

(1.2) 

(6.0) 

28.5 

28.5 

1999 

7.71 

31.33 

29.91 

0.00 

1.42 

241.44 

190.9 

4.5 

0.5 

0.3 

45.2 

16.0 

29.2 

29.2 

4.5 

(0.7) 

33.0 

(4.9) 

(1.2) 

(6.1) 

26.9 

23.8 

2000 

7.81 

31.08 

28.95 

O.lJII 

1.13 

242.69 

192.8 

4.6 

45.3 

16.1 

29.2 

29.2 

4.6 

(0.2) 

33.6 

(5.0) 

(1.2) 

(6.2) 

27.4 

21.6 

2001 

7.87 

30.84 

28.01i 

IWO 

2.84 

242.85 

193.8 

4.6 

44.4 

15.8 

28.7 

28.7 

4.6 

(0.0) 

33.3 

(5.0) 

(1.2) 

(6.2) 

27.1 

18.9 

2002 

7.93 

30.59 

27.04 

O.lN) 

3.55 

242.59 

194.4 

4.7 

43.5 

15.5 

28.1 

28.1 

4.7 

0.0 

32.8 

(5.0) 

(1.2) 

(6.2) 

26.6 

16.5 

2003 

7.96 

30.34 

26.li9 

IWIi 

4.16 

241.57 

194.3 

4.7 

42.6 

15.1 

27.5 

27.5 

4.7 

0.1 

32.3 

(5.1) 

(1.2) 

(6.3) 

26.1 

14.4 

2004 

8.01 

30.10 

25.13 

1i.1i1i 

4.96 

241.17 

194.7 

4.7 

41.7 

14.8 

26.9 

26.9 

4.7 

0.0 

31.7 

(5.1) 

(1.3) 

(6.4) 

25.3 

12.4 

C-14 

2005 

8.10 

29.85 

24.18 

0.00 

5.67 

241.69 

196.0 

4.8 

0.8 

40.1 

14.2 

25.8 

25.8 

4.8 

(0.1) 

30.5 

(5.2) 

(3.5) 

(8.7) 

21.9 

9.7 

2006 

8.18 

29.61 

2007 

8.27 

29.36 

13.23 22.27 

IWO Ii.OIl 

6.38 7.09 

242.20 242.70 

197.4 

4.8 

0.2 

(0.4) 

40.2 

14.3 

25.9 

25.9 

4.8 

(0.1) 

30.7 

(5.2) 

(1.2) 

(6.4) 

24.3 

9.5 

198.7 

4.9 

39.1 

13.9 

25.2 

25.2 

4.9 

(0.1) 

30.0 

(5.3) 

(1.2) 

(6.5) 

23.5 

8.3 

2008 

8.35 

29.12 

21.32 

1!.OIi 

7.BO 

243.18 

200.0 

4.9 

38.2 

13.6 

24.7 

24.7 

4.9 

(0.1) 

29.5 

(5.3) 

(1.2) 

(6.5) 

23.0 

7.2 

2009 

8.44-

28.87 

2010 

8.53 

28.63 

2011 

8.62 

28.38 

21i.36 19.41 18.45 

(J.Of} tWO f).OO 

8.51 9.22 9.93 

243.64 244.13 244.60 

201.3 

5.0 

37.3 

13.3 

24.1 

24.1 

5.0 

(0.1) 

28.9 

(5.4) 

(1.2) 

(6.6) 

22.4 

6.3 

202.7 

5.0 

36.4 

13.0 

23.5 

23.5 

5.0 

(0.1) 

28.4 

(5.4) 

(1.2) 

(6.6) 

21.8 

5.5 

204.0 

5.1 

35.5 

12.6 

22.9 

22.9 

5.1 

(0.1) 

27.9 

(5.5) 

(1.2) 

(6.7) 

21.2 

4.9 

2012 

8.71 

28.14 

17.51i 

O.Of} 

111.64 

245.06 

205.3 

5.1 

34.6 

12.3 

22.3 

22.3 

5.1 

(0.1) 

27.3 

(5.5) 

(1.2) 

(6.7) 

20.6 

4.3 
Table C.7.B Base Case Industry Cash flow--Existing Dynamics, 3% Shipment Scenario (2013 - 2027)

):')porrscentI>an i Pall-: st$; El •ctrouic Ball . ot Stnndiird

BASE CASE SCENARIO BASE CASE SCENARIO continued

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027

I

Income Statement I

Price/Unit 8.80 8.90 8 .99 9.09 9.20 9.30 9.41 9.51 9.62 9.74 9.85 9.97 10.08 10.21 10.33

Unit Sales (Total in millions) 27.89 27.65 27.40 27.16 26.91 26.67 26.42 26.18 25.93 25.69 25.44 25.19 24.95 24.70 24.46

Magnetic 16.54 15.59 14.64 13.68 12.73 11.77 10.82 9.86 8.91 7.95 7.011 6.05 5.09 4.14 3.18

Cathode Cutout 0.08 (1.0X1 (1.0(1 ((.00 0.110 0.00 0.00 0. 00 0.00 ((.0(1 0.00 0.00 0. 1 0 0.00 (1.00

Electronic 11.35 12.06 12.77 13.48 14.18 14.89 15.60 16.31 17.02 17.73 18.44 19.15 19.86 20.57 2118

Revenues 245.52 245.97 246.40 246.92 247.43 247.95 248.46 248.98 249.49 250.01 250.53 251.04 251.56 252.07 252.59

Production Costs - SG&A (excl. Depreciation) 206.6 208.0 209.3 210.6 211.9 213.3 214.6 215.9 217.2 218.6 219.9 221.2 222.5 223.9 225.2

(Production Costs=Labor-Material-Overhead)

Depreciation 5.2 5.2 5.3 5.3 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.5 5.6 5.6 5.7 5.7 5.8 5.8 5.9

Product Conversion Expense (CC)

Product Conversion Expense (Elec)

One Time Chmgee

Restructuring Cost (Plant Closure)

Asset Write Off

Profit Before Tax 33.7 32.8 31.9 31.0 30.1 29.3 28.4 27.6 26.7 25.8 25.0 24.1 23.3 22.4 21.6

Taxes 12.0 11.7 11.3 11.0 10.7 10.4 10.1 9.8 9.5 9.2 8.9 8.6 8.3 8.0 7.7

Net Income Before Financing 21.7 21.1 20.5 20.0 19.4 18.8 18.3 17.7 17.2 16.6 16.1 15.5 14.9 14.4 13.8

Cash Flow Statement

Net Income 21.7 21.1 20.5 20.0 19.4 18.8 18.3 17.7 17.2 16.6 16.1 15.5 14.9 14.4 13.8

Depreciation 5.2 5.2 5.3 5.3 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.5 5.6 5.6 5.7 5.7 5.8 5.8 5.9

Asset Write Off - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Change in Working Capital (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1)

Cash Flows from Operations 26.8 26.2 25.7 25.2 24.7 24.2 23.7 23.2 22.6 22.1 21.6 21.1 20.6 20.1 19.6

Ordinary Capital Expenditures (5.6) (5.6) (5.7) (5.7) (5.8) (5.9) (5.9) (6.0) (6.0) (6.1) (6.1) (6.2) (6.2) (6.3) (6.3)

Conversion Capital Exp. (CC)

Conversion CapitalExp.(Elec) (1.2) (1.2) (1.2) (1.2) (1,2) (1.2) (1.2) (1.2) (1.2) (1.2) (1.2) (1.2) (1.2) (1.2) (0.3)

Cash Used In Investment (6.8) (6.8) (6.9) (7.0) (7.0) (7.1) (7.2) (7.2) (7.3) (7.3) (7.3) (7.4) (7.4) (7.5) (6.6)

Net Cash Flow 20.0 19.4 18.8 18.2 17.6 17.1 16.5 16.0 15.4 14.9 14.3 13.7 13.2 12.6 13.0

Terminal Value 136.9

Present Value Factor

Discounted Cash Flow 3.8 3.3 2.9 2.6 2.3 2.1 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 I.1 1.0 17.1

Industry Value (Net Present Value) S 237.0

C-15

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

Table C.7.B Base Case Industry Cash f1ow--Existing Dynamics, 3% Shipment Scenario (2013 - 2027) 

I"Jj,\ii:iis~~<iftil§>#iiil~i$iEl/ij;(i'i\t\i¢~~ij~Hil~®~tilJ 

BASE CASE SCENARIO 

Income Statement 

PricelUnit 

Unit Sales (Total in millions) 

Magnetic 

Cathode Cutout 

Electronic 

Revenues 

Production Costs - SG&A (excl. Depreciation) 

(Production Custs=Labor-Material-Overhead) 

Depreciation 

Product Conversion Expense (CC) 

Product Conversion Expense CElec) 

One Time Charges 

Restructuring Cost (Plant Closure) 

i\s..<;et Write Off 

Profit Before Tax 

Taxes 

Net Income Before Financing 

Cash Flow Statement 

Net Income 

Depreciation 

Asset Write Off 

Change in \Vorking CapitJI 

Cash Flows from Opef'J.tions 

Ordinary Capital Expenditures 

Conversion Capital Exp. (CC) 

Conversion Capital Exp. (Elec) 

Cash Used In Investment 

Net Cash Flow 

Terminal Value 

Present Value Factor 

Discounted Ca..<.;h Flow 

Indostry Valoe (Net Present Valoe) $ 237.0 

2013 

8.80 

27.89 

16.54 

tWO 

11.35 

245.52 

206.6 

5.2 

33.7 

12.0 

21.7 

21.7 

5.2 

(0.1) 

26.8 

(5.6) 

(1.2) 

(6.8) 

20.0 

3.8 

2014 

8.90 

27.65 

/5.59 

(UHJ 

12.06 

245.97 

208.0 

5.2 

32.8 

11.7 

21.1 

21.1 

5.2 

(0.1) 

26.2 

(5.6) 

(1.2) 

(6.8) 

19.4 

3.3 

BASE CASE SCENARIO ....... contfnlled 

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 

8.99 

27.40 

14.64 

tWO 

12.77 

246.40 

209.3 

5.3 

31.9 

11.3 

20.5 

20.5 

5.3 

(0.1) 

25.7 

(5.7) 

(1.2) 

(6.9) 

18.8 

2.9 

9.09 

27.16 

13.68 

II.lIO 

13.48 

246.92 

21Q.6 

5.3 

31.0 

11.0 

20.0 

20.0 

5.3 

(0.1) 

25.2 

(5.7) 

(1.2) 

(7.0) 

18.2 

2.6 

9.20 

26.91 

12.73 

tWO 

14.18 

247.43 

211.9 

5.4 

30.1 

10.7 

19.4 

19.4 

5.4 

(0.1) 

24.7 

(5.8) 

(1.2) 

(7.0) 

17.6 

2.3 

9.30 

26.67 

11.77 

0.00 

14.89 

247.95 

213.3 

5.4 

29.3 

10.4 

18.8 

18.8 

5.4 

(0.1) 

24.2 

(5.9) 

(1.2) 

(7.1 ) 

17.1 

2.1 

9.41 

26.42 

111.82 

0.00 

15.60 

248.46 

214.6 

5.5 

28.4 

10.1 

18.3 

18.3 

5.5 

(0.1) 

23.7 

(5.9) 

(1.2) 

(7.2) 

16.5 

1.9 

C-15 

2020 

9.51 

26.18 

9.86 

0.00 

16.31 

248.98 

215.9 

5.5 

27.6 

9.8 

17.7 

17.7 

5.5 

(0.1) 

23.2 

(6.0) 

(1.2) 

(7.2) 

16.0 

1.7 

2021 

9.62 

25.93 

8.91 

f).no 

17.112 

249.49 

217.2 

5.6 

26.7 

9.5 

17.2 

17.2 

5.6 

(0.1) 

22.6 

(6.0) 

(1.2) 

(7.3) 

15.4 

1.5 

2022 

9.74 

25.69 

7.95 

tWO 

17.73 

250.01 

218.6 

5.6 

25.8 

9.2 

16.6 

16.6 

5.6 

(0.1) 

22.1 

(6.1) 

(1.2) 

(7.3) 

14.9 

1.4 

2023 

9.85 

25.44 

7.00 

(WO 

18.44 

250.53 

219.9 

5.7 

25.0 

8.9 

16.1 

16.1 

5.7 

(0.1) 

21.6 

(6.1) 

(1.2) 

(7.3) 

14.3 

1.3 

2024 

9.97 

25.19 

6.0j 

o.O(} 

19.15 

251.04 

221.2 

5.7 

24.1 

8.6 

15.5 

15.5 

5.7 

(0.1) 

21.1 

(6.2) 

(1.2) 

(7.4) 

13.7 

1.2 

2025 

10.08 

24.95 

j.09 

O.IHJ 

19.86 

251.56 

222.5 

5.8 

23.3 

8.3 

14.9 

14.9 

5.8 

(0.1) 

20.6 

(6.2) 

(1.2) 

(7.4) 

13.2 

1.1 

2026 

10.21 

24.70 

4.14 

IWO 

20.57 

252.07 

223.9 

5.8 

22.4 

8.0 

14.4 

14.4 

5.8 

(0.1) 

20.1 

(6.3) 

(1.2) 

(7.5) 

12.6 

1.0 

2027 

10.33 

24.46 

3.18 

tWO 

21.28 

252.59 

225.2 

5.9 

21.6 

7.7 

13.8 

13.8 

5.9 

(0.1) 

19.6 

(6.3) 

(0.3) 

(6.6) 

13.0 

136.9 

17.1 

Table C.7.B Base Case Industry Cash f1ow--Existing Dynamics, 3% Shipment Scenario (2013 - 2027) 

I"Jj,\ii:iis~~<iftil§>#iiil~i$iEl/ij;(i'i\t\i¢~~ij~Hil~®~tilJ 

BASE CASE SCENARIO 

Income Statement 

PricelUnit 

Unit Sales (Total in millions) 

Magnetic 

Cathode Cutout 

Electronic 

Revenues 

Production Costs - SG&A (excl. Depreciation) 

(Production Custs=Labor-Material-Overhead) 

Depreciation 

Product Conversion Expense (CC) 

Product Conversion Expense CElec) 

One Time Charges 

Restructuring Cost (Plant Closure) 

i\s..<;et Write Off 

Profit Before Tax 

Taxes 

Net Income Before Financing 

Cash Flow Statement 

Net Income 

Depreciation 

Asset Write Off 

Change in \Vorking CapitJI 

Cash Flows from Opef'J.tions 

Ordinary Capital Expenditures 

Conversion Capital Exp. (CC) 

Conversion Capital Exp. (Elec) 

Cash Used In Investment 

Net Cash Flow 

Terminal Value 

Present Value Factor 

Discounted Ca..<.;h Flow 

Indostry Valoe (Net Present Valoe) $ 237.0 

2013 

8.80 

27.89 

16.54 

tWO 

11.35 

245.52 

206.6 

5.2 

33.7 

12.0 

21.7 

21.7 

5.2 

(0.1) 

26.8 

(5.6) 

(1.2) 

(6.8) 

20.0 

3.8 

2014 

8.90 

27.65 

/5.59 

(UHJ 

12.06 

245.97 

208.0 

5.2 

32.8 

11.7 

21.1 

21.1 

5.2 

(0.1) 

26.2 

(5.6) 

(1.2) 

(6.8) 

19.4 

3.3 

BASE CASE SCENARIO ....... contfnlled 

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 

8.99 

27.40 

14.64 

tWO 

12.77 

246.40 

209.3 

5.3 

31.9 

11.3 

20.5 

20.5 

5.3 

(0.1) 

25.7 

(5.7) 

(1.2) 

(6.9) 

18.8 

2.9 

9.09 

27.16 

13.68 

II.lIO 

13.48 

246.92 

21Q.6 

5.3 

31.0 

11.0 

20.0 

20.0 

5.3 

(0.1) 

25.2 

(5.7) 

(1.2) 

(7.0) 

18.2 

2.6 

9.20 

26.91 

12.73 

tWO 

14.18 

247.43 

211.9 

5.4 

30.1 

10.7 

19.4 

19.4 

5.4 

(0.1) 

24.7 

(5.8) 

(1.2) 

(7.0) 

17.6 

2.3 

9.30 

26.67 

11.77 

0.00 

14.89 

247.95 

213.3 

5.4 

29.3 

10.4 

18.8 

18.8 

5.4 

(0.1) 

24.2 

(5.9) 

(1.2) 

(7.1 ) 

17.1 

2.1 

9.41 

26.42 

111.82 

0.00 

15.60 

248.46 

214.6 

5.5 

28.4 

10.1 

18.3 

18.3 

5.5 

(0.1) 

23.7 

(5.9) 

(1.2) 

(7.2) 

16.5 

1.9 

C-15 

2020 

9.51 

26.18 

9.86 

0.00 

16.31 

248.98 

215.9 

5.5 

27.6 

9.8 

17.7 

17.7 

5.5 

(0.1) 

23.2 

(6.0) 

(1.2) 

(7.2) 

16.0 

1.7 

2021 

9.62 

25.93 

8.91 

f).no 

17.112 

249.49 

217.2 

5.6 

26.7 

9.5 

17.2 

17.2 

5.6 

(0.1) 

22.6 

(6.0) 

(1.2) 

(7.3) 

15.4 

1.5 

2022 

9.74 

25.69 

7.95 

tWO 

17.73 

250.01 

218.6 

5.6 

25.8 

9.2 

16.6 

16.6 

5.6 

(0.1) 

22.1 

(6.1) 

(1.2) 

(7.3) 

14.9 

1.4 

2023 

9.85 

25.44 

7.00 

(WO 

18.44 

250.53 

219.9 

5.7 

25.0 

8.9 

16.1 

16.1 

5.7 

(0.1) 

21.6 

(6.1) 

(1.2) 

(7.3) 

14.3 

1.3 

2024 

9.97 

25.19 

6.0j 

o.O(} 

19.15 

251.04 

221.2 

5.7 

24.1 

8.6 

15.5 

15.5 

5.7 

(0.1) 

21.1 

(6.2) 

(1.2) 

(7.4) 

13.7 

1.2 

2025 

10.08 

24.95 

j.09 

O.IHJ 

19.86 

251.56 

222.5 

5.8 

23.3 

8.3 

14.9 

14.9 

5.8 

(0.1) 

20.6 

(6.2) 

(1.2) 

(7.4) 

13.2 

1.1 

2026 

10.21 

24.70 

4.14 

IWO 

20.57 

252.07 

223.9 

5.8 

22.4 

8.0 

14.4 

14.4 

5.8 

(0.1) 

20.1 

(6.3) 

(1.2) 

(7.5) 

12.6 

1.0 

2027 

10.33 

24.46 

3.18 

tWO 

21.28 

252.59 

225.2 

5.9 

21.6 

7.7 

13.8 

13.8 

5.9 

(0.1) 

19.6 

(6.3) 

(0.3) 

(6.6) 

13.0 

136.9 

17.1 
Table C.S.A Standard Case Industry Cash flow--Existing Dynamics, 3% Shipment Scenario (1998 - 2012)

0p-scent L mp B tv:u(s;Flectronlc Ballast S)p,udard

STANDARD CASE SCENARIO

I Income Statement

Price/Unit

Unit Sales (Total in millions)

Magnetic

Cathode Cutout

Electronic

Revenues

Announce Standard

Base Year Year Year

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

7.50 7.71 7.81 7.87 7.87 10.85 10.65 10.64 10.63 10.62 10.61 10.60 10.60 10.59 10.58

31.57 31.33 31.08 30.84 34.84 20.82 23.64 23.64 23.64 23.64 23.64 23.64 23.64 23.64 23.64

3(1.86 29.91 28.95 28.00 31.29 (1.(10 (1.(10 0.00 0.(1(1 (1.011 (1.0(1 0.(111 (1.00 20(1 (1.011

611(1 2(X1 0.00 0.0(1 (1.011 0.00 0.(10 (1.0(1 0.110 0.11(1 11.00 0.110 (1.(1(1 0.(10 0.0(1

0.71 1.42 2.13 2.84 3.55 20.82 23.64 23.64 23.64 23.64 23.64 23.64 23.64 23.64 23.64

236.69 241.44 242.70 242.86 274.13 226.20 251.81 251.58 251.34 251.11 250.88 250.64 250.49 250.33 250.18

Production Costs - SG&A (excl. Depreciation) 185.7 190.3 192.3 193.4 218.5 203.0 225.9 225.9 225.9 225.9 225.9 225.9 225.9 225.9 225.9

(Production Costs=Labor-Material-Overhead)

Depreciation 4.4 4,6 4.7 4.7 5.4 5.9 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7

Product Conversion Expense (CC) - - - - - -

Product Conversion Expense (Elec) - 0. 1 0.7 1.4 1.8 0.1

One Time Chmgee

Restructuring Cost (Plant Closure) - 0.5 - - 4.1 37.5 1.0 -

Asset Write Off - 0.3 - - - 6.6 (0.4) (0.2)

Profit Before Tax 46.5 45.7 45.0 43.3 44.4 (26.9) 18.6 19.2 18.7 18.5 18.3 18.0 17.9 17.7 17.6

Taxes 16.5 16.2 16.0 15.4 15.8 (9.5) 6.7 6.9 6.7 6.7 6.6 6.5 6.4 6.4 6.3

Net Income Before Financing 30.0 29.5 29.1 28.0 28.7 (17.4) 11.9 12.3 120 1 1 9 11.7 1 1 6 1 1 5 11.4 11.3

Cash Flow Statement I

Net Income 30.0 29.5 29.1 28.0 28.7 (17.4) 11.9 12.3 12.0 11.9 11.7 11.6 11.5 11.4 11.3

Depreciation 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.7 5.4 5.9 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7

Asset Write Off - - - - - 6.7 - - - - - - - - -

Change in Working Capital - (0.7) (0.2) (0.0) (5.5) 8.3 (4.8) - 0.0 (0.0) - - - - -

Cash Flows from Operations 34.5 33.3 33.5 32.7 28.5 3.5 13.8 18.9 18.7 18.5 18.4 18.2 18.1 18.0 17.9

Ordinary Capital Expenditures (4.8) (4.9) (5.0) (5.0) (5.7) (5.2) (5.9) (5.9) (5.9) (5.9) (5.9) (14.8) (5.9) (5.9) (5.9)

Conversion Capital Exp. (CC)

Conversion Capital Exp.(Elec) (1.2) (1.2) (1.2) (3.4) (41.6) (4.7) - 0.0 (0.0) - - - - -

Cash Used In Investment (6.0) (6.1) (6.2) (8.4) (47.2) (9.8) (5.9) (5.9) (5.9) (5.9) (5.9) (14.8) (5.9) (5.9) (5.9)

Net Cash Flow 28.5 27.2 27.4 24.2 (18.8) (6.3) 7.9 13.1 12.8 12.6 12.5. 3.5 12.2 12.1 12.0

Terminal Value

Present Value Factor

Discounted Cash Flow 28.5 24.2 21.5 17.0 (12.3) (4.1) 4.5 6.7 6.0 5.4 4.9 2.2 4.0 , 3.7 3.3

Industry Value (Net Present Value ) S 159.8

C-16

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

Table C.8.A Standard Case Industry Cash flow--Existing Dynamics, 3% Shipment Scenario (1998 - 2012) 

Ifl~ii~i<ieiitmi#tii~i$i!lil¢¢(i'J~kUilj\~~(St~M~tjil 

An"Pllnce 

STANDARD CASE SCENARIO Base Year Year 

Income Statement 

PricelUnit 

Unit Sales (Total in millions) 

Magnetic 

Cathode Cutout 

Electronic 

Revenues 

Prodm .. 1"ion Costs - SG&1\ (excl. Depreciation) 

(Production Co~ts=Labor-Materjal-Overhe'..td) 

Depreciation 

Product Conversion Expense (ee) 

Product Conversion Expense (Elec) 

One Time (/1Orges 

Restructuring Cost (Plant Closure) 

i\s..'\et Write Off 

Profit Before Tax 

Taxes 

Net Income Before Financing 

Cash Flow Statement 

Net Income 

Depreciation 

Asset Write Off 

Change in Working Capital 

Cash Flows from Opemtions 

Ordinary CapitJ.I Expenditures 

Conversion Capital Exp. (CC) 

Conversion Capital Exp. (Elec) 

Cash Used In Investment 

Net Cash Flow 

Tenninal Value 

Present Value Factor 

Discounted Cash Flow 

Industry Value (Net Present Value) $ 159.8 

1998 

7.50 

31.57 

30.86 

(UX! 

0.71 

236.69 

185.7 

4.4 

46.5 

16.5 

30.0 

30.0 

4.4 

34.5 

(4.8) 

(1.2) 

(6.0) 

28.5 

28.5 

1999 

7.71 

31.33 

29.91 

2000 

7.81 

31.0S 

28.95 

2001 

7.87 

30.84 

18.00 

O.lX! 0.00 O.lX! 

1.42 1.13 1.84 

241.44 242.70 242.86 

190.3 

4.6 

0.1 

0.5 

0.3 

45.7 

16.2 

29.5 

29.5 

4.6 

(0.7) 

33.3 

(4.9) 

(1.2) 

(6.1) 

27.2 

24.2 

192.3 

4.7 

0.7 

45.0 

16.0 

29.1 

29.1 

4.7 

(0.2) 

33.5 

(5.0) 

(1.2) 

(6.2) 

27.4 

21.5 

193.4 

4.7 

1.4 

43.3 

15.4 

28.0 

28.0 

4.7 

(0.0) 

32.7 

(5.0) 

(3.4) 

(8.4) 

24.2 

17.0 

2002 

7.87 

34.84 

31.29 

0.00 

3.55 

274.13 

218.5 

5.4 

1.8 

4.1 

44.4 

15.8 

28.7 

28.7 

5.4 

(5.5) 

28.5 

(5.7) 

(41.6) 

(47.2) 

(18.8) 

(12.3) 

Standard 

Year 

2003 

10.85 

20.82 

0.00 

(WO 

10.82 

226.20 

203.0 

5.9 

0.1 

37.5 

6.6 

(26.9) 

(9.5) 

(17.4) 

(17.4) 

5.9 

6.7 

8.3 

3.5 

(5.2) 

(4.7) 

(9.8) 

(6.3) 

(4.1) 

2004 

10.65 

23.64 

0.00 

(WO 

13.64 

251.81 

225.9 

6.7 

1.0 

(0.4) 

18.6 

6.7 

11.9 

11.9 

6.7 

(4.8) 

13.S 

(5.9) 

(5.9) 

7.9 

4.5 

C-16 

2005 

10.64 

23.64 

0.00 

0.00 

13.64 

251.58 

225.9 

6.7 

(0.2) 

19.2 

6.9 

12.3 

12.3 

6.7 

18.9 

(5.9) 

0.0 

(5.9) 

13.1 

6.7 

2006 

10.63 

23.64 

0.00 

2007 

10.62 

23.64 

0.00 

(WO O.lX! 

13.64 13.64 

251.34 251.11 

225.9 

6.7 

18.7 

6.7 

12.0 

12.0 

6.7 

0.0 

IS.7 

(5.9) 

(0.0) 

(5.9) 

12.8 

6.0 

·225.9 

6.7 

18.5 

6.7 

11.9 

11.9 

6.7 

(0.0) 

18.5 

(5.9) 

(5.9) 

12.6 

5.4 

200S 

10.61 

23.64 

0.00 

O.lX! 

13.64 

250.88 

225.9 

6.7 

18.3 

6.6 

11.7 

11.7 

6.7 

18.4 

(5.9) 

(5.9) 

12.5 

4.9 

2009 

10.60 

23.64 

0.00 

2010 

10.60 

23.64 

(WO 

0.00 0.00 

13.64 23.64 

250.64 250.49 

225.9 

6.7 

18.0 

6.5 

11.6 

11.6 

6.7 

18.2 

(14.8) 

(14.8) 

3.5 

2.2 

225.9 

6.7 

17.9 

6.4 

11.5 

11.5 

6.7 

18.1 

(5.9) 

(5.9) 

12.2 

4.0 

2011 

10.59 

23.64 

(WO 

tWO 

13.64 

250.33 

225.9 

6.7 

17.7 

6.4 

11.4 

11.4 

6.7 

18.0 

(5.9) 

(5.9) 

12.1 

3.7 

2012 

10.58 

23.64 

0.00 

O.O(i 

23.64 

250.18 

225.9 

6.7 

17.6 

6.3 

11.3 

11.3 

6.7 

17.9 

(5.9) 

(5.9) 

12.0 

3.3 

Table C.8.A Standard Case Industry Cash flow--Existing Dynamics, 3% Shipment Scenario (1998 - 2012) 

Ifl~ii~i<ieiitmi#tii~i$i!lil¢¢(i'J~kUilj\~~(St~M~tjil 

An"Pllnce 

STANDARD CASE SCENARIO Base Year Year 

Income Statement 

PricelUnit 

Unit Sales (Total in millions) 

Magnetic 

Cathode Cutout 

Electronic 

Revenues 

Prodm .. 1"ion Costs - SG&1\ (excl. Depreciation) 

(Production Co~ts=Labor-Materjal-Overhe'..td) 

Depreciation 

Product Conversion Expense (ee) 

Product Conversion Expense (Elec) 

One Time (/1Orges 

Restructuring Cost (Plant Closure) 

i\s..'\et Write Off 

Profit Before Tax 

Taxes 

Net Income Before Financing 

Cash Flow Statement 

Net Income 

Depreciation 

Asset Write Off 

Change in Working Capital 

Cash Flows from Opemtions 

Ordinary CapitJ.I Expenditures 

Conversion Capital Exp. (CC) 

Conversion Capital Exp. (Elec) 

Cash Used In Investment 

Net Cash Flow 

Tenninal Value 

Present Value Factor 

Discounted Cash Flow 

Industry Value (Net Present Value) $ 159.8 

1998 

7.50 

31.57 

30.86 

(UX! 

0.71 

236.69 

185.7 

4.4 

46.5 

16.5 

30.0 

30.0 

4.4 

34.5 

(4.8) 

(1.2) 

(6.0) 

28.5 

28.5 

1999 

7.71 

31.33 

29.91 

2000 

7.81 

31.0S 

28.95 

2001 

7.87 

30.84 

18.00 

O.lX! 0.00 O.lX! 

1.42 1.13 1.84 

241.44 242.70 242.86 

190.3 

4.6 

0.1 

0.5 

0.3 

45.7 

16.2 

29.5 

29.5 

4.6 

(0.7) 

33.3 

(4.9) 

(1.2) 

(6.1) 

27.2 

24.2 

192.3 

4.7 

0.7 

45.0 

16.0 

29.1 

29.1 

4.7 

(0.2) 

33.5 

(5.0) 

(1.2) 

(6.2) 

27.4 

21.5 

193.4 

4.7 

1.4 

43.3 

15.4 

28.0 

28.0 

4.7 

(0.0) 

32.7 

(5.0) 

(3.4) 

(8.4) 

24.2 

17.0 

2002 

7.87 

34.84 

31.29 

0.00 

3.55 

274.13 

218.5 

5.4 

1.8 

4.1 

44.4 

15.8 

28.7 

28.7 

5.4 

(5.5) 

28.5 

(5.7) 

(41.6) 

(47.2) 

(18.8) 

(12.3) 

Standard 

Year 

2003 

10.85 

20.82 

0.00 

(WO 

10.82 

226.20 

203.0 

5.9 

0.1 

37.5 

6.6 

(26.9) 

(9.5) 

(17.4) 

(17.4) 

5.9 

6.7 

8.3 

3.5 

(5.2) 

(4.7) 

(9.8) 

(6.3) 

(4.1) 

2004 

10.65 

23.64 

0.00 

(WO 

13.64 

251.81 

225.9 

6.7 

1.0 

(0.4) 

18.6 

6.7 

11.9 

11.9 

6.7 

(4.8) 

13.S 

(5.9) 

(5.9) 

7.9 

4.5 

C-16 

2005 

10.64 

23.64 

0.00 

0.00 

13.64 

251.58 

225.9 

6.7 

(0.2) 

19.2 

6.9 

12.3 

12.3 

6.7 

18.9 

(5.9) 

0.0 

(5.9) 

13.1 

6.7 

2006 

10.63 

23.64 

0.00 

2007 

10.62 

23.64 

0.00 

(WO O.lX! 

13.64 13.64 

251.34 251.11 

225.9 

6.7 

18.7 

6.7 

12.0 

12.0 

6.7 

0.0 

IS.7 

(5.9) 

(0.0) 

(5.9) 

12.8 

6.0 

·225.9 

6.7 

18.5 

6.7 

11.9 

11.9 

6.7 

(0.0) 

18.5 

(5.9) 

(5.9) 

12.6 

5.4 

200S 

10.61 

23.64 

0.00 

O.lX! 

13.64 

250.88 

225.9 

6.7 

18.3 

6.6 

11.7 

11.7 

6.7 

18.4 

(5.9) 

(5.9) 

12.5 

4.9 

2009 

10.60 

23.64 

0.00 

2010 

10.60 

23.64 

(WO 

0.00 0.00 

13.64 23.64 

250.64 250.49 

225.9 

6.7 

18.0 

6.5 

11.6 

11.6 

6.7 

18.2 

(14.8) 

(14.8) 

3.5 

2.2 

225.9 

6.7 

17.9 

6.4 

11.5 

11.5 

6.7 

18.1 

(5.9) 

(5.9) 

12.2 

4.0 

2011 

10.59 

23.64 

(WO 

tWO 

13.64 

250.33 

225.9 

6.7 

17.7 

6.4 

11.4 

11.4 

6.7 

18.0 

(5.9) 

(5.9) 

12.1 

3.7 

2012 

10.58 

23.64 

0.00 

O.O(i 

23.64 

250.18 

225.9 

6.7 

17.6 

6.3 

11.3 

11.3 

6.7 

17.9 

(5.9) 

(5.9) 

12.0 

3.3 
Table C.8.B Standard Case Industry Cash flow--Existing Dynamics, 3% Shipment Scenario (2013 - 2015)

Fria nr uent mp B.ttlas4si:*jectrortic:: llaiasu ttgi

STANDARD CASE SCENARIO

Income Statement

Price/Unit

Unit Sales (Total in millions)

Magnetic

Cathode Cutout

Electronic

Revenues

2013 2014 2015

I

10.58 10.57 10.57

23.64 23.64 23.64

0.00 /1.00 0.0X1

0.00 0.. 110 0.110

23.64 23.64 23.64

250.03 249.87 249.72

Production Costs - SG&A (excl. Depreciation) 225.9 225.9 225.9

(Production Costs=Labor-Material-Overhead)

Depreciation

Product Conversion Expense (CC)

Product Conversion Expense (Flee)

One Time Charges

Restructuring Cost (Plant Closure)

Asset Write Off

6.7 6.7 6.7

Profit BeforeTax 17.4 17.3 17.1

Taxes 6.3 6.2 6.2

Net Income Before Financing 11-2 11.1 11.0

Cash Flow Statement 1 Net Income 11.2 1 1.1 1 1.0

Depreciation 6.7 6.7 6.7

Asset Write Off - -

Change in Working Capital - - -

Cash Flows from Operations 17.8 17.7 17.6

Ordinary Capital Expenditures (5.9) (5.9) (7.1)

Conversion Capital Exp. (CC) - - -

Conversion Capital Exp. (Flee)

Cash Used In Investment (5.9) (5.9) (7.1)

Net Cash Flow 12.0 11.9 10.5

Terminal Value 123.8

Present Value Factor

Discounted Cash Flow 3.0 2.8 38.3

Industry Value (Net Present Value) S 159.8

C-17

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

Table C.S.B Standard Case Industry Cash flow--Existing Dynamics, 3% Shipment Scenario (2013 - 2015) 

1t:'1~~$<:~~iUmplii)l~Ei~~tiiiiik~li;\oi~M~fit ••• , 

STANDARD CASE SCENARIO 

Income Statement 

PricelUnit 

Unit Sales (Total in millions) 

Magnetic 

Cathode Cutout 

Electronic 

Revenu~s 

Production Costs - SG&A (excl. Depreciation) 

(Production Co~ts=Labor-Material-overhead) 

Depreciation 

Product Convention Experu;e (CC) 

Product Conversion 'Expense (Elec) 

One Time Charges 

Restructuring Cost (Plant Closure) 

i\~et Write Off 

Profit Before Tax 

Taxes 

Net Income Before Financing 

Cash Flow Statement 

Net Income 

Depreciation 

Asset Write Ofr 

Change in Working Capital 

Cash Flows from Opemtions 

Ordinary Capital Expenditures 

Conversion Capital Exp. (CC) 

Conversion Capital Exp. (Elec) 

Cash Used Tn fnvebtment 

NetC",h Flow 

Terminal Value 

Present Value Fal.tor 

Discoonted Cash Flow 

Indostry Valoe (Net Present Value) $ 159.8 

2013 

10.58 

23.64 

O.iIiI 

iI.ilO 

23.64 

2S0.03 

22S.9 

6.7 

17.4 

6.3 

11.2 

11.2 

6.7 

17.8 

(S.9) 

(S.9) 

12.0 

3.0 

2014 20lS 

10.57 10.57 

23.64 23.64 

().fJ() iI.lN) 

{WO iI.ilO 

23.64 23.64 

249.87 249.72 

22S.9 22S.9 

6.7 6.7 

17.3 17.1 

6.2 6.2 

11.1 11.0 

11.1 11.0 

6.7 6.7 

17.7 17.6 

(S.9) (7.1) 

(S.9) (7.1) 

11.9 10.5 

123.8 

2.8 38.3 

C-17 

Table C.S.B Standard Case Industry Cash flow--Existing Dynamics, 3% Shipment Scenario (2013 - 2015) 

1t:'1~~$<:~~iUmplii)l~Ei~~tiiiiik~li;\oi~M~fit ••• , 

STANDARD CASE SCENARIO 

Income Statement 

PricelUnit 

Unit Sales (Total in millions) 

Magnetic 

Cathode Cutout 

Electronic 

Revenu~s 

Production Costs - SG&A (excl. Depreciation) 

(Production Co~ts=Labor-Material-overhead) 

Depreciation 

Product Convention Experu;e (CC) 

Product Conversion 'Expense (Elec) 

One Time Charges 

Restructuring Cost (Plant Closure) 

i\~et Write Off 

Profit Before Tax 

Taxes 

Net Income Before Financing 

Cash Flow Statement 

Net Income 

Depreciation 

Asset Write Ofr 

Change in Working Capital 

Cash Flows from Opemtions 

Ordinary Capital Expenditures 

Conversion Capital Exp. (CC) 

Conversion Capital Exp. (Elec) 

Cash Used Tn fnvebtment 

NetC",h Flow 

Terminal Value 

Present Value Fal.tor 

Discoonted Cash Flow 

Indostry Valoe (Net Present Value) $ 159.8 

2013 

10.58 

23.64 

O.iIiI 

iI.ilO 

23.64 

2S0.03 

22S.9 

6.7 

17.4 

6.3 

11.2 

11.2 

6.7 

17.8 

(S.9) 

(S.9) 

12.0 

3.0 

2014 20lS 

10.57 10.57 

23.64 23.64 

().fJ() iI.lN) 

{WO iI.ilO 

23.64 23.64 

249.87 249.72 

22S.9 22S.9 

6.7 6.7 

17.3 17.1 

6.2 6.2 

11.1 11.0 

11.1 11.0 

6.7 6.7 

17.7 17.6 

(S.9) (7.1) 

(S.9) (7.1) 

11.9 10.5 

123.8 

2.8 38.3 

C-17 
Table C.9.A Base Case Industry Cash Flow--Manufacturer Submittal, 5% Shipment Scenario, Includes "Unaffected" Electronic Ballasts (1998 - 2012)

F.IμiiresGept,L rn p i3allax/s:.Electrtinic llal(ast Sta.idurd

BASE CASE SCENARIO

I Income Statement I

Base Year

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Price/Unit 10.80 10.73 10.61 10.37 10.17 9.93 9.86 9.93 10.00 10.08 10.15 10.22 10.29 10.36 10.43

Unit Sales (Total in millions) 68.30 68.67 69.05 69.45 69.87 70.30 70.75 71.22 71.71 7121 72.74 73.28 73.85 74.43 75.04

Magnetic 30.23 28.64 27.05 25.46 23.87 22.27 20.68 19.(19 /7.50 15.91 14.32 /2.73 11.14 9.55 7.96

Cathode Cutout 0.(X1 ((00 (1.00 0.00 200 ((.00 0.00 0.00 ((.00 (1.(10 0.02 0. 00 0.(10 0.00 11.1/0

Electronic 38.(18 40.03 42.01 44.00 4690 48.03 50.07 52.13 54.21 56.30 58.42 6(1.55 62.71 64.89 67.08

Revenues 737.91 736.70 732.97 719.99 710.28 698.11 697.26 707.23 717.35 727.63 738.09 748.71 759.71 770.91 782.31

Production Costs - SG&A (excl. Depreciation)

(Production Casts=Labor-Material-Overhead)

641.7 642.1 640.3 629.7 622.4 612.5 613.0 623.9 634.9 646.2 657.6 669.2 681.0 693.0 705.2

Depreciation

Product Conversion Expense (CC)

Product Conversion Expense (Elec)

One Time Charges

15.8 15.8 15.8 15.6 15.5 15.4 15.6 15.9 16.2 16.6 16.9 17.2 17.5 17.9 18.2

Restructuring Cost (Plant Closure) - 0.5 - - - - - 0.8 0.2 - - - - - -

Asset Write Off - 0.3 - - - - - - (0.4)

Profit Before Tax 80.4 78.0 76.9 74.6 72.4 70.1 68.6 66.6 66.4 64.9 63.6 62.3 61.2 60.0 58.9

Taxes 28.7 27.8 27.4 26.6 25.8 25.1 24.5 23.8 23.7 23.2 22.8 22.3 21.9 21.5 21.1

Net income Before Financing 51.7 50.1 49.4 48.0 46.5 45.1 44.1 42.8 42.6 41.7 40.9 40.0 39.3 38.5 37.8

Cash Flow Statement

Net Income 51.7 50.1 49.4 48.0 46.5 45.1 44.1 42.8 42.6 41.7 40.9 40.0 39.3 38.5 37.8

Depreciation 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.6 15.5 15.4 15.6 15.9 16.2 16.6 16.9 17.2 17.5 17.9 18.2

Asset Write Off - - - - - - _ - - - -

Change in Working Capital - (0.0) 0.4 1.7 L2 1.6 (0.2) (1.9) (1.9) (1.9) (2.0) (2.0) (2.0) (2.1) (2.1)

Cash Flows from Operations 67.5 65.9 65.6 65.4 63.3 62.1 59.5 56.9 57.0 56.3 55.8 55.2 54.8 54.3 53.9

Ordinary Capital Expenditures

Conversion Capital Exp. (CC)

(17.0) (17.0) (17.0) (16.9) (16.8) (16.7) (16.9) (17.2) (17.6) (17.9) (18.2) (18.6) (19.0) (19.3) (19.7)

Conversion Capital Esp.(Elec) (3.3) (3.4) (3.4) (3.4) (3.5) (3.5) (3.7) (5.9) (3.6) (3.6) (3.6) (3.7) (3.7) (3.7) (3.8)

Cash Used In Investment (20.3) (20.4) (20.4) (20.3) (20.2) (20.1) (20.6) (23.2) (21.1) (21.5) (21.9) (22.3) (22.7) (23.1) (23.5)

Net Cash Flow

Terminal Value

Present Value Factor

47.2 45.5 45.2 45.1 43.1 42.0 38.9 33.7 35.9 34.8 33.9 32.9 32.1 31.3 30.4

Discounted Cash Flow

Industry Value (Net Present Value) S 420.6

47.2 40.7 36.2 32.3 27.7 24.3 20.1 15.9 15.1 13.3 11.8 10.5 9.3 8.3 7.5

C-18

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

Table C.9.A Base Case Industry Cash Flow--Manufacturer Submittal, 5% Shipment Scenario, Includes "Unaffected" Electronic Ballasts (1998 - 2012) 

l"I~~$<i~iitLJi#~~Th$i$ij;;jei:tiii~i.;~j\~~i$fi\iid~i'jj; ••• ·' 

BASE CASE SCENARIO 

Income Statement 

PricelUnit 

Unit Sales (Total in millions) 

Magnetic 

Cathode Cutout 

Electronic 

Revenues 

Production Costs - SG&A (excl. Depreciation) 

(Production Co~1s=Labor-Material-Overhe'dd) 

Depreciation 

Product Conversion Expense (ee) 

Product Conversion Expense (Elec) 

One Time Charges 

Restructuring Cost (plant Closure) 

Asset Write Off 

Profit Before Tax 

Taxes 

Net Income Before Financing 

Cash Flow Statement 

Net Income 

Depreciation 

Asset Write Off 

Change in Working Capital 

Cash Flows from Opemtions 

Ordinary Capital Expenditures 

Conversion Capital Exp. (CC) 

Conversion Capital Exp. (Elec) 

Cash Used Tn Investment 

Net Cash Flow 

Terminal Value 

Present Value Factor 

Discounted Cash Flow 

Industry Value (Net Present Value) $ 420.6 

Base Year 

1998 

10.80 

68.30 

311.23 

(UH! 

38.118 

737.91 

641.7 

15.8 

80.4 

28.7 

51.7 

51.7 

15.8 

67.5 

(17.0) 

(3.3) 

(20.3) 

47.2 

47.2 

1999 

10.73 

68.67 

28.64 

(I.(}II 

411.113 

736.70 

642.1 

15.8 

0.5 

0.3 

78.0 

27.8 

50.1 

50.1 

15.8 

(0.0) 

65.9 

(17.0) 

(3.4) 

(20.4) 

45.5 

40.7 

2000 

10.61 

69.05 

27.(J5 

11.1111 

41.111 

732.97 

640.3 

15.8 

76.9 

27.4 

49.4 

49.4 

15.8 

0.4 

65.6 

(17.0) 

(3.4) 

(2Q.4) 

45.2 

36.2 

2001 

10.37 

69.45 

25.46 

(1.1111 

44.1N1 

719.99 

629.7 

15.6 

74.6 

26.6 

48.0 

48.0 

15.6 

1.7 

65.4 

(16.9) 

(3.4) 

(20.3) 

45.1 

32.3 

2002 

10.17 

69.87 

23.87 

11.1111 

46.1111 

710.28 

622.4 

15.5 

72.4 

25.8 

46.5 

46.5 

15.5 

1.2 

63.3 

(16.8) 

(3.5) 

(20.2) 

43.1 

27.7 

2003 

9.93 

70.30 

22.27 

(I.(}II 

48.113 

698.11 

612.5 

15.4 

70.1 

25.1 

45.1 

45.1 

15.4 

1.6 

62.1 

(16.7) 

(3.5) 

(20.1) 

42.0 

24.3 

2004 

9.86 

70.75 

2lJ.68 

(!.Iill 

511.117 

697.26 

613.0 

15.6 

68.6 

24.5 

44.1 

44.1 

15.6 

(0.2) 

59.5 

(16.9) 

(3.7) 

(20.6) 

38.9 

20.1 

C-18 

2005 

9.93 

71.22 

19.119 

(I.(}II 

51.13 

707.23 

623.9 

15.9 

0.8 

66.6 

23.8 

42.8 

42.8 

15.9 

(1.9) 

56.9 

(17.2) 

(5.9) 

(23.2) 

33.7 

15.9 

2006 

10.00 

71.71 

17.511 

11.1111 

54.21 

717.35 

634.9 

16.2 

0.2 

(0.4) 

66.4 

23.7 

42.6 

42.6 

16.2 

(1.9) 

57.0 

(17.6) 

(3.6) 

(21.1) 

35.9 

15.1 

2007 

10.08 

72.21 

15.91 

(I.(}II 

56.311 

727.63 

646.2 

16.6 

64.9 

23.2 

41.7 

41.7 

16.6 

(1.9) 

56.3 

(17.9) 

(3.6) 

(21.5) 

34.8 

13.3 

2008 

10.15 

72.74 

14.32 

1I.lH! 

58.41 

738.09 

657.6 

16.9 

63.6 

22.8 

40.9 

40.9 

16.9 

(2.0) 

55.8 

(18.2) 

(3.6) 

(21.9) 

33.9 

11.8 

2009 

10.22 

73.28 

12.73 

11.1111 

611.55 

748.71 

669.2 

17.2 

62.3 

22.3 

40.0 

40.0 

17.2 

(2.0) 

55.2 

(18.6) 

(3.7) 

(22.3) 

32.9 

10.5 

2010 

10.29 

73.85 

/1.14 

(I.(}II 

61.7/ 

759.71 

681.0 

17.5 

61.2 

21.9 

39.3 

39.3 

17.5 

(2.0) 

54.8 

(19.0) 

(3.7) 

(22.7) 

32.1 

9.3 

2011 

10.36 

74.43 

9.55 

(UJII 

64.89 

770.91 

693.0 

17.9 

60.0 

21.5 

38.5 

38.5 

17.9 

(2.1) 

54.3 

(19.3) 

(3.7) 

(23.1) 

31.3 

8.3 

2012 

10.43 

75.04 

7.96 

(I.(}II 

67.118 

782.31 

705.2 

18.2 

58.9 

21.1 

37.8 

37.8 

18.2 

(2.1) 

53.9 

(19.7) 

(3.8) 

(23.5) 

30.4 

7.5 

Table C.9.A Base Case Industry Cash Flow--Manufacturer Submittal, 5% Shipment Scenario, Includes "Unaffected" Electronic Ballasts (1998 - 2012) 

l"I~~$<i~iitLJi#~~Th$i$ij;;jei:tiii~i.;~j\~~i$fi\iid~i'jj; ••• ·' 

BASE CASE SCENARIO 

Income Statement 

PricelUnit 

Unit Sales (Total in millions) 

Magnetic 

Cathode Cutout 

Electronic 

Revenues 

Production Costs - SG&A (excl. Depreciation) 

(Production Co~1s=Labor-Material-Overhe'dd) 

Depreciation 

Product Conversion Expense (ee) 

Product Conversion Expense (Elec) 

One Time Charges 

Restructuring Cost (plant Closure) 

Asset Write Off 

Profit Before Tax 

Taxes 

Net Income Before Financing 

Cash Flow Statement 

Net Income 

Depreciation 

Asset Write Off 

Change in Working Capital 

Cash Flows from Opemtions 

Ordinary Capital Expenditures 

Conversion Capital Exp. (CC) 

Conversion Capital Exp. (Elec) 

Cash Used Tn Investment 

Net Cash Flow 

Terminal Value 

Present Value Factor 

Discounted Cash Flow 

Industry Value (Net Present Value) $ 420.6 

Base Year 

1998 

10.80 

68.30 

311.23 

(UH! 

38.118 

737.91 

641.7 

15.8 

80.4 

28.7 

51.7 

51.7 

15.8 

67.5 

(17.0) 

(3.3) 

(20.3) 

47.2 

47.2 

1999 

10.73 

68.67 

28.64 

(I.(}II 

411.113 

736.70 

642.1 

15.8 

0.5 

0.3 

78.0 

27.8 

50.1 

50.1 

15.8 

(0.0) 

65.9 

(17.0) 

(3.4) 

(20.4) 

45.5 

40.7 

2000 

10.61 

69.05 

27.(J5 

11.1111 

41.111 

732.97 

640.3 

15.8 

76.9 

27.4 

49.4 

49.4 

15.8 

0.4 

65.6 

(17.0) 

(3.4) 

(2Q.4) 

45.2 

36.2 

2001 

10.37 

69.45 

25.46 

(1.1111 

44.1N1 

719.99 

629.7 

15.6 

74.6 

26.6 

48.0 

48.0 

15.6 

1.7 

65.4 

(16.9) 

(3.4) 

(20.3) 

45.1 

32.3 

2002 

10.17 

69.87 

23.87 

11.1111 

46.1111 

710.28 

622.4 

15.5 

72.4 

25.8 

46.5 

46.5 

15.5 

1.2 

63.3 

(16.8) 

(3.5) 

(20.2) 

43.1 

27.7 

2003 

9.93 

70.30 

22.27 

(I.(}II 

48.113 

698.11 

612.5 

15.4 

70.1 

25.1 

45.1 

45.1 

15.4 

1.6 

62.1 

(16.7) 

(3.5) 

(20.1) 

42.0 

24.3 

2004 

9.86 

70.75 

2lJ.68 

(!.Iill 

511.117 

697.26 

613.0 

15.6 

68.6 

24.5 

44.1 

44.1 

15.6 

(0.2) 

59.5 

(16.9) 

(3.7) 

(20.6) 

38.9 

20.1 

C-18 

2005 

9.93 

71.22 

19.119 

(I.(}II 

51.13 

707.23 

623.9 

15.9 

0.8 

66.6 

23.8 

42.8 

42.8 

15.9 

(1.9) 

56.9 

(17.2) 

(5.9) 

(23.2) 

33.7 

15.9 

2006 

10.00 

71.71 

17.511 

11.1111 

54.21 

717.35 

634.9 

16.2 

0.2 

(0.4) 

66.4 

23.7 

42.6 

42.6 

16.2 

(1.9) 

57.0 

(17.6) 

(3.6) 

(21.1) 

35.9 

15.1 

2007 

10.08 

72.21 

15.91 

(I.(}II 

56.311 

727.63 

646.2 

16.6 

64.9 

23.2 

41.7 

41.7 

16.6 

(1.9) 

56.3 

(17.9) 

(3.6) 

(21.5) 

34.8 

13.3 

2008 

10.15 

72.74 

14.32 

1I.lH! 

58.41 

738.09 

657.6 

16.9 

63.6 

22.8 

40.9 

40.9 

16.9 

(2.0) 

55.8 

(18.2) 

(3.6) 

(21.9) 

33.9 

11.8 

2009 

10.22 

73.28 

12.73 

11.1111 

611.55 

748.71 

669.2 

17.2 

62.3 

22.3 

40.0 

40.0 

17.2 

(2.0) 

55.2 

(18.6) 

(3.7) 

(22.3) 

32.9 

10.5 

2010 

10.29 

73.85 

/1.14 

(I.(}II 

61.7/ 

759.71 

681.0 

17.5 

61.2 

21.9 

39.3 

39.3 

17.5 

(2.0) 

54.8 

(19.0) 

(3.7) 

(22.7) 

32.1 

9.3 

2011 

10.36 

74.43 

9.55 

(UJII 

64.89 

770.91 

693.0 

17.9 

60.0 

21.5 

38.5 

38.5 

17.9 

(2.1) 

54.3 

(19.3) 

(3.7) 

(23.1) 

31.3 

8.3 

2012 

10.43 

75.04 

7.96 

(I.(}II 

67.118 

782.31 

705.2 

18.2 

58.9 

21.1 

37.8 

37.8 

18.2 

(2.1) 

53.9 

(19.7) 

(3.8) 

(23.5) 

30.4 

7.5 
Table C.9.B Base Case Industry Cash Flow--Manufacturer Submittal, 5% Shipment Scenario, Includes "Unaffected" Electronic Ballasts (2013 - 2027)

I lovrescent I imp ItaJ1 rsf^+,.:El _connic i3.:1)ltlsfisndard.

BASE CASE SCENARIO

2013

Income Statement I

Price/Unit 10.49

Unit Sales (Total in millions) 75.67

Magnetic 6.36

Cathode Cutout (1.(10

Electronic 69.30

Revenues 793.90

Production Costs -SG&A (excl. Depreciation) 717.7

(Production Costs=Labor-Material-Overhead)

Depreciation 18.6

BASE CASE SCENARIO continued

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027

10.56 10.62 10.62 10.63 10.63 10.63 10.63 10.63 10.63 10.64 10.64 10.64 10.64 10.64

76.32 76.99 78.09 79.22 80.37 81.54 82.74 83.96 85.21 86.49 87.79 89.12 90.48 91.87

4.77 3.18 3.18 3.18 3.18 3.18 3.18 3.18 3.18 3.18 3.18 3.18 3.18 3.18

0.1111 (1.(X1 200 (1.00 (1.00 0.0/1 (1.(1(1 0.011 11.0(1 11.0(1 (1.00 (1.0(1 0.08 (1.(1(1

71.54 73.80 74.91 76.03 77.18 78.36 79.56 80.78 82.(13 83.31 84.61 85.94 87.30 88.68

805.71 817.72 829.59 841.71 854.08 866.71 879.61 892.77 906.22 919.94 933.96 948.27 962.88 977.79

730.3 743.2 754.0 765.1 776.5 788.1 799.9 811.9 824.3 836.8 849.7 862.8 876.2 889.9

18.9 19.3 19.6 19.8 20.1 20.4 20.7 21.1 21.4 21.7 22.0 22.4 22.7 23.1

Product Conversion Expense (CC)

Product Conversion Expense (Elec)

One Time Charges

Restructuring Cost (Plant Closure)

Asset Write Off

Profit Before Tax 57.7 56.5 55.3 56.0 56.7 57.5 58.2 59.0 59.8 60.6 61.4 62.2 63.1 64.0 64.9

Taxes 20.7 20.3 19.9 20.1 20.4 20.6 20.9 21.2 21.5 21.8 22.1 22.4 22.7 23.0 23.3

Net Income Before Financing 37.0 36.2 35.4 35.9 36.4 36.8 37.3 37.8 38.3 38.8 39.4 39.9 40.4 41.0 41.6

Cash Flow Statement

Net Income 37.0 36.2 35.4 35.9 36.4 36.8 37.3 37.8 38.3 38.8 39.4 39.9 40.4 41.0 41.6

Depreciation 18.6 18.9 19.3 19.6 19.8 20.1 20.4 20.7 21.1 21.4 21.7 22.0 22.4 22.7 23.1

Asset Write Off - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Change in Working Capital (2.2) (2.2) (2.2) (2.1) (2.2) (2.2) (2.3) (2.3) (2.4) (2.4) (2.5) (2.5) (2.6) (2.6) (2.7)

Cash Flows from Operations 53.4 52.9 52.5 53.3 54.0 54.8 55.5 56.2 57.0 57.8 58.6 59.4 60.2 61.1 62.0

Ordinary Capital Expenditures (20.1) (20.4) (20.8) (21.1) (21.4) (21.8) (22.1) (22.4) (22.8) (23.1) (23.4) (23.8) (24.2) (24.6) (24.9)

Conversion Capital Exp. (CC) - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Conversion Capital Esp. (Elec) (3.8) (3.9) (2.1) (0.4) (0.6) (0.4) (0.6) (0.5) (0.6) (0.5) (0.5) (0.6) (0.5) (0.5) (0.6)

Cash Used In Investment (23.9) (24.3) (22.9) (21.6) (22.0) (22.2) (22.7) (22.9) (23.4) (23.6) (23.9) (24.4) (24.7) (25.1) (25.5)

NetCashFlow 29.5 28.6 29.6 31.8 32.0 32.6 32.8 33.4 33.7 34.2 34.7 35.0 35.6 36.0 36.4

Terminal Value 374.6

Present Value Factor

Discounted Cash Flow 6.7 6.1 5.8 5.8 5.3 5.0 4.6 4.3 4.0 3.7 3.4 3.2 3.0 2.8 36.9

Industry Value (Net Present Value) $ 420.6

C-19

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

Table C.9.B Base Case Industry Cash Flow--Manufacturer Submittal, 5% Shipment Scenario, Includes "Unaffected" Electronic Ballasts (2013 - 2027) 

Ifl.~s~¢~i:.L,.#.Ji;)ii~irt$i.EI~~loiiii'~$iiij~~·iii~ii4~tll.·J 

BASE CASE SCENARIO 

Income Statement 

PricelUnit 

Unit Sales (Total in millions) 

Magnetic 

Cathode Cutout 

Electronic 

Revenues 

Production Costs - SO&1\ (excl. Depreciation) 

(Production Cm,ts=Labor-Material-Overhead) 

Depreciation 

ProJm:t Conversion Expense (CC) 

Product Conversion Expense (Elec) 

One Time Charges 

Restructuring Cost (Plant Closure) 

As.,\et \Vrite Ofr 

Profit Before Tax 

Taxes 

Net Income Before Financing 

Cash Flow Statement 

Netfncome 

Depreciation 

Asset Write Off 

Change in Working Capital 

Cash Flows from Operations 

Ordinary Capital Expenditures 

Conversion Capital Exp. (cq 

Conversion Capital Exp. (Elec) 

Cash Used In fnvebtment 

Net Cash Flow 

Terminal Value 

Present Value Factor 

Discounted Cash Flow 

Industry Value (Net Present Value) $ 420.6 

2013 

10.49 

75.67 

6.36 

11.1111 

69.311 

793.90 

717.7 

18.6 

57.7 

20.7 

37.0 

37.0 

18.6 

(2.2) 

53.4 

(20.1) 

(3.8) 

(23.9) 

29.5 

6.7 

2014 

10.56 

76.32 

4.77 

11.1111 

71.54 

805.71 

730.3 

18.9 

56.5 

20.3 

36.2 

36.2 

18.9 

(2.2) 

52.9 

(20.4) 

(3.9) 

(24.3) 

28.6 

6.1 

BASE CASE SCENARIO •.••.•• contlnued 

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 

10.62 

76.99 

3./8 

1I.1N1 

73.811 

817.72 

743.2 

19.3 

55.3 

19.9 

35.4 

35.4 

19.3 

(2.2) 

52.5 

(20.8) 

(2.1) 

(22.9) 

29.6 

5.8 

10.62 

78.09 

3./8 

0.00 

74.91 

829.59 

754.0 

19.6 

56.0 

20.1 

35.9 

35.9 

19.6 

(2.1) 

53.3 

(21.1) 

(0.4) 

(21.6) 

31.8 

5.8 

10.63 

79.22 

3./8 

IU}(} 

76.03 

841.71 

765.1 

19.8 

56.7 

20.4 

36.4 

36.4 

19.8 

(2.2) 

54.0 

(21.4) 

(0.6) 

(22.0) 

32.0 

5.3 

10.63 

80.37 

3./8 

11.1111 

77./8 

854.08 

776.5 

20.1 

57.5 

20.6 

36.8 

36.8 

20.1 

(2.2) 

54.8 

(21.8) 

(0.4) 

(22.2) 

32.6 

5.0 

10.63 

81.54 

3./8 

11.1111 

78.36 

866.71 

788.1 

20.4 

58.2 

20.9 

37.3 

37.3 

20.4 

(2.3) 

55.5 

(22.1) 

(0.6) 

(22.7) 

32.8 

4.6 

C-19 

2020 

10.63 

82.74 

3./8 

11.1111 

79.56 

879.61 

799.9 

20.7 

59.0 

21.2 

37.8 

37.8 

20.7 

(2.3) 

56.2 

(22.4) 

(0.5) 

(22.9) 

33.4 

4.3 

2021 

10.63 

83.96 

3./8 

11.1111 

80.78 

892.77 

811.9 

21 

59.8 

21.5 

38.3 

38.3 

21.1 

(2.4) 

57.0 

(22.8) 

(0.6) 

(23.4) 

33.7 

4.0 

2022 

10.63 

85.21 

3./8 

1I.1)(} 

82.03 

906.22 

824.3 

21.4 

60.6 

21.8 

38.8 

38.8 

21.4 

(2.4) 

57.8 

(23.1) 

(0.5) 

(23.6) 

34.2 

3.7 

2023 

10.64 

86.49 

3./8 

2024 

10.64 

87.79 

3./8 

11.1111 11.1111 

83.31 84.61 

919.94 933.96 

836.8 

21.7 

61.4 

22.1 

39.4 

39.4 

21.7 

(2.5) 

58.6 

(23.4) 

(0.5) 

(23.9) 

34.7 

3.4 

849.7 

22.0 

62.2 

22.4 

39.9 

39.9 

22.0 

(2.5) 

59.4 

(23.8) 

(0.6) 

(24.4) 

35.0 

3.2 

2025 

10.64 

89.12 

3./8 

11.1111 

85.94 

948.27 

862.8 

22.4 

63.1 

22.7 

40.4 

40.4 

22.4 

(2.6) 

60.2 

(24.2) 

(0.5) 

(24.7) 

35.6 

3.0 

2026 

10.64 

90.48 

3.18 

11.1111 

87.30 

962.88 

876.2 

22.7 

64.0 

23.0 

41.0 

41.0 

22.7 

(2.6) 

61.1 

(24.6) 

(0.5) 

(25.1) 

36.0 

2.8 

2027 

10.64 

91.87 

3./8 

11.1111 

88.68 

977.79 

889.9 

23.1 

64.9 

23.3 

41.6 

41.6 

23.1 

(2.7) 

62.0 

(24.9) 

(0.6) 

(25.5) 

36.4 

374.6 

36.9 

Table C.9.B Base Case Industry Cash Flow--Manufacturer Submittal, 5% Shipment Scenario, Includes "Unaffected" Electronic Ballasts (2013 - 2027) 

Ifl.~s~¢~i:.L,.#.Ji;)ii~irt$i.EI~~loiiii'~$iiij~~·iii~ii4~tll.·J 

BASE CASE SCENARIO 

Income Statement 

PricelUnit 

Unit Sales (Total in millions) 

Magnetic 

Cathode Cutout 

Electronic 

Revenues 

Production Costs - SO&1\ (excl. Depreciation) 

(Production Cm,ts=Labor-Material-Overhead) 

Depreciation 

ProJm:t Conversion Expense (CC) 

Product Conversion Expense (Elec) 

One Time Charges 

Restructuring Cost (Plant Closure) 

As.,\et \Vrite Ofr 

Profit Before Tax 

Taxes 

Net Income Before Financing 

Cash Flow Statement 

Netfncome 

Depreciation 

Asset Write Off 

Change in Working Capital 

Cash Flows from Operations 

Ordinary Capital Expenditures 

Conversion Capital Exp. (cq 

Conversion Capital Exp. (Elec) 

Cash Used In fnvebtment 

Net Cash Flow 

Terminal Value 

Present Value Factor 

Discounted Cash Flow 

Industry Value (Net Present Value) $ 420.6 

2013 

10.49 

75.67 

6.36 

11.1111 

69.311 

793.90 

717.7 

18.6 

57.7 

20.7 

37.0 

37.0 

18.6 

(2.2) 

53.4 

(20.1) 

(3.8) 

(23.9) 

29.5 

6.7 

2014 

10.56 

76.32 

4.77 

11.1111 

71.54 

805.71 

730.3 

18.9 

56.5 

20.3 

36.2 

36.2 

18.9 

(2.2) 

52.9 

(20.4) 

(3.9) 

(24.3) 

28.6 

6.1 

BASE CASE SCENARIO •.••.•• contlnued 

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 

10.62 

76.99 

3./8 

1I.1N1 

73.811 

817.72 

743.2 

19.3 

55.3 

19.9 

35.4 

35.4 

19.3 

(2.2) 

52.5 

(20.8) 

(2.1) 

(22.9) 

29.6 

5.8 

10.62 

78.09 

3./8 

0.00 

74.91 

829.59 

754.0 

19.6 

56.0 

20.1 

35.9 

35.9 

19.6 

(2.1) 

53.3 

(21.1) 

(0.4) 

(21.6) 

31.8 

5.8 

10.63 

79.22 

3./8 

IU}(} 

76.03 

841.71 

765.1 

19.8 

56.7 

20.4 

36.4 

36.4 

19.8 

(2.2) 

54.0 

(21.4) 

(0.6) 

(22.0) 

32.0 

5.3 

10.63 

80.37 

3./8 

11.1111 

77./8 

854.08 

776.5 

20.1 

57.5 

20.6 

36.8 

36.8 

20.1 

(2.2) 

54.8 

(21.8) 

(0.4) 

(22.2) 

32.6 

5.0 

10.63 

81.54 

3./8 

11.1111 

78.36 

866.71 

788.1 

20.4 

58.2 

20.9 

37.3 

37.3 

20.4 

(2.3) 

55.5 

(22.1) 

(0.6) 

(22.7) 

32.8 

4.6 

C-19 

2020 

10.63 

82.74 

3./8 

11.1111 

79.56 

879.61 

799.9 

20.7 

59.0 

21.2 

37.8 

37.8 

20.7 

(2.3) 

56.2 

(22.4) 

(0.5) 

(22.9) 

33.4 

4.3 

2021 

10.63 

83.96 

3./8 

11.1111 

80.78 

892.77 

811.9 

21 

59.8 

21.5 

38.3 

38.3 

21.1 

(2.4) 

57.0 

(22.8) 

(0.6) 

(23.4) 

33.7 

4.0 

2022 

10.63 

85.21 

3./8 

1I.1)(} 

82.03 

906.22 

824.3 

21.4 

60.6 

21.8 

38.8 

38.8 

21.4 

(2.4) 

57.8 

(23.1) 

(0.5) 

(23.6) 

34.2 

3.7 

2023 

10.64 

86.49 

3./8 

2024 

10.64 

87.79 

3./8 

11.1111 11.1111 

83.31 84.61 

919.94 933.96 

836.8 

21.7 

61.4 

22.1 

39.4 

39.4 

21.7 

(2.5) 

58.6 

(23.4) 

(0.5) 

(23.9) 

34.7 

3.4 

849.7 

22.0 

62.2 

22.4 

39.9 

39.9 

22.0 

(2.5) 

59.4 

(23.8) 

(0.6) 

(24.4) 

35.0 

3.2 

2025 

10.64 

89.12 

3./8 

11.1111 

85.94 

948.27 

862.8 

22.4 

63.1 

22.7 

40.4 

40.4 

22.4 

(2.6) 

60.2 

(24.2) 

(0.5) 

(24.7) 

35.6 

3.0 

2026 

10.64 

90.48 

3.18 

11.1111 

87.30 

962.88 

876.2 

22.7 

64.0 

23.0 

41.0 

41.0 

22.7 

(2.6) 

61.1 

(24.6) 

(0.5) 

(25.1) 

36.0 

2.8 

2027 

10.64 

91.87 

3./8 

11.1111 

88.68 

977.79 

889.9 

23.1 

64.9 

23.3 

41.6 

41.6 

23.1 

(2.7) 

62.0 

(24.9) 

(0.6) 

(25.5) 

36.4 

374.6 

36.9 
Table C-10-A: Standard Case Industry Cash Flow--Manufacturer Submittal, 5% Shipment Scenario, Includes "Unaffected" Electronic Ballasts (1998 - 2012)

0uo?¢see1ajjtiil.101 sis,l;letrouicDatlsstetU(

STANDARD CASE SCENARIO

Income Statement

Announce Standard

Base Year Year Year

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

I

Price/Unit 10.80 10.73 10.61 10.37 10.01 10.98 10.74 10.74 10.73 10.72 10.71 10.70 10.70 10.69 10.69

Unit Sales (Total in millions) 68.30 68.67 69.05 69.45 74.03 62.05 65.44 66.32 67.21 68.13 69.06 70.01 70.99 71.98 73.00

Magnetic 30.23 28.64 27.05 25.46 28.(12 (1.0(1 0,00 (1.(10 0.11(1 0.00 0.00 0.00 (1.(X1 0.(111 (1.0(1

Cathode Culaut 0.191 (1.00 (1.0(1 0.(1(1 0.(X1 11.00 0.00 (1.110 ((.0(1 0.00 0,0(1 11.00 (/01) (1.0(1 (1.11(1

Electronic 38.110 40.03 42.01 44.(10 46.00 62.05 65.44 66.31 67.2! 68.12 69.116 70.01 70.99 71.98 72.99

Revenues 737.91 736.70 732.97 719.99 741.12 681.21 703.08 711.95 721.00 730.23 739.65 749.27 759.32 769.58 780.05

Production Costs - SG&A (excl. Depreciation)

(Production Costs=Labor-Material-Overheaad)

641.0 641.7 640.0 629.5 646.1 620.2 639.7 648.3 657.1 666.2 675.4 684.8 694.3 704.1 714.1

Depreciation 15.8 15.9 15.9 15.8 16.3 16.6 17.3 17.6 17.8 18.0 18.3 18.5 18.8 19.0 19.3

Product Conversion Expense (CC) - - - - - -

Product Conversion Expense (Elec)

One Time Charges

- 0.1 0.7 1.4 1.8 0.1

Restructuring Cost (Plant Closure) - 0.5 - - 4.1 37.5 1.0 -

Asset Write Off - 0.3 - - - 6.6 (0.4) (0.2)

Profit Before Tax 81.1 78.3 76.4 73.2 72.9 0.3 45.5 46.3 46.1 46.0 46.0 46.0 46.2 46.4 46.6

Taxes 28.9 27.9 27.3 26.1 26.0 0.3 16.4 16.6 16.6 16.6 16.6 16.6 16.6 16.7 16.8

Net income Before Financing 52.2 50.3 49.1 47.1 46.9 (0.0) 29.1 29.6 29.5 29.5 29.5 29.5 29.6 29.7 29.9

Cash Flow Statement I

Net Income 52.2 50.3 49.1 47.1 46.9 (0.0) 29.1 29.6 29.5 29.5 29.5 29.5 29.6 29.7 29.9

Depreciation 15.8 15.9 15.9 15.8 16.3 16.6 17.3 17.6 17.8 18.0 18.3 18.5 18.8 19.0 19.3

Asset Write Off - - - - - 6.7 - - - - - - - - -

Change in Working Capital - (0.0) 0.4 1.7 (4.1) 9.4 (4.4) (1.7) (1.7) (1.8) (1.8) (1.8) (1.9) (1.9) (2.0)

Cash Flows from Operations 68.0 66.2 65.4 64.6 59.0 32.7 42.0 45.5 45.5 45.7 45.9 46.1 46.5 46.8 47.2

Ordinary Capital Expenditures (17.0) (17.0) (17.0) (16.9) (17.4) (16.6) (17.4) (17.6) (17.9) (18.1) (18.4) (27.6) (18.9) (19.2) (19.5)

Conversion Capital Exp. (CC) - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Conversion Capital Exp. (Elec) (3.3) (3.4) (3.4) (5.5) (40.5) (5.6) (1.6) (1.6) (1.6) (1.6) (1.6) (1.7) (1.7) (1.7) (1.8)

Cash Used In Investment (20.3) (20.4) (20.4) (22.4) (57.8) (22.2) (19.0) (19.3) (19.5) (19.7) (20.0) (29.2) (20.6) (20.9) (21.3)

Net Cash Flow

Terminal Value

Present Value Factor

47.6 45.8 45.0 42.3 1.2 10.5 23.0 26.2 26.1 26.0 25.9 16.9 25.8 25.9 25.9

Discounted Cash Flow

Industry Value (Net Present Value) S 350.9

47.6 41.0 36.0 30.4 1.2 6.4 12.9 13.4 12.2 11.1 10.1 7.0 8.5 7.8 7.2

C-20

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

Table C.lO.A: Standard Case Industry Cash Flow--Manufacturer Submittal, 5% Shipment Scenario, Includes "Unaffected" Electronic Ballasts (1998 - 2012) 

11'1~~iili~~ttwpl'Mi~\$iEi¢¢(~~~k~ii~(Si~®~~ij;1 

STANDARD CASE SCENARIO 

Income Statement 

PricelUnit 

Unit Sales (Total in millions) 

Magnetic 

Cathode Cutouf 

Electronic 

Revenues 

Production Costs - SO&1\ (exc!. Depreciation) 

(Production Costs=Labor-Material-Overhe-dd) 

Depreciation 

Product Conversion Expense (CC) 

Product Conversion Expense (Elec) 

One Time Charges 

Restructuring Cost (plant Closure) 

Asset \Vrite Off 

Profit Before Tax 

Taxes 

Net fncome Before Financing 

Cash Flow Statement 

Net Income 

Depreciation 

Asset Write Off 

Change in Working Capital 

Cash Flows from Operations 

Ordinary Capital Expenditures 

Conversion Capit.1 Exp. (CC) 

Conversion Capital Exp. (Elec) 

Cash Used In Investment 

Net Cash Flow 

Terminal Value 

Present Value Factor 

Discounted Cash Flow 

Industry Value (Net Present Value) $ 350.9 

ArmCl.mea 

Base Year Year 

1998 

10.&0 

68.30 

30.23 

(WO 

38.118 

737.91 

641.0 

15.8 

81.1 

28.9 

52.2 

52.2 

15.8 

68.0 

(17.0) 

(3.3) 

(20.3) 

47.6 

47.6 

1999 

10.73 

68.67 

28.64 

(WO 

40.03 

736.70 

641.7 

15.9 

0.1 

0.5 

0.3 

78.3 

27.9 

50.3 

50.3 

15.9 

(0.0) 

66.2 

(17.0) 

(3.4) 

(20.4) 

45.8 

41.0 

2000 

10.61 

69.05 

27.05 

(WO 

41.01 

732.97 

640.0 

15.9 

0.7 

76.4 

27.3 

49.1 

49.1 

15.9 

0.4 

65.4 

(17.0) 

(3.4) 

(20.4) 

45.0 

36.0 

2001 

10.37 

69.45 

15.46 

tWO 

44.(}O 

719.99 

629.5 

15.8 

1.4 

73.2 

26.1 

47.1 

47.1 

15.& 

1.7 

64.6 

(16.9) 

(5.5) 

(22.4) 

42.3 

30.4 

2002 

10.01 

74.03 

18.02 

O.lH! 

46.110 

741.12 

646.1 

16.3 

1.& 

4.1 

72.9 

26.0 

46.9 

46.9 

16.3 

(4.1) 

59.0 

(17.4) 

(40.5) 

(57.8) 

1.2 

1.2 

Standard 

Year 

2003 

10.98 

62.05 

(WO 

(WO 

62.05 

681.21 

620.2 

16.6 

0.1 

37.5 

6.6 

OJ 

0.3 

(0.0) 

(0.0) 

16.6 

6.7 

9.4 

32.7 

(16.6) 

(5.6) 

(22.2) 

10.5 

6.4 

2004 

10.74 

65.44 

(J.()O 

(J.()O 

65.44 

703.08 

639.7 

17.3 

1.0 

(0.4) 

45.5 

16.4 

29.1 

29.1 

17.3 

(4.4) 

42.0 

(17.4) 

(1.6) 

(19.0) 

23.0 

12.9 

C-20 

2005 

10.74 

66.32 

(WO 

(WO 

66.31 

711.95 

648.3 

17.6 

(0.2) 

46.3 

16.6 

29.6 

29.6 

17.6 

(1.7) 

45.5 

(17.6) 

(1.6) 

(19.3) 

26.2 

13.4 

2006 

10.73 

67.21 

2007 

10.72 

68.13 

(J.()O (J.()O 

(J.()O (J.()O 

67.21 68.12 

721.00 730.23 

657.1 

17.8 

46.1 

16.6 

29.5 

29.5 

17.8 

(1.7) 

45.5 

(17.9) 

(1.6) 

(19.5) 

26.1 

12.2 

666.2 

18.0 

46.0 

16.6 

29.5 

29.5 

18.0 

(1.8) 

45.7 

(18.1) 

(1.6) 

(19.7) 

26.0 

11.1 

200& 

10.71 

69.06 

(!.OO 

0.00 

69.06 

739.65 

675.4 

18.3 

46.0 

16.6 

29.5 

29.5 

1803 

(1.8) 

45.9 

(18.4) 

(1.6) 

(20.0) 

25.9 

10.1 

2009 

10.70 

70.01 

(!.OO 

(WO 

7Ii.1I1 

749.27 

684.8 

18.5 

46.0 

16.6 

29.5 

29.5 

18.5 

(1.8) 

46.1 

(27.6) 

(1.7) 

(29.2) 

16.9 

7.0 

2010 

10.70 

70.99 

(WO 

(Uff) 

711.99 

759.32 

694.3 

18.8 

46.2 

16.6 

29.6 

29.6 

18.8 

(1.9) 

46.5 

(1&.9) 

(1.7) 

(20.6) 

25.8 

8.5 

2011 

10.69 

71.98 

(WO 

(WO 

71.98 

769.58 

704.1 

19.0 

46.4 

16.7 

29.7 

29.7 

19.0 

(1.9) 

46.8 

(19.2) 

(1.7) 

(20.9) 

25.9 

7.& 

2012 

10.69 

73.00 

O.()(} 

(WO 

72.99 

780.05 

714.1 

19.3 

46.6 

16.8 

29.9 

29.9 

19.3 

(2.0) 

47.2 

(19.5) 

(1.8) 

(21.3) 

25.9 

7.2 

Table C.lO.A: Standard Case Industry Cash Flow--Manufacturer Submittal, 5% Shipment Scenario, Includes "Unaffected" Electronic Ballasts (1998 - 2012) 

11'1~~iili~~ttwpl'Mi~\$iEi¢¢(~~~k~ii~(Si~®~~ij;1 

STANDARD CASE SCENARIO 

Income Statement 

PricelUnit 

Unit Sales (Total in millions) 

Magnetic 

Cathode Cutouf 

Electronic 

Revenues 

Production Costs - SO&1\ (exc!. Depreciation) 

(Production Costs=Labor-Material-Overhe-dd) 

Depreciation 

Product Conversion Expense (CC) 

Product Conversion Expense (Elec) 

One Time Charges 

Restructuring Cost (plant Closure) 

Asset \Vrite Off 

Profit Before Tax 

Taxes 

Net fncome Before Financing 

Cash Flow Statement 

Net Income 

Depreciation 

Asset Write Off 

Change in Working Capital 

Cash Flows from Operations 

Ordinary Capital Expenditures 

Conversion Capit.1 Exp. (CC) 

Conversion Capital Exp. (Elec) 

Cash Used In Investment 

Net Cash Flow 

Terminal Value 

Present Value Factor 

Discounted Cash Flow 

Industry Value (Net Present Value) $ 350.9 

ArmCl.mea 

Base Year Year 

1998 

10.&0 

68.30 

30.23 

(WO 

38.118 

737.91 

641.0 

15.8 

81.1 

28.9 

52.2 

52.2 

15.8 

68.0 

(17.0) 

(3.3) 

(20.3) 

47.6 

47.6 

1999 

10.73 

68.67 

28.64 

(WO 

40.03 

736.70 

641.7 

15.9 

0.1 

0.5 

0.3 

78.3 

27.9 

50.3 

50.3 

15.9 

(0.0) 

66.2 

(17.0) 

(3.4) 

(20.4) 

45.8 

41.0 

2000 

10.61 

69.05 

27.05 

(WO 

41.01 

732.97 

640.0 

15.9 

0.7 

76.4 

27.3 

49.1 

49.1 

15.9 

0.4 

65.4 

(17.0) 

(3.4) 

(20.4) 

45.0 

36.0 

2001 

10.37 

69.45 

15.46 

tWO 

44.(}O 

719.99 

629.5 

15.8 

1.4 

73.2 

26.1 

47.1 

47.1 

15.& 

1.7 

64.6 

(16.9) 

(5.5) 

(22.4) 

42.3 

30.4 

2002 

10.01 

74.03 

18.02 

O.lH! 

46.110 

741.12 

646.1 

16.3 

1.& 

4.1 

72.9 

26.0 

46.9 

46.9 

16.3 

(4.1) 

59.0 

(17.4) 

(40.5) 

(57.8) 

1.2 

1.2 

Standard 

Year 

2003 

10.98 

62.05 

(WO 

(WO 

62.05 

681.21 

620.2 

16.6 

0.1 

37.5 

6.6 

OJ 

0.3 

(0.0) 

(0.0) 

16.6 

6.7 

9.4 

32.7 

(16.6) 

(5.6) 

(22.2) 

10.5 

6.4 

2004 

10.74 

65.44 

(J.()O 

(J.()O 

65.44 

703.08 

639.7 

17.3 

1.0 

(0.4) 

45.5 

16.4 

29.1 

29.1 

17.3 

(4.4) 

42.0 

(17.4) 

(1.6) 

(19.0) 

23.0 

12.9 

C-20 

2005 

10.74 

66.32 

(WO 

(WO 

66.31 

711.95 

648.3 

17.6 

(0.2) 

46.3 

16.6 

29.6 

29.6 

17.6 

(1.7) 

45.5 

(17.6) 

(1.6) 

(19.3) 

26.2 

13.4 

2006 

10.73 

67.21 

2007 

10.72 

68.13 

(J.()O (J.()O 

(J.()O (J.()O 

67.21 68.12 

721.00 730.23 

657.1 

17.8 

46.1 

16.6 

29.5 

29.5 

17.8 

(1.7) 

45.5 

(17.9) 

(1.6) 

(19.5) 

26.1 

12.2 

666.2 

18.0 

46.0 

16.6 

29.5 

29.5 

18.0 

(1.8) 

45.7 

(18.1) 

(1.6) 

(19.7) 

26.0 

11.1 

200& 

10.71 

69.06 

(!.OO 

0.00 

69.06 

739.65 

675.4 

18.3 

46.0 

16.6 

29.5 

29.5 

1803 

(1.8) 

45.9 

(18.4) 

(1.6) 

(20.0) 

25.9 

10.1 

2009 

10.70 

70.01 

(!.OO 

(WO 

7Ii.1I1 

749.27 

684.8 

18.5 

46.0 

16.6 

29.5 

29.5 

18.5 

(1.8) 

46.1 

(27.6) 

(1.7) 

(29.2) 

16.9 

7.0 

2010 

10.70 

70.99 

(WO 

(Uff) 

711.99 

759.32 

694.3 

18.8 

46.2 

16.6 

29.6 

29.6 

18.8 

(1.9) 

46.5 

(1&.9) 

(1.7) 

(20.6) 

25.8 

8.5 

2011 

10.69 

71.98 

(WO 

(WO 

71.98 

769.58 

704.1 

19.0 

46.4 

16.7 

29.7 

29.7 

19.0 

(1.9) 

46.8 

(19.2) 

(1.7) 

(20.9) 

25.9 

7.& 

2012 

10.69 

73.00 

O.()(} 

(WO 

72.99 

780.05 

714.1 

19.3 

46.6 

16.8 

29.9 

29.9 

19.3 

(2.0) 

47.2 

(19.5) 

(1.8) 

(21.3) 

25.9 

7.2 
Table C.10.B: Standard Case Industry Cash Flow--Manufacturer Submittal, 5% Shipment Scenario, Includes "Unaffected " Electronic Ballasts (2013 - 2015)

IfIv-segot Lamp

STANDARD CASE SCENARIO

Income Statement

2013 2014 2015

I

Price/Unit 10.68 10.68 10.67

Unit Sales (Total in millions) 74.03 75.09 76.17

Magnetic (1.00 0.(1(1 0.(1(1

Cathode Cutout (1.00 0.00 (1.00

Electronic 74.03 75.09 76.17

Revenues 790.74 801.65 812.79

Production Costs - SG&A (excl. Depreciation)

(Production Costs=Labor-Material-Overhead)

724.4 734.8 745.4

Depreciation 19.5 19.8 20.1

Product Conversion Expense (CC)

Product Conversion Expense (Flee)

One Time Charger

Restructuring Cost (Plant Closure)

Asset Write Off

Profit Before Tax 46.9 47.1 47.3

Taxes 16.9 16.9 17.0

Net Income Before Financing 30.0 30.1 30.3

Cash Flow Statement I

Net Income 30.0 30.1 30.3

Depreciation 19.5 19.8 20.1

Asset Write Off - - -

Change in Working Capital (2.0) (2.0) (2.1)

Cash Flows from Operations 47.5 47.9 48.3

Ordinary Capital Expenditures (19.8) (20.1) (21.6)

Conversion Capital Exp. (CC) - - . -

Conversion Capital Exp. (Elec) (1.8) ( I.8) (1.8)

Cash Used In investment (21.6) (21.9) (23.4)

Net Cash Flow 26.0 26.0 24.9

Terminal Value 228.1

Present Value Factor

Discounted Cash Flow 6.6 6.1 85.4

Industry Value (Net Present Value) $ 350.9

C-21

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

Table C.IO.B: Standard Case Industry Cash Flow--Manufacturer Submittal, 5% Shipment Scenario, Includes "Unaffected" Electronic Ballasts (2013 - 2015) 

11'1~~i¢~¢~i:.t#fu.j~i1~I$ij;;I~(~iik·~~lj~~lSi~M~"ii ••• , 

STANDARD CASE SCENARJO 

Income Statement 

PricelUnit 

Unit Sales (Total in millions) 

Magnetic 

Cathode Cutout 

Electronic 

Revenues 

Production Costs - SG&i\ (excl. Depreciation) 

(Production Costs=Labor-Material-Overhead) 

Depreciation 

Product Conversion Expense (CC) 

Product Conversion Expense (Elec) 

One Time Charges 

Restructuring Cost (Plant Closure) 

As.c.;et \Vrite Off 

Profit Before Tax 

Taxes 

Net Income Before Financing 

Cash Flow Statement 

Net Income 

Depreciation 

As..c.;et Write Off 

Change in Working Capital 

Cash Flows from Opemtions 

Ordinary Capital Expenditures 

Conversion Capital Exp. (CC) 

Com.'ersion Capital Exp. (Elec) 

Cash Used In r nvestment 

Net Cash Flow 

Terminal Value 

Present Value Factor 

Discounted Cash Flow 

rndustry Value (Net Present Value) $ 350.9 

2013 

10.68 

74.03 

11.1111 

11.1111 

74.113 

790.74 

724.4 

19.5 

46.9 

16.9 

30.0 

30.0 

19.5 

(2.0) 

47.5 

(19.8) 

(1.8) 

(21.6) 

26.0 

6.6 

2014 2015 

10.68 10.67 

75.09 76.17 

11.1111 11.1111 

lUff! 11.1111 

75.1!9 76.17 

801.65 812.79 

734.8 745.4 

19.8 20.1 

47.1 47.3 

16.9 17.0 

30.1 30.3 

30.1 30.3 

19.8 20.1 

(2.0) (2.1) 

47.9 48.3 

(20.1) (21.6) 

(1.8) (1.8) 

(21.9) (23.4) 

26.0 24.9 

228.1 

6.1 85.4 

C-21 

Table C.IO.B: Standard Case Industry Cash Flow--Manufacturer Submittal, 5% Shipment Scenario, Includes "Unaffected" Electronic Ballasts (2013 - 2015) 

11'1~~i¢~¢~i:.t#fu.j~i1~I$ij;;I~(~iik·~~lj~~lSi~M~"ii ••• , 

STANDARD CASE SCENARJO 

Income Statement 

PricelUnit 

Unit Sales (Total in millions) 

Magnetic 

Cathode Cutout 

Electronic 

Revenues 

Production Costs - SG&i\ (excl. Depreciation) 

(Production Costs=Labor-Material-Overhead) 

Depreciation 

Product Conversion Expense (CC) 

Product Conversion Expense (Elec) 

One Time Charges 

Restructuring Cost (Plant Closure) 

As.c.;et \Vrite Off 

Profit Before Tax 

Taxes 

Net Income Before Financing 

Cash Flow Statement 

Net Income 

Depreciation 

As..c.;et Write Off 

Change in Working Capital 

Cash Flows from Opemtions 

Ordinary Capital Expenditures 

Conversion Capital Exp. (CC) 

Com.'ersion Capital Exp. (Elec) 

Cash Used In r nvestment 

Net Cash Flow 

Terminal Value 

Present Value Factor 

Discounted Cash Flow 

rndustry Value (Net Present Value) $ 350.9 

2013 

10.68 

74.03 

11.1111 

11.1111 

74.113 

790.74 

724.4 

19.5 

46.9 

16.9 

30.0 

30.0 

19.5 

(2.0) 

47.5 

(19.8) 

(1.8) 

(21.6) 

26.0 

6.6 

2014 2015 

10.68 10.67 

75.09 76.17 

11.1111 11.1111 

lUff! 11.1111 

75.1!9 76.17 

801.65 812.79 

734.8 745.4 

19.8 20.1 

47.1 47.3 

16.9 17.0 

30.1 30.3 

30.1 30.3 

19.8 20.1 

(2.0) (2.1) 

47.9 48.3 

(20.1) (21.6) 

(1.8) (1.8) 

(21.9) (23.4) 

26.0 24.9 

228.1 

6.1 85.4 

C-21 
APPENDIX D. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FOR FLUORESCENT LAMP

BALLASTS

DA SUMMARY

The fluorescent ballast environmental analysis uses a variant of the Energy Information

Administration (EIA) National Energy Modeling System (NEMS), plus some minor additional

analysis. The environmental analysis is similar to the power sector analysis described in Chapter 7

of the TSD. t Outputs of the environmental analysis are in a format similar to the results of the ETA's

Annual Energy Outlook for 1999 (AE099).

D.2 PURPOSE OF THE ANALYSIS

The environmental analysis is intended to provide information about the effect that new

ballast standards would have on pollutant and other emissions, fulfilling the requirement that the

environmental effects of all new federal rules be properly quantified and considered. For each of the

standard levels, total emissions are calculated using NEMS-BRS.z The environmental analysis

considers only one pollutant, NOR, and one emission, carbon. Because emissions of SO2 are subject

to caps imposed by clean air legislation, physical emissions of this pollutant will be only minimally

affected by possible appliance standards. It appears from trial simulation that reporting of changes

in allowance prices and banking behavior for SO2 does not provide useful information because the

energy savings from ballast standards are so small that the effects can not be detected.

D.3 ASSUMPTIONS

The environmental analysis uses the same basic assumptions as the AE099 and changes

resulting from standards are modeled as deviations from current policy. For example, the emissions

characteristics of an electricity generating plant in the environmental analysis are the same as those

used in AE099, but the fuel mix used for generation and the construction program for new plants

may change slightly as a result of reduced generation requirements under the standard; this, in turn,

affects pollution results. As with the power sector analysis in Chapter 7, effects are assumed to be

linear in the range of the energy reductions from standards and results are extrapolated.

IFor further explanation about NEMS, please refer to the U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. National

Energy Model System: An Overview 1998. DOE/EIA-0581(98), February 1998.

2EIA approves use of the name NEMS to describe only an AEO version of the model without any modification to code or data.

Because our analysis entails some minor code modifications, and the model is run under various policy scenarios that deviate from

AEO assumptions, the Department refers to the model as used here as NEMS-BRS.

D-1

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

APPENDIX D. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FOR FLUORESCENT LAMP 

BALLASTS 

D.l SUMMARY 

The fluorescent ballast environmental analysis uses a variant of the Energy Information 

Administration (EIA) National Energy Modeling System (NEMS), plus some minor additional 

analysis. The environmental analysis is similar to the power sector analysis described in Chapter 7 

ofthe TSD.l Outputs of the environmental analysis are in a format similar to the results ofthe EIA's 

Annual Energy Outlook for 1999 (AE099). 

D.2 PURPOSE OF THE ANALYSIS 

The environmental analysis is intended to provide information about the effect that new 

ballast standards would have on pollutant and other emissions, fulfilling the requirement that the 

environmental effects of all new federal rules be properly quantified and considered. For each ofthe 

standard levels, total emissions are calculated using NEMS-BRS.2 The environmental analysis 

considers only one pollutant, NOx , and one emission, carbon. Because emissions of S02 are subject 

to caps imposed by clean air legislation, physical emissions of this pollutant will be only minimally 

affected by possible appliance standards. It appears from trial simulation that reporting of changes 

in allowance prices and banking behavior for S02 does not provide useful information because the 

energy savings from ballast standards are so small that the effects can not be detected. 

D.3 ASSUMPTIONS 

The environmental analysis uses the same basic assumptions as the AE099 and changes 

resulting from standards are modeled as deviations from current policy. For example, the emissions 

characteristics of an electricity generating plant in the environmental analysis are the same as those 

used in AE099, but the fuel mix used for generation and the construction program for new plants 

may change slightly as a result of reduced generation requirements under the standard; this, in tum, 

affects pollution results. As with the power sector analysis in Chapter 7, effects are assumed to be 

linear in the range of the energy reductions from standards and results are extrapolated. 

lFor further explanation about NEMS, please refer to the U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. National 

Energy Model System: An Overview 1998. DOE/EIA-0581 (98), February 1998. 

2EIA approves use of the name NEMS to describe only an AEO version of the model without any modification to code or data. 

Because our analysis entails some minor code modifications, and the model is run under various policy scenarios that deviate from 

AEO assumptions, the Department refers to the model as used here as NEMS-BRS. 

D-l 

APPENDIX D. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FOR FLUORESCENT LAMP 

BALLASTS 

D.l SUMMARY 

The fluorescent ballast environmental analysis uses a variant of the Energy Information 

Administration (EIA) National Energy Modeling System (NEMS), plus some minor additional 

analysis. The environmental analysis is similar to the power sector analysis described in Chapter 7 

ofthe TSD.l Outputs of the environmental analysis are in a format similar to the results ofthe EIA's 

Annual Energy Outlook for 1999 (AE099). 

D.2 PURPOSE OF THE ANALYSIS 

The environmental analysis is intended to provide information about the effect that new 

ballast standards would have on pollutant and other emissions, fulfilling the requirement that the 

environmental effects of all new federal rules be properly quantified and considered. For each ofthe 

standard levels, total emissions are calculated using NEMS-BRS.2 The environmental analysis 

considers only one pollutant, NOx , and one emission, carbon. Because emissions of S02 are subject 

to caps imposed by clean air legislation, physical emissions of this pollutant will be only minimally 

affected by possible appliance standards. It appears from trial simulation that reporting of changes 

in allowance prices and banking behavior for S02 does not provide useful information because the 

energy savings from ballast standards are so small that the effects can not be detected. 

D.3 ASSUMPTIONS 

The environmental analysis uses the same basic assumptions as the AE099 and changes 

resulting from standards are modeled as deviations from current policy. For example, the emissions 

characteristics of an electricity generating plant in the environmental analysis are the same as those 

used in AE099, but the fuel mix used for generation and the construction program for new plants 

may change slightly as a result of reduced generation requirements under the standard; this, in tum, 

affects pollution results. As with the power sector analysis in Chapter 7, effects are assumed to be 

linear in the range of the energy reductions from standards and results are extrapolated. 

lFor further explanation about NEMS, please refer to the U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. National 

Energy Model System: An Overview 1998. DOE/EIA-0581 (98), February 1998. 

2EIA approves use of the name NEMS to describe only an AEO version of the model without any modification to code or data. 

Because our analysis entails some minor code modifications, and the model is run under various policy scenarios that deviate from 

AEO assumptions, the Department refers to the model as used here as NEMS-BRS. 

D-l 
D.4 METHODS

Carbon emissions are tracked in NEMS-BRS by a detailed carbon module that provides good

results because it covers all sectors of the economy and their interactions . Past experience with

carbon results from NEMS suggests it produces emissions estimates that are somewhat lower than

emissions based on simple average factors for two reasons. First, the marginal fuel displaced by

reduced generation tends to be natural gas, the combustion of which emits less carbon than coal

combustion. Secondly, lowered electricity demand tends to slow down construction of power

generation capacity, thereby slowing the improvement in energy conversion efficiency and emissions

rates that typically result from deployment of new generating technologies. NOX results are based on

forecasts of compliance with existing legislation and have proven stable and reasonable.

The two airborne pollutant emissions that have been reported in past analyses, NOx and SO2,

are reported by NEMS-BRS. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 set an SO2 emissions cap on

all power generation. The attainment of this target is flexible among generators, however, and is

enforced by applying market forces through the use of emissions allowances and tradable permits.

SO2 trading makes it likely that physical emissions effects will be virtually zero because emissions

will always be at or near the ceiling. This fact has caused considerable confusion in the past. There

is virtually no real possible SO2 environmental benefit from conservation as long as there is

enforcement through emissions ceilings. A tiny economic benefit can be inferred only if coal

generation falls and the reduced demand for SO7 emission allowances lowers the allowance price.

Because the effects considered here are too small to deliver reasonable estimates, we do not consider

this possibility.

Because the size of the energy reductions from standards are too small to produce stable

results in NEMS-BRS, it has been necessary to estimate results in the range of the standard levels

effects using extrapolation. Reductions to the Commercial Demand Module lighting load were

implemented at levels of approximate 2.96, 5.92, 11.83, and 17.75 times the level of the most

extreme standard, 2b. They were chosen to be roughly equivalent to 50, 100, 200, and 300 TWh,

respectively, in the peak year of the standard. This process was carried out separately for the a and

b cases; the a cases are modeled on standard 2a.

Figure D-1 shows an example of the extrapolation for NOx emissions rates. In this case,

marginal rates for NOh emissions are shown for each year. Note that the marginal emissions rates

incorporate both effects of the standards: the emissions saved by the reduction in total generation and

the slight change in the emissions characteristics of the whole power sector that result from the slight

change in dispatch and capacity expansion plan. The net effect on the entire system is very small and,

typically, the overall effect on emissions can be fully attributed to the decrease in generation. In

Figure D-1, the effect of statistical noise is clear. With small decreases in demand, the emissions rate

is quite variable. The dashed plots (years 2003 to 2010) show the earlier years of the imposed

standard, in which the demand reductions are smallest. In most cases, these curves are so close to

flat that regression of the points out of the noisy range gives a curve very close to the simple average

D-2

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

D.4 METHODS 

Carbon emissions are tracked in NEMS-BRS by a detailed carbon module that provides good 

results because it covers all sectors of the economy and their interactions. Past experience with 

carbon results from NEMS suggests it produces emissions estimates that are somewhat lower than 

emissions based on simple average factors for two reasons. First, the marginal fuel displaced by 

reduced generation tends to be natural gas, the combustion of which emits less carbon than coal 

combustion. Secondly, lowered electricity demand tends to slow down construction of power 

generation capacity, thereby slowing the improvement in energy conversion efficiency and emissions 

rates that typically result from deployment of new generating technologies. NOx results are based on 

forecasts of compliance with existing legislation and have proven stable and reasonable. 

The two airborne pollutant emissions that have been reported in past analyses, NOx and S02' 

are reported by NEMS-BRS. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 set an S02 emissions cap on 

all power generation. The attainment of this target is flexible among generators, however, and is 

enforced by applying market forces through the use of emissions allowances and tradable permits. 

S02 trading makes it likely that physical emissions effects will be virtually zero because emissions 

will always be at or near the ceiling. This fact has caused considerable confusion in the past. There 

is virtually no. real possible S02 environmental benefit from conservation as long as there is 

enforcement through emissions ceilings. A tiny economic benefit can be inferred only if coal 

generation falls and the reduced demand for S02 emission allowances lowers the allowance price. 

Because the effects cons idered here are too small to deliver reasonable estimates, we do not consider 

this possibility. 

Because the size of the energy reductions from standards are too small to produce stable 

results in NEMS-BRS, it has been necessary to estimate results in the range of the standard levels 

effects using extrapolation. Reductions to the Commercial Demand Module lighting load were 

implemented at hwels of approximate 2.96, 5.92, 11.83, and 17.75 times the level of the most 

extreme standard, 2b. They were chosen to be roughly equivalent to 50, 100, 200, and 300 TWh, 

respectively, in the peak year of the standard. This process was carried out separately for the a and 

b cases; the a cases are modeled on standard 2a . 

Figure D-1 shows an example of the extrapolation for NOx emissions rates. ill this case, 

marginal rates for NOx emissions are shown for each year. Note that the marginal emissions rates 

incorporate both effects ofthe standards: the emissions saved by the reduction in total generation and 

the slight change in the emissions characteristics of the whole power sector that result from the slight 

change in dispatch and capacity expansion plan. The net effect on the entire system is very small and, 

typically, the overall effect on emissions can be fully attributed to the decrease in generation. ill 

Figure D-1, the effect of statistical noise is clear. With small decreases in demand, the emissions rate 

is quite variable. The dashed plots (years 2003 to 2010) show the earlier years of the imposed 

standard, in which the demand reductions are smallest. In most cases, these curves are so close to 

flat that regression of the points out of the noisy range gives a curve very close to the simple average 

D-2 

D.4 METHODS 

Carbon emissions are tracked in NEMS-BRS by a detailed carbon module that provides good 

results because it covers all sectors of the economy and their interactions. Past experience with 

carbon results from NEMS suggests it produces emissions estimates that are somewhat lower than 

emissions based on simple average factors for two reasons. First, the marginal fuel displaced by 

reduced generation tends to be natural gas, the combustion of which emits less carbon than coal 

combustion. Secondly, lowered electricity demand tends to slow down construction of power 

generation capacity, thereby slowing the improvement in energy conversion efficiency and emissions 

rates that typically result from deployment of new generating technologies. NOx results are based on 

forecasts of compliance with existing legislation and have proven stable and reasonable. 

The two airborne pollutant emissions that have been reported in past analyses, NOx and S02' 

are reported by NEMS-BRS. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 set an S02 emissions cap on 

all power generation. The attainment of this target is flexible among generators, however, and is 

enforced by applying market forces through the use of emissions allowances and tradable permits. 

S02 trading makes it likely that physical emissions effects will be virtually zero because emissions 

will always be at or near the ceiling. This fact has caused considerable confusion in the past. There 

is virtually no. real possible S02 environmental benefit from conservation as long as there is 

enforcement through emissions ceilings. A tiny economic benefit can be inferred only if coal 

generation falls and the reduced demand for S02 emission allowances lowers the allowance price. 

Because the effects cons idered here are too small to deliver reasonable estimates, we do not consider 

this possibility. 

Because the size of the energy reductions from standards are too small to produce stable 

results in NEMS-BRS, it has been necessary to estimate results in the range of the standard levels 

effects using extrapolation. Reductions to the Commercial Demand Module lighting load were 

implemented at hwels of approximate 2.96, 5.92, 11.83, and 17.75 times the level of the most 

extreme standard, 2b. They were chosen to be roughly equivalent to 50, 100, 200, and 300 TWh, 

respectively, in the peak year of the standard. This process was carried out separately for the a and 

b cases; the a cases are modeled on standard 2a . 

Figure D-1 shows an example of the extrapolation for NOx emissions rates. ill this case, 

marginal rates for NOx emissions are shown for each year. Note that the marginal emissions rates 

incorporate both effects ofthe standards: the emissions saved by the reduction in total generation and 

the slight change in the emissions characteristics of the whole power sector that result from the slight 

change in dispatch and capacity expansion plan. The net effect on the entire system is very small and, 

typically, the overall effect on emissions can be fully attributed to the decrease in generation. ill 

Figure D-1, the effect of statistical noise is clear. With small decreases in demand, the emissions rate 

is quite variable. The dashed plots (years 2003 to 2010) show the earlier years of the imposed 

standard, in which the demand reductions are smallest. In most cases, these curves are so close to 

flat that regression of the points out of the noisy range gives a curve very close to the simple average 

D-2 
of values. Therefore , the constant emission rates when the decrease in demand is larger are assumed

to hold in the range of the small reductions for the various standards, and the implied marginal

emission rates are used to estimate emissions reductions . The marginal emission rates are derived

by averaging the marginal rates of the three largest reductions ( 100, 200 , and 300 TWh).

D.5 RESULTS

As described above, the results for the environmental analysis are comparable to a complete

NEMS-BRS run. Although energy savings from the proposed appliance standards continue through

2030, the effects of these savings are reported through 2020 because this is the time horizon of

NEMS-BRS. Total carbon and NO,, emissions for each of the 12 possible standards are reported in

Tables D-1 and D-2. The annual carbon emission reductions range up to 2.3 Mt in 2020 and the NO,,

emissions reductions up to 5.7 kt in 2015.3.4

3million metric tons (Mt)

4thousand metric tons (kt)

D-3

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

of values. Therefore, the constant emission rates when the decrease in demand is larger are assumed 

to hold in the range of the small reductions for the various standards, and the implied marginal 

emission rates are used to estimate emissions reductions. The marginal emission rates are derived 

by averaging the marginal rates of the three largest reductions (100, 200, and 300 TWh). 

D.S RESULTS 

As described above, the results for the environmental analysis are comparable to a complete 

NEMS-BRS run. Although energy savings from the proposed appliance standards continue through 

2030, the effects of these savings are repOlied through 2020 because this is the time horizon of 

NEMS-BRS. Total carbon and NOx emissions for each ofthe 12 possible standards are reported in 

Tables D-l and D-2. The annual carbon emission reductions range up to 2.3 Mt in 2020 and the NOx 

emissions reductions up to 5.7 kt in 2015.3.4 

3million metric tons (Mt) 

4thousand metric tons (kt) 

D-3 

of values. Therefore, the constant emission rates when the decrease in demand is larger are assumed 

to hold in the range of the small reductions for the various standards, and the implied marginal 

emission rates are used to estimate emissions reductions. The marginal emission rates are derived 

by averaging the marginal rates of the three largest reductions (100, 200, and 300 TWh). 

D.S RESULTS 

As described above, the results for the environmental analysis are comparable to a complete 

NEMS-BRS run. Although energy savings from the proposed appliance standards continue through 

2030, the effects of these savings are repOlied through 2020 because this is the time horizon of 

NEMS-BRS. Total carbon and NOx emissions for each ofthe 12 possible standards are reported in 

Tables D-l and D-2. The annual carbon emission reductions range up to 2.3 Mt in 2020 and the NOx 

emissions reductions up to 5.7 kt in 2015.3.4 

3million metric tons (Mt) 

4thousand metric tons (kt) 

D-3 
+ q ---•----------- q --------------

-------- ----------

X,

Figure D-1. Standard Level 2a Marginal NOx Emissions

-- * - "2003

-"D-"2004

* - '2005

Xe • • 2006

- -2007

-O--2008

' -f- "2009

."°"2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

X2015

2016

o 2017

i 2018

2019

2020

D-4

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

;< 

0 

Z 

..c 

~ ..: 

0iJ 

3.5 '----------'--'--'~--~----,~-----,~-,~------~-----------,--------,-----~~~-~'-'----~~~-~~--~'~~-~--'~-------~I 

2.5 ,-______ --, 

D • .. .' ,,-

.. ~ ...... 

...... "" ..... 

" , ,' ........ 1.5+-----~,~,~,------------------------------------------------------------------~ 

.0 

~ 

~ 

0.5 ...... N .... 

-0.5 7~ {::' 

-1.5 +-1~~,~,~----------------------------------------------------------------------------~ , ' 

x: 

.2.5L-+---------4-------------~-------------------------~1------------------------~ 

o Std. 2a 50 1 00 Peak Decrement Level (TWh) 200 300 

Figure D-l. Standard Level2a Marginal NOx Emissions 

D-4 

-"-(>- - "2003 

-" 0 - "2004 

- " -tr " "2005 

-" * -"2006 

-" * ""2007 

-" 0-" "2008 

.. +. '2009 

•.• _. "2010 

--2011 

~2012 

-l3-2013 

----e.---- 20 14 

~2015 

~2016 

-9-2017 

-1-2018 . 

--2019 

-2020 

;< 

0 

Z 

..c 

~ ..: 

0iJ 

3.5 '----------'--'--'~--~----,~-----,~-,~------~-----------,--------,-----~~~-~'-'----~~~-~~--~'~~-~--'~-------~I 

2.5 ,-______ --, 

D • .. .' ,,-

.. ~ ...... 

...... "" ..... 

" , ,' ........ 1.5+-----~,~,~,------------------------------------------------------------------~ 

.0 

~ 

~ 

0.5 ...... N .... 

-0.5 7~ {::' 

-1.5 +-1~~,~,~----------------------------------------------------------------------------~ , ' 

x: 

.2.5L-+---------4-------------~-------------------------~1------------------------~ 

o Std. 2a 50 1 00 Peak Decrement Level (TWh) 200 300 

Figure D-l. Standard Level2a Marginal NOx Emissions 

D-4 

-"-(>- - "2003 

-" 0 - "2004 

- " -tr " "2005 

-" * -"2006 

-" * ""2007 

-" 0-" "2008 

.. +. '2009 

•.• _. "2010 

--2011 

~2012 

-l3-2013 

----e.---- 20 14 

~2015 

~2016 

-9-2017 

-1-2018 . 

--2019 

-2020 
Table D-1. Power Sector Emissions: Standards Level A Cases

NEMS-NAECA Results Difference from AE099 Reference

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2000 2005 2010 2015 20201

AE099 Reference

Carbon (Mt/a)1'3 588.9 612.9 653.2 704.6 744.6!

NOx(kt/a)2'3 4,191.2 3,547.1 3,665.0 3,819.2 3,882.8!

Standards Level la

Carbon (Mt/a) 588.9 612.5 652.5 703.8 743.9. Carbon (Mt/a) 0.0 -0.4 -0.7 -0.8 -0.7'

NOx (kt/a) 4,191.2 3,544.7 3,662.5 3,816.6 3,881.8! NOx (kt/a) 0.0 -2.4 -2.5 -2.7 -0.9

Standards Level 2a

Carbon (Mt/a) 588.9 612.2 652.1 703.2 743.4; Carbon (Mt/a) 0.0 -0.7 -1.1 -1.4 -1.2

NOx (kt/a) 4,191.2 3,543.2 3,660.9 3,814.9 3,881.2 NOx (kt/a) 0.0 -3.9 -4.1 -4.4 ! -1.5!

Standards Level 3a

Carbon (Mt/a) 588.9 612.3 652.3 703.4 743.6! Carbon (Mt/a) 0.0 -0.6 -0.9 -1.2 -1.0

NOx (kt/a) 4,191.2 3,543.8 3,661.6 3,815.5 3,881.5; NOx (kt/a) 0.0 -3.3 -3.5 -3.7 -1.3

!Standards Level 4a

,Carbon (Mtla) 588.9 612.3 652.2 703.3 743.5; Carbon (Mt/a) 0.0 -0.6 -1.0 -1.3 -1.1

!NOx (kt/a) 4,191.2 3,543.5 3,661.2 3,815.1 3,881.3NOx (kt/a) 0.0 -3.6 -3.8 -4.1 -1.4%

; Standards Level 5a

!Carbon (Mt/a) 588.9 612.7 652.9 704.2 744.3; Carbon (Mt/a) 0.0 -0.2 -0.3 -0.4 -0.3

!NOx (kt/a) 4,191.2 3,546.0 3,663.8 3,818.0 3,882.3. NOx (kt/a) 0.0 -1.1 -1.2 -1.3 -0.4

!Standards Level 6a

!Carbon (Mt/a) 588.9 612.4 652.5 703.7 743.8! Carbon (Mt/a) 0.0 -0.5 -0.7 -0.9 -0.8!

!NOx (kt/a) 4,191.2 3,544.5 3,662.3 3,816.3 3,881.7! NOx (kt/a) 0.0 -2.6 -2.8 -3.0 -1.011

Comparable to Table A17 of AE099: Electric Generators

2Comparable to Table AS of AE099: Emissions

3A11 results in metric tons (t), equivalent to 1.1 short tons

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

Table D-1. Power Sector Emissions: Standards Level A Cases 

rNEMS~NAECA'R;;~i~;"""""""""'"''''''''''''''''''''"",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,·,·,·,·,,·,·,·,/.o'·"'''·'·r'·'··'·o'i;;;;~;~~;'fr~:·'AE09·9·"R;f;;;~~;'~·"·"'·'·"·~·~'·"~'/.o'·"·"""1 

.. Yo .:. t"".,UM""'''"'''''''"''"'''''w'·r'·'·'·'2'ilo'o'·'·''·''''''2'O·os····,,···,,"z'o'lo'·,""·' .. 2il'is····'·"·· .. iii2'ill"· .... ····,·· ..... , .......... ''' .. ,o< ...... 'm .... 'w,w·{'"'·''''2'ilili('··''·,·''20'05···,·",,0<2'0'10''····· .... ·''2'0'1'5··''',·,·,·,·'2'010'1 

jAE099 Reference ~ 1 j I ~ I 3 ;;: ;: ~ ::: 

;carbon (M~a) , ~ 588.9 612.9 653.2 704.6 744.61 j ! 

lNOx (kt/af,3 ~ 4,191.2 3,547.1 3,665.0 3,819.2 3,882.81 1 ! 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ lStandards Levella ~ l! j 

\carbon (Mt/a) ~ 588.9 612.5 652.5 703.8 743.9) Carbon (MIla) ! 0.0 -0.4 -0.7 -0.8 -0.7! 

lNOx (kt/a) ~ 4,191.2 3,544.7 3,662.5 3,816.6 3,881.81 NOx (kl/a) I 0.0 -2.4 -2.5 -2.7 -0.9) 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~: lStandards Level 2a I 1~ I j 

jCarbon (Mt/a) ~ 588.9 612.2 652.1 703.2 743.41 Carbon (Mt/a) j 0.0 -0.7 -1.1 -1.4 -1.2! 

jNOx (kt/a) j 4,191.2 3,543.2 3,660.9 3,814.9 3,881.21 NOx (kt/a) j 0.0 -3.9 -4.1 -4.4 -1.51 

f ~ ~ ~ ~ (Standards Level3a ~ I! ! 

jCarbon (Mt/a) j 588.9 612.3 652.3 703.4 743.61 Carbon (MIla) j 0.0 -0.6 -0.9 -1.2 -1.0l 

jNOx (kl/a) j 4,191.2 3,543.8 3,661.6 3,815.5 3,881.5\ NOx (kl/a) j 0.0 -3.3 -3.5 -3.7 -1.31 

~ ~ ~~ ~ i ~Standards Level4a ~ ~j ~ ~ 

lCarbon (Mt/a) ~ 588.9 612.3 652.2 703.3 743.51 Carbon (Mt/a) j 0.0 -0.6 -1.0 -1.3 -1.11 

lNOx(klia) ~ 4,191.2 3,543.5 3,661.2 3,815.1 3,881.31 NOx (kl/a) I 0.0 -3.6 -3.8 -4.1 -1.41 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ jStandards 

jCarbon (MIla) 

Level5a ~ 

~ 588.9 612.7 652.9 704.2 744.3\ 

Iii 

Carbon (Mt/a) j 0.0 -0.2 -0.3 -0.4 -0.3; 

jNOx(klia) j 4,191.2 3,546.0 3,663.8 3,818.0 3,882.31 NOx (kl/a) j 0.0 -1.1 -1.2 -1.3 -O.4j 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~Standards ~::: Level6a ~ ~;;: 

j * :~ ~ 

lCarbon (Mt/a) I 588.9 612.4 652.5 703.7 743.8:~ Carbon (Mt/a) ! 0.0 -0.5 -0.7 -0.9 -0.8) 

lNOx (kt/a) ~ 4,191.2 3,544.5 3,662.3 3,816.3 3,881.7:: NOx (kt/a) i 0.0 -2.6 -2.8 -3.0 -1.01 

t.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: ....... :.:.:.:.:.y .. :.: ..... :.:.:.:.: .... :.: ... :.:J .. :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: .... ..; ..... : ...:.:.: ... :.-.. .:.:.:.: ..... : ..... :.:.:.:.-.. : ... :.:.: ....... : ... :.:0: ••••• :.:.: .... :.:.:.:.:.:.: ... :.: ••• : ••• :.:.: ••• :.J.:.:.:.: ..... :.:.:.:.: ..... :.:.:.: ... x.x.:.:.:.: ...... .::.:.:., .... ,.:.: ..... :.:.10:6: .... .:.:.:.: •. .:.: •• .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: .... :.:.:.' .. 6'.:.:.·.y,: ....... .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: .... :.x.·.:.:.:.:.:.:.·.:.:.:.:.:.:.,.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:j 

iComparable to Table A17 of AE099: Electric Generators 

2Comparable to Table A8 of AE099: Emissions 

3 All results in metric tons (t), equivalent to 1.1 short tons 

D-5 

Table D-1. Power Sector Emissions: Standards Level A Cases 

rNEMS~NAECA'R;;~i~;"""""""""'"''''''''''''''''''''"",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,·,·,·,·,,·,·,·,/.o'·"'''·'·r'·'··'·o'i;;;;~;~~;'fr~:·'AE09·9·"R;f;;;~~;'~·"·"'·'·"·~·~'·"~'/.o'·"·"""1 

.. Yo .:. t"".,UM""'''"'''''''"''"'''''w'·r'·'·'·'2'ilo'o'·'·''·''''''2'O·os····,,···,,"z'o'lo'·,""·' .. 2il'is····'·"·· .. iii2'ill"· .... ····,·· ..... , .......... ''' .. ,o< ...... 'm .... 'w,w·{'"'·''''2'ilili('··''·,·''20'05···,·",,0<2'0'10''····· .... ·''2'0'1'5··''',·,·,·,·'2'010'1 

jAE099 Reference ~ 1 j I ~ I 3 ;;: ;: ~ ::: 

;carbon (M~a) , ~ 588.9 612.9 653.2 704.6 744.61 j ! 

lNOx (kt/af,3 ~ 4,191.2 3,547.1 3,665.0 3,819.2 3,882.81 1 ! 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ lStandards Levella ~ l! j 

\carbon (Mt/a) ~ 588.9 612.5 652.5 703.8 743.9) Carbon (MIla) ! 0.0 -0.4 -0.7 -0.8 -0.7! 

lNOx (kt/a) ~ 4,191.2 3,544.7 3,662.5 3,816.6 3,881.81 NOx (kl/a) I 0.0 -2.4 -2.5 -2.7 -0.9) 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~: lStandards Level 2a I 1~ I j 

jCarbon (Mt/a) ~ 588.9 612.2 652.1 703.2 743.41 Carbon (Mt/a) j 0.0 -0.7 -1.1 -1.4 -1.2! 

jNOx (kt/a) j 4,191.2 3,543.2 3,660.9 3,814.9 3,881.21 NOx (kt/a) j 0.0 -3.9 -4.1 -4.4 -1.51 

f ~ ~ ~ ~ (Standards Level3a ~ I! ! 

jCarbon (Mt/a) j 588.9 612.3 652.3 703.4 743.61 Carbon (MIla) j 0.0 -0.6 -0.9 -1.2 -1.0l 

jNOx (kl/a) j 4,191.2 3,543.8 3,661.6 3,815.5 3,881.5\ NOx (kl/a) j 0.0 -3.3 -3.5 -3.7 -1.31 

~ ~ ~~ ~ i ~Standards Level4a ~ ~j ~ ~ 

lCarbon (Mt/a) ~ 588.9 612.3 652.2 703.3 743.51 Carbon (Mt/a) j 0.0 -0.6 -1.0 -1.3 -1.11 

lNOx(klia) ~ 4,191.2 3,543.5 3,661.2 3,815.1 3,881.31 NOx (kl/a) I 0.0 -3.6 -3.8 -4.1 -1.41 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ jStandards 

jCarbon (MIla) 

Level5a ~ 

~ 588.9 612.7 652.9 704.2 744.3\ 

Iii 

Carbon (Mt/a) j 0.0 -0.2 -0.3 -0.4 -0.3; 

jNOx(klia) j 4,191.2 3,546.0 3,663.8 3,818.0 3,882.31 NOx (kl/a) j 0.0 -1.1 -1.2 -1.3 -O.4j 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~Standards ~::: Level6a ~ ~;;: 

j * :~ ~ 

lCarbon (Mt/a) I 588.9 612.4 652.5 703.7 743.8:~ Carbon (Mt/a) ! 0.0 -0.5 -0.7 -0.9 -0.8) 

lNOx (kt/a) ~ 4,191.2 3,544.5 3,662.3 3,816.3 3,881.7:: NOx (kt/a) i 0.0 -2.6 -2.8 -3.0 -1.01 

t.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: ....... :.:.:.:.:.y .. :.: ..... :.:.:.:.: .... :.: ... :.:J .. :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: .... ..; ..... : ...:.:.: ... :.-.. .:.:.:.: ..... : ..... :.:.:.:.-.. : ... :.:.: ....... : ... :.:0: ••••• :.:.: .... :.:.:.:.:.:.: ... :.: ••• : ••• :.:.: ••• :.J.:.:.:.: ..... :.:.:.:.: ..... :.:.:.: ... x.x.:.:.:.: ...... .::.:.:., .... ,.:.: ..... :.:.10:6: .... .:.:.:.: •. .:.: •• .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: .... :.:.:.' .. 6'.:.:.·.y,: ....... .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: .... :.x.·.:.:.:.:.:.:.·.:.:.:.:.:.:.,.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:j 

iComparable to Table A17 of AE099: Electric Generators 

2Comparable to Table A8 of AE099: Emissions 

3 All results in metric tons (t), equivalent to 1.1 short tons 

D-5 
Table D-2. Power Sector Emissions: Standards Level B Cases

HEMS-NAECA Results Difference from AE099 Reference

2000 2005 2010 2015 20201 f 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020`:,1

.AEO99 Reference

Carbon (Mt/a) 588.9 612.9 653.2 704.6 744.61 f

NOx(kt/a) 4,191.2 3,547.1 3,665.0 3,819.2 3,882.81

'St d d L I 1h an ar s eve

`Carbon (Mt/a)

I

588.9 12.4 52.4 03.3 43.4 arbon (Mt/a) .0 0.5 0.8 1.3 1.41

NOx (kt/a) ? 4 191.2 3,544.2 3,662.1 3,815.2 3,880.5;: NOx (kt/a) 0.0 -2.9 -2.9 -4.1 -2.21

.Standards Level 2b

Carbon (Mt/a)

,

c;

s 588.9 12.1 51.8 02.5 42.31 arbon (Mt/a)

f

.0 0.8 1.4 2.1 2.3

NOx (kt/a) 4,191.2 3,542.4 3,660.3 3,812.6 3,879.1; NOx (kt/a) 1

0.0 -4.7 -4.7 -6.6 -3.61

;Standards Level 3b

;Carbon (Mt/a)

f

f 588.9 612.2 652.0 702.7 742.61 Carbon (Mt/a) 0.0 -0.7 -1.2 -1.9 -2.01

NOx (kt/a) 4,191.2 3,542.9 3,660.8 3,813.3 3,879.5 NOx (kt/a) ? 0.0 -4.2 -4.2 -5.9 -3.21

's

;Standards Level 4b

!Carbon (Mt/a)

f

588.9 12.1 51.9 02.5

r,.

r

742.41 arbon (Mt/a) .0 0.8 1.3 2.1 2.2

1NOx (kt/a) 4,191.2 3,542.6 3,660.4 3,812.8 3,879.2; NOx (kt/a) 0.0 -4.5 -4.6 -6.4 -3.51

r y

Standards Level Sb

;Carbon (Mt/a) 588.9 12.7 52.8 04.0

r

'v.

743.91 arbon (Mt/a)

i

.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.7

#NOx (kt/a) 4,191.2 3,545.7 3,663.6 3,817.3 3,881.71 NOx (kt/a) 0.0 -1.4 -1.4 -1.9 -1.11

f

f

3

;Standards Level 6b

:Carbon (Mt/a) 588.9 612.4 652.3 703.2 743.1 1, Carbon (Mt/a) f 0.0 -0.5 -0.9 -1.4 -1.51

1NOx (kt/a) 4,191.2 3,543.9 3,661.8 3,814.8 _ 3,880.311 NOx (kt/a) 0.0 -3.2 -3.2 -4.5 -2.41

Cumulative emissions savings over the 18-year period modeled are listed below:

Table D-3. Cumulative Emissions Reductions (2003-2020

Emission

Range for Electronic Standards

(standards 1 - 4)

Range for Cathode Cutout Standards

(standards 5 and 6)

Carbon (Mt) 12.1 -29.7 5.8 - 20.1

NOx (kt) 41.0-96.7 19.7-65.4

In addition, equivalent results for the high and low economic growth cases for standards level

2b are reported in Table D-4. The outcome of the analysis for each case is shown as both emissions

and deviations from the AE099 result.

D-6

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

Table D-2. Power Sector Emissions: Standards Level B Cases .,. .............................. ".· ....... ·.v ... v·".u ............... • ... v .......................................................... ,/'0" ............• ••••• ..... • ..... • ......... v ..... ••• ... ••• ..... ••• ..... ••••••• ... •••.• .......................... .!' .............................................. ., .........................................••••••••• .t' ........................................................................................................ ... 

iNEMS-NAECA Results ': Difference from AE099 Reference : ~ ............................................ " •.•••.••.•. ·.·.·.·.·.·.';I'.·.·".·.·.·.· ... ·.·.·.·.·.v.·".·.· ... ·.·.·.· ...........................................................................••...•.•...•............... t;: ••••••••........................................................................... ~ ....................................................................................................................................................... ~ i ~ 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020~ ~ 2000 2005 2010 2015 20201 :: ~ S ~ ~ 

~AE099 Reference ~ ,~~ j ~ ~ , . ~: ~ :: jCarbon (MtJa) ~ 588.9 612.9 653.2 704.6 744.6)~ ~ I ~ ~ .. S ~ ? 

jNOx(ktJa) .~ 4,191.2 3,547.1 3,665.0 3,819.2 3,882.8~ ~ l. 

~ ~ J ~ ~ jStandards Level1b f: ~,~ ~ 

karbon (Mt/a) ~ 588.9 612.4 652.4 703.3 743.2j Carbon (Mt/a) § 0.0 -0.5 -0.8 -1.3 -1.4l 

JNOx (kt/a) ~ 4,191.2 3,544.2 3,662.1 3,815.2 3,880.51 NOx (kt/a) ~ 0.0 -2.9 -2.9 -4.1 -2.21 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ iStandards Level2b ~ ~i ~ 1 

karbon (Mt/a) ~ 588.9 612.1 651.8 702.5 742.3~ Carbon (Mt/a) ! 0.0 -0.8 -1.4 -2.1 -2.31 

iNOx (kt/a) § 4,191.2 3,542.4 3,660.3 3,812.6 3,879.1~ NOx (kt/a) ~ 0.0 -4.7 -4.7 -6.6 -3.6! 

~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :: jStandards Level3b ;~ {~ l 

karbon (Mt/a) f: 588.9 612.2 652.0 702.7 742.6t: Carbon (Mt/a) ~ 0.0 -0.7 -1.2 -1.9 -2.0! 

jNOx (ktJa) ~ 4,191.2 3,542.9 3,660.8 3,813.3 3,879.5~ NOx (kt/a) ~ 0.0 -4.2 -4.2 -5.9 -3.2l 

~ ~ ~ ~ 1 

iStandards Level4b ~ ~ t: . 1 ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ 

jCarbon (MtJa) f: 588.9 612.1 651.9 702.5 742.4~ Carbon (Mt/a) ~ 0.0 -0.8 -1.3 -2.1 -2.2j 

iNOx (kt/a) l 4,191.2 3,542.6 3,660.4 3,812.8 3,879.2~ NOx (kt/a) ~ 0.0 -4.5 -4.6 -6.4 -3.5; 

~ ~ 1 ~ ~ iStandards 

~:~ 

Level5b ~ ~~ ~ ~ ::::-: ~ jCarbon (Mt/a) ~ 588.9 612.7 652.8 704.0 743.9?: Carbon (Mt/a) ~ 0.0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 -0.7~ 

!NOx (kt/a) ~ 4,191.2 3,545.7 3,663.6 3,817.3 3,881.7~ NOx (kt/a) ~ 0.0 -1.4 -1.4 -1.9 -1.1j 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Standards Level 6b *- ~} ~ 

lCarbon(Mt/a) 

I~. 

~ 588.9 612.4 652.3 703.2 743.1~ Carbon (Mt/a) ~ 0.0 -0.5 -0.9 -1.4 -1.51 ,: ~ .. 

iNOx (kt/a) ~ 4,191.2 3,543.9 3,661.8 3,814.8. 3,880.3§ NOx (kt/a) [0.0 -3.2 -3.2 -4.5 -2.4l 

t .................................................................... l ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 ................................................................................. 1 ........................ ..,. .............................................................................................................................. ~ 

Cumulative emissions savings over the I8-year period modeled are listed below: 

Table D-3. Cumulative Emissions Reductions (2003-2020) 

Range for Electronic Standards Range for Cathode Cutout Standards 

Emission (standards 1 - 4) (standards 5 and 6) 

Carbon (Mt) 12.1 - 29.7 5.8 - 20.1 

NOx (kt) 41.0 - 96.7 19.7 - 65.4 

In addition, equivalent results for the high and low economic growth cases for standards level 

2b are reported ih Table D-4. The outcome of the analysis for each case is shown as both emissions 

and deviations from the AE099 result. 

D-6 

Table D-2. Power Sector Emissions: Standards Level B Cases .,. .............................. ".· ....... ·.v ... v·".u ............... • ... v .......................................................... ,/'0" ............• ••••• ..... • ..... • ......... v ..... ••• ... ••• ..... ••• ..... ••••••• ... •••.• .......................... .!' .............................................. ., .........................................••••••••• .t' ........................................................................................................ ... 

iNEMS-NAECA Results ': Difference from AE099 Reference .. ~ ............................................ " •.•••.••.•. ·.·.·.·.·.·.';I'.·.·".·.·.·.· ... ·.·.·.·.·.v.·".·.· ... ·.·.·.· ...........................................................................••...•.•...•............... t;: ••••••••........................................................................... ~ ....................................................................................................................................... i ~ 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020~ ~ 2000 2005 2010 2015 202 :: ~ S ~ 

~AE099 Reference ~ ,~~ ~ 

karbon (MtJa) ~ 588.9 612.9 653.2 704.6 744.61: ~ ~ I ~ ::::-: ~ 

).:-

iNOx(ktJa) ~ 4,191.2 3,547.1 3,665.0 3,819.2 3,882.8~ $,:~ 1 01 ~ 

~ ~ J ~ ~ jStandards Level1b f: ~,~ 1 

karbon (MtJa) ~ 588.9 612.4 652.4 703.3 743.21 Carbon (MtJa) ~ 0.0 -0.5 -0.8 -1.3 -1.41 

1NOx (kt/a) ~ 4,191.2 3,544.2 3,662.1 3,815.2 3,880.51 NOx (kt/a) ~ 0.0 -2.9 -2.9 -4.1 -2.2j 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ jStandards Level2b ;, ,j ~ 1 

karbon (Mt/a) ~ 588.9 612.1 651.8 702.5 742.3~ Carbon (Mt/a) ! 0.0 -0.8 -1.4 -2.1 -2.31 

iNOx (kt/a) § 4,191.2 3,542.4 3,660.3 3,812.6 3,879.1~ NOx (kt/a) ~ 0.0 -4.7 -4.7 -6.6 -3.61 

~ ~ ?: ~ ~ jStandards Level3b i: ~ ~ -2.0.! .. ~ karbon (Mt/a) f: 588.9 612.2 652.0 702.7 742.6t: Carbon (Mt/a) ~ 0.0 -0.7 -1.2 -1.9 . 

lNOx (kt/a) ~ 4,191.2 3,542.9 3,660.8 3,813.3 3,879.5~ NOx (kt/a) ~ 0.0 -4.2 -4.2 -5.9 -3.2j 

~ ~ ~ ~ j ~Standards Leve14b ~ ~ ~ . § 

karbon (MtJa) ~ 588.9 612.1 651.9 702.5 742.4~ Carbon (Mt/a) ~. 0.0 -0.8 -1.3 -2.1 -2.21 

iNOx (kt/a) l 4,191.2 3,542.6 3,660.4 3,812.8 3,879.2~ NOx (kt/a) ~ 0.0 -4.5 -4.6 -6.4 -3.51 

~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~Standards Leve15b ~ ~~ ~ ~ 

karbon (Mt/a) ~ 588.9 612.7 652.8 704.0 743.9~ Carbon (Mt/a) ~ 0.0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 -0.7l ~ ~ . ~: ~ ~ iNOx (kt/a) ~ 4,191.2 3,545.7 3,663.6 3,817.3 3,88L7t: NOx (kt/a) :l 0.0 -1.4 -1.4 -1.9 -1.11 

~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ Standards Level 6b *- ~} ~ 

lCarbon(Mt/a) 

~~. 

~ 588.9 612.4 652.3 703.2 743.1~ Carbon (Mt/a) ~ 0.0 -0.5 -0.9 -1.4 -1.51 ,. ~ ~ 

iNOx (kt/a) ~ 4,191.2 3,543.9 3,661.8 3,814.8. 3,880.3§ NOx (kt/a) ~ 0.0 -3.2 -3.2 -4.5 -2.4j 

t .................................................................................. l ......................................................................................................................................................... 1 ................................................................................. 1 ........................................................................................................................................................... ~ 

Cumulative emissions savings over the I8-year period modeled are listed below: 

Table D-3. Cumulative Emissions Reductions (2003-2020) 

Range for Electronic Standards Range for Cathode Cutout Standards 

Emission (standards 1 - 4) (standards 5 and 6) 

Carbon (Mt) 12.1 - 29.7 5.8 - 20.1 

NOx (kt) 41.0 - 96.7 19.7 - 65.4 

In addition, equivalent results for the high and low economic growth cases for standards level 

2b are reported ih Table D-4. The outcome of the analysis for each case is shown as both emissions 

and deviations from the AE099 result. 

D-6 
Table D-4. Power Sector Emissions: Alternative Economic Assumptions and

Standards Level 2b

NEMS-NAECA Results Differences

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 200(1 2005 2010 2015 2021

#AEO99 Reference - Low Economic Growth ;Difference from AE099 Reference

Carbon (Mt/a) 586.1 596.3 632.4 670.1 694.6Carbon (Mt/a) -2.8 -16.6 -20.8 -34.5 -50.0;

NOx (kt/a) 4,182.1 3,465.4 3,601.5 3,701.3 3,737.63. NOx (kt/a) -9.1 -81.6 -63.5 -117.9 -145.1;

Standards Level 2b - Low Economic Growth Difference from AEO99 - Low Economic Growth

`Carbon (Mt/a) 586.1 595.5 630.5 667.8 692.41 Carbon (Mt/a) 0.0 -0.8 -1.9 -2.3 -2.2

3NOx (kt/a) 4,182.1 3,461.0 3,591.6 3,692.2 3,731.6',' NOx (kt/a) 0.0 -4.4 -10.0 -9.2 -6.0

AEO99 Reference - High Economic Growth Difference from AEO99 Reference

J y

,Carbon (Mt/a) 590.6 628.9 679.0 741.8 799.0 Carbon (Mt/a) 1.7 16.0 25.8 37.2 54.41

NOx (kt/a) 4,200.3 3,628.7 3,764.8 3,937.2 4,000.7 NOx (kt/a) 9.1 81.6 99.8 117.9 1179'

%Standards Level 2b High Economic Growth Difference from AE099 - High Economic Growth

3Carbon (Mt/a) 590.6 628.1 677.7 739.7 796.6; Carbon (Mt/a) 0.0 -0.8 -1.3 -2.1 -2.43

1NOx (kt/a) 4,200.3 3,624.1 3,759.9 3,931.6 3,998.1; NOx (kt/a) 0.0 -4.7 -4.9 -5.5 -2.61

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

Table D-4. Power Sector Emissions: Alternative Economic Assumptions and 

Standards Level 2b rNEi\XS~NAE'CA"'R~~'~it;""""""""""""""'wu.·.·.·.w.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.··········l·w··'··D·iii~;~~;~;;······ow.w ..... wu ....... wN ... w ... wNu .... ow ...... , ..... wuowummm.wowow .... , .... ow····1 ~~.o" ... -: .... "\o:O: .... -":.: ••• :.:O:O:6: .... :.:. • .:.:.:.:-: .. ..:.";O,/ ..... ?" ... .: .......... .:.:.: •.• : ..... ;.:.:.:.:.:.:.;.:.: .. ..:.: .. / ........ O,;.;.-.........,:.:.: •• -"y ••• :._ ••• ;. • .-;.: ••••• ; ••• :._ ••••••• : ••• : ••• :.: ............. ;::.-..... ,... ....... ; ••• :r.:.: •• .: .. /.... :.;. •••• :.,... .. : ...... :.: ••• ":.: .... ;.:.;.: .. ,.;.:.".0'; •• .: .. .: •• 0";.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.;.:.-•• 0:-:.:.,....... 0:.: ...... :.:.':0:.-.: ... :.:"' ......: ...... :."...-.: ... ..:..0'.:.-/. .... . 

1 ~ 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020/ * 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 

lAEo99 Reference - Low Economic Growth lDifference from AE099 'Reference l 

lCarbon (MtJa) {586.1 596.3 632.4 670.1 694.61 Carbon (Mt/a) -2.8 -16.6 -20.8 -34.5 -50 oj 

lNOx (ktJa) ~ 4,182.1 3,465.4 3,601.5 3,701.3 3,737.61 NOx (ktJa) -9.1 -81.6 -63.5 -117.9 -145:1"",:,.1,. 

~ ~ ~ ~ lStandards Level2b - Low Economic Growth jDiffcl'ence from AE099 - Low Economic Growth 

karbon (Mt/a) ~ 586.1 595.5 630.5 667.8 692.41 Carbon (Mt/a) i 0.0 -O.S -1.9 -2.3 -2.2! 

lNOx(ktJa) ~ 4,182.1 3,461.0 3,591.6 3,692.2 3,731.6l NOx (kt/a) 1 0.0 -4.4 -10.0 -9.2 -6.01 

~ ~ § ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a § ~ ~ lAE099 Reference - High Economic Growth lDifference from AE099 Reference ) 

lCarbon (MtJa) ~ 590.6 628.9 679.0 741.8 799.01 Carbon (Mt/a) ~ 1.7 16.0 25.8 37.2 54.4( 

jNOx(ktJa) ~ 4,200.3 3,628.7 3,764.8 3,937.2 4,000.7j NOx(kt/a) ~ 9.1 81.6 99JI 117.9 117.91 

~ ~ f , 1: I ~ lStandards Level 2b - High Economic Growth ~Difference from AE099 - High Economic Growth ! 

lCarbon(MtJa) , ~ 590.6 628.1 677.7 739.7 796.61 Carbon (MtJa) ! 0.0 -0.8 -1.3 -2.1 -2.4\ 

lNOx(ktJa) ~ 4,200.3 3,624.1 3,759.9 3,931.6 3,998.11 NOx(ktJa) I 0.0 -4.7 -4.9 -5.5 -2.61 

~ J~.;.v ............... v ........................................... ;:. ~ ........................................................ • ....... • ••• ••••• ... •.•.• ... u.· ... • ..... • ....................................................... ~ ~ ........................................................................................................................ ~ "' .............................. "' ................................ ..v ........................................ u ...... )!,. ~ 

D-7 

Table D-4. Power Sector Emissions: Alternative Economic Assumptions and 

Standards Level 2b 

[E~~~~E~~s~I~~'~!!~:'::::::~:::'::::'::::::~:':':::::':':':::::':':':':::':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':'::[:':::~Iff~E.~~~~~~:':'::':::~:::':::::::::':::::':':::::~::::::':':::::::::':::::::':::::::~:::::::::::::::~:::] 1 ~ 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020/ * 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020~ 

lAEo99 Reference - Low Economic Growth lDifference from AE099 'Reference ! 

lCarbon (MtJa) {586,1 596,3 632.4 670,1 694,61 Carbon (Mt/a) -2,8 -16,6 -20,8 -34,5 -50,0! ~ ~;: ~ 

lNOx (ktJa) ~ 4,182,1 3,465.4 3,601.5 3,701.3 3,737,61 NOx (ktJa) -9.1 -81.6 -63.5 -117.9 -145.11 

~ ~ ~ ~ lStandards Level2b - Low Economic Growth jDiffcl'ence from AE099 - Low Economic Growth i 

0';': 

karbon (Mt/a) ~ 586.1 595.5 630,5 667,8 692.41 Carbon (Mt/a) i 0.0 -0,8 -1.9 -2.3 -2.21 ... Y. ~ 

jNOX(ktJa) ~ 4,182,1 3,461.0 3,591.6 3,692.2 3,731.6j NOx (kt/a) ~ 0.0 -4.4 -10.0 -9,2 -6,0! 

i ~ i! I 

iAE099 Reference - High Economic Growth lDifference from AE099 Reference ~ 

lCarbon (MtJa) ~ 590.6 628.9 679,0 741.8 799,01 Carbon (Mt/a) ~ 1.7 16.0 25,8 37,2 54.4! 

jNOx(ktJa) ~ 4,200.3 3,628.7 3,764,8 3,937,2 4,000,71 NOx(kt/a) ~ 9,1 81.6 99JI 117.9 117.9i 

~ ~ f 1: ~ !Standards Level 2b - High Economic Growth lDifference from AE099 ~ High Economic Growth ! 

jCarbon(MtJa) , ~ 590.6 628,1 677.7 739,7 796.61 Carbon (MtJa) ! 0.0 -0.8 -1.3 -2.1 -2.4! 

lNOx(ktJa) ~ 4,200.3 3,624,1 3,759.9 3,931.6 3,998.11 NOx(ktJa) j 0.0 -4.7 -4.9 -5.5 -2,61 

~ J~.;.v ............... v ........................................... ;:' ~ ........................................................ • ....... • ••• ••••• ... •.•.• ... u.· ... • ..... • ....................................................... ~ ~ ........................................................................................................................ ~ "' .............................. "' ................................ ..v ........................................ u ...... )!,. ~ 

D-7 
APPENDIX E. ANALYSIS OF CONSENSUS STANDARDS

E.1 INTRODUCTION

This supplemental appendix contains analyses performed after stakeholders agreed to

consensus efficiency standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts. The consensus standards apply to ballasts

for the new and renovation market (sold as part of a fixture in the OEM market ) manufactured as of

April 1, 2005, sold by manufacturers as of July 1, 2005, or incorporated into luminaires by luminaire

manufacturers as of April 1, 2006. The exception is ballasts for the replacement market; replacement

ballasts manufactured as of June 30, 2010, must meet the standard. It was assumed that 70 percent of

magnetic ballasts are sold through OEMs and 30 percent are replacement ballasts. The analyses

contained herein include the following: national energy savings (NES) (includes NPV), national

employment impact, utility impact and environmental assessment. We report the results obtained when

the consensus standards were analyzed under three base case shipments scenarios. Two of these

shipments scenarios were essentially the same as before. A constant shipments case was added. These

three shipments forecasts are described more fully in the next section of this appendix.

There has been a change in the analysis of HO ballasts. The revised standard will keep the

BEF at the existing standard level for HO ballasts. However, a class of HO ballasts that was

previously exempted from standards because of their operation at low temperatures will now be

covered. At the time (1988) that the previous standards were established, energy-efficient magnetic

HO ballasts were not designed to operate below 50 degrees F and therefore "cold temperature" HO

ballasts (rated to start at 0 degrees F or lower) were exempted. Currently , EEM cold temperature HO

ballasts are manufactured, so the exemption will be removed for most of them (some ballasts used for

outdoor signs and operating at -20 degrees F or lower will still be exempted). Under the new

standards, most cold temperature HO ballasts will now have to meet the existing standard BEF; that

essentially means they must be EEM ballasts.

E.2 NATIONAL, ENERGY SAVINGS AND NPV

E.2.1 Shipments Scenarios

The consensus standards were analyzed using three base case shipments scenarios : Decreasing

Shipments to 2015, Decreasing Shipments to 2027, and Constant Shipments . The first two scenarios

were identical to those described in Chapter 5 (sections 5.2.1 and 5.3.1). For Decreasing Shipments

to 2015, the magnetic T 12 ballast shipments decrease to 10 percent of their 1997 value by 2015, and

remain constant at that level through 2030 . For Decreasing Shipments to 2027, the magnetic T12

ballast shipments decrease to 10 percent of their 1997 value by 2027, and remain constant at that level

through 2030. An exception for the two declining shipments cases is that shipments for HO ballasts

E-1

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

APPENDIX E. ANALYSIS OF CONSENSUS STANDARDS 

E.l INTRODUCTION 

This supplemental appendix contains analyses performed after stakeholders agreed to 

consensus efficiency standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts. The consensus standards apply to ballasts 

for the new and renovation market (sold as Palt of a fixture in the OEM market) manufactured as of 

April 1, 2005, sold by manufacturers as of July 1, 2005, or incorporated into luminaires by luminaire 

manufacturers as of April 1 , 2006. The exception is ballasts for the replacement market; replacement 

ballasts manufactured as of June 30, 2010, must meet the standard. It was assumed that 70 percent of 

magnetic ballasts are sold through OEMs alld 30 percent are replacement ballasts. The analyses 

contained herein include the following: national energy savings (NES) (includes NPV), national 

employment impact, utility impact and envirOlIDlental assessment. We report the results obtained when 

the consensus standards were analyzed under three base case shipments scenarios. Two of these 

shipments scenarios were essentially the same as before. A constant shipments case was added. These 

three shipments forecasts are described more fully in the next section of this appendix. 

There has been a change in the analysis of HO ballasts. The revised standard will keep the 

BEF at the existing standard level for HO ballasts. However, a class ofHO ballasts that was 

previously exempted from standards because of their operation at low temperatures will now be 

covered. At the time (1988) that the previous standards were established, energy-efficient magnetic 

HO ballasts were not designed to operate below 50 degrees F and therefore "cold temperature" HO 

ballasts (rated to start at 0 degrees F or lower) were exempted. Currently, EEM cold temperature HO 

ballasts are manufactured, so the exemption will be removed for most of them (some ballasts used for 

outdoor signs and operating at -20 degrees F or lower will still be exempted). Under the new 

standards, most cold temperature HO ballasts will now have to meet the existing standard BEF; that 

essentially means they must be EEM ballasts. 

E.2 NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS AND NPV 

E.2.1 Shipments Scenarios 

The consensus standards were analyzed using three base case shipments scenarios: Decreasing 

Shipments to 2015, Decreasing Shipments to 2027, and Constant Shipments. The first two scenarios 

were identical to those described in Chapter 5 (sections 5.2.1 and 5.3.1). For Decreasing Shipments 

to 2015, the magnetic T12 ballast shipments decrease to 10 percent oftheir 1997 value by 2015, and 

remain constant at that level through 2030. For Decreasing Shipments to 2027, the magnetic TI2 

ballast shipments decrease to 10 percent of their 1997 value by 2027, and remain constant at that level 

through 2030. An exception for the two declining shipments cases is that shipments for HO ballasts 

E-l 

APPENDIX E. ANALYSIS OF CONSENSUS STANDARDS 

E.l INTRODUCTION 

This supplemental appendix contains analyses performed after stakeholders agreed to 

consensus efficiency standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts. The consensus standards apply to ballasts 

for the new and renovation market (sold as Palt of a fixture in the OEM market) manufactured as of 

April 1, 2005, sold by manufacturers as of July 1, 2005, or incorporated into luminaires by luminaire 

manufacturers as of April 1 , 2006. The exception is ballasts for the replacement market; replacement 

ballasts manufactured as of June 30, 2010, must meet the standard. It was assumed that 70 percent of 

magnetic ballasts are sold through OEMs alld 30 percent are replacement ballasts. The analyses 

contained herein include the following: national energy savings (NES) (includes NPV), national 

employment impact, utility impact and envirOlIDlental assessment. We report the results obtained when 

the consensus standards were analyzed under three base case shipments scenarios. Two of these 

shipments scenarios were essentially the same as before. A constant shipments case was added. These 

three shipments forecasts are described more fully in the next section of this appendix. 

There has been a change in the analysis of HO ballasts. The revised standard will keep the 

BEF at the existing standard level for HO ballasts. However, a class ofHO ballasts that was 

previously exempted from standards because of their operation at low temperatures will now be 

covered. At the time (1988) that the previous standards were established, energy-efficient magnetic 

HO ballasts were not designed to operate below 50 degrees F and therefore "cold temperature" HO 

ballasts (rated to start at 0 degrees F or lower) were exempted. Currently, EEM cold temperature HO 

ballasts are manufactured, so the exemption will be removed for most of them (some ballasts used for 

outdoor signs and operating at -20 degrees F or lower will still be exempted). Under the new 

standards, most cold temperature HO ballasts will now have to meet the existing standard BEF; that 

essentially means they must be EEM ballasts. 

E.2 NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS AND NPV 

E.2.1 Shipments Scenarios 

The consensus standards were analyzed using three base case shipments scenarios: Decreasing 

Shipments to 2015, Decreasing Shipments to 2027, and Constant Shipments. The first two scenarios 

were identical to those described in Chapter 5 (sections 5.2.1 and 5.3.1). For Decreasing Shipments 

to 2015, the magnetic T12 ballast shipments decrease to 10 percent oftheir 1997 value by 2015, and 

remain constant at that level through 2030. For Decreasing Shipments to 2027, the magnetic TI2 

ballast shipments decrease to 10 percent of their 1997 value by 2027, and remain constant at that level 

through 2030. An exception for the two declining shipments cases is that shipments for HO ballasts 

E-l 
remain constant at 1 million per year for the whole analysis period (see Scenario Assumptions below).

The third scenario, Constant Shipments, assumes that magnetic T 12 ballast shipments remain

constant at 1997 levels throughout the period. However, because of the way the NES model operates,

the shipments are not actually constant until 2009. The model uses the Ballast Weights (described in

Appendix B, section B.2, Weights Menu, and section B.3) to calculate the number of 1-lamp F40T12

ballasts used in 3-lamp non-tandem-wired fixtures. Because the ballast weights are assumed to change

from 1997 to 2009, the shipments for those 1-lamp ballasts increase each year during that period,

becoming constant in 2009. Shipments for the other ballast categories (2-lamp F40T12 ballasts, 1-

lamp F40T12 ballasts in 1-lamp fixtures, 2-lamp F96T12 ballasts and 2-lamp F96T 12/HO ballasts) are

constant at 1997 levels. Total magnetic T12 ballast shipments become constant at a slightly higher level

than 1997 shipments and remain at that level through 2030. The increase is about 5 percent relative

to1997 shipments (2 percent relative to 2005 shipments). Details may be viewed in the NES model,

Shipments worksheet, using Constant Shipments in the Shipments menu.

E.2.2 Scenario Assumptions

The consensus standards scenario assumed that the standards took effect in 2005. We

modeled the electronic ballast trial standard level. The NES model assumes that a standard takes effect

in January 1St of the start year; we did not adjust the results to account for the April 1 start date since

the difference would be small. There was a delay period of 5 years for the replacement ballast market.

This delay did not apply to HO ballasts; the standard for all HO ballasts was assumed to be effective

April 1, 2005. The new/renovation market was assumed to comprise 70 percent of magnetic ballast

shipments and to become 100 percent T8 electronic ballasts under the standard. The replacement

market was assumed to comprise 30 percent of magnetic ballast shipments and to become 95 percent

T8 electronic and 5 percent T 12 electronic. The ballast assumptions (ballast price, energy savings,

labor costs, lamp costs, and equipment lifetimes) as well as the ballast weights were the same as those

described in the scenarios in Chapter 5, with the exception of the F96T12HO energy savings and

ballast prices, as described below. As for those scenarios, the social discount rate was 7 percent real

and the NPV savings and costs were discounted to 1997. The results were modeled for the AEO

Reference Case electricity price forecast. While the consensus standard includes a date of April 1St,

2005 for ballasts sold by manufacturers and April 1St, 2006 for ballasts sold in luminaires, we used the

simplifying assumption that the standards took full effect in 2005 for all ballasts in the new/renovation

market.

In the NES model, instead of analyzing HO ballasts shifting from EEM to ERS ballasts as done

for the Chapter 5 scenarios, we analyzed the cold temperature HO ballasts shifting from standard

magnetic to EEM ballasts. The impact of this change yielded greater savings for the HO ballast

category, since the savings gained from removing the cold temperature HO exemption were larger than

those lost from keeping the HO ballast BEF at the existing EEM levels. The end-user price increased

from about $20.20 for the standard magnetic ballast to about $31.95 for the energy efficient magnetic

E-2

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

remain constant at 1 million per year for the whole analysis period (see Scenario Assumptions below). 

The third scenario, Constant Shipments, assumes that magnetic T12 ballast shipments remain 

constant at 1997 levels throughout the period. However, because of the way the NES model operates, 

the shipments are not actually constant until 2009. The model uses the Ballast Weights (described in 

Appendix B, section B.2, Weights Menu, and section B.3) to calculate the number of I-lamp F40T12 

ballasts used in 3-lamp non-tandem-wired fIxtures. Because the ballast weights are assumed to change 

fi'om 1997 to 2009, the shipments for those I-lamp ballasts increase each year during that period, 

becoming constant in 2009. Shipments for the other ballast categories (2-lamp F40T12 ballasts, 1-

lamp F40T12 ballasts in I-lamp fIxtures, 2-lamp F96T12 ballasts and 2-lamp F96T121HO ballasts) are 

constant at 1997 levels. Total magnetic T12 ballast shipments become constant at a slightly higher level 

than 1997 shipments and remain at that level through 2030. The increase is about 5 percent relative 

to1997 shipments (2 percent relative to 2005 shipments). Details may be viewed in the NES model, 

Shipments worksheet, using Constant Shipments in the Shipments menu. 

E.2.2 Scenario Assumptions 

The consensus standards scenario assumed that the standards took effect in 2005. We 

modeled the electronic ballast trial standard level. The NES model assumes that a standard takes effect 

in January 1st of the start year; we did not adjust the results to account for the April 1 start date since 

the difference would be small. There was a delay period of 5 years for the replacement ballast market. 

This delay did not apply to HO ballasts; the standard for all HO ballasts was assumed to be effective 

April 1, 2005. The new/renovation market was assumed to comprise 70 percent of magnetic ballast 

shipments and to become 100 percent T8 electronic ballasts under the standard. The replacement 

market was assumed to comprise 30 percent of magnetic ballast shipments and to become 95 percent 

T8 electronic and 5 percent T12 electronic. The ballast assumptions (ballast price, energy savings, 

labor costs, lamp costs, and equipment lifetimes) as well as the ballast weights were the same as those 

described in the scenarios in Chapter 5, with the exception of the F96T12HO energy savings and 

ballast prices, as described below. As for those scenarios, the social discount rate was 7 percent real 

and the NPV savings and costs were discounted to 1997. The results were modeled for the AEO 

Reference Case electricity price forecast. While the consensus standard includes a date of April 1 st, 

2005 for ballasts sold by manufacturers and April 1 st, 2006 for ballasts sold in luminaires, we used the 

simplifying assumption that the standards took full effect in 2005 for all ballasts in the new/renovation 

market. 

In the NES model, instead of analyzing HO ballasts shifting from EEM to ERS ballasts as done 

for the Chapter 5 scenarios, we analyzed the cold temperature HO ballasts shifting from standard 

magnetic to EEM ballasts. The impact of this change yielded greater savings for the HO ballast 

category, since the savings gained from removing the cold temperature HO exemption were larger than 

those lost from keeping the HO ballast BEF at the existing EEM levels. The end-user price increased 

from about $20.20 for the standard magnetic ballast to about $31.95 for the energy efficient magnetic 

E-2 

remain constant at 1 million per year for the whole analysis period (see Scenario Assumptions below). 

The third scenario, Constant Shipments, assumes that magnetic T12 ballast shipments remain 

constant at 1997 levels throughout the period. However, because of the way the NES model operates, 

the shipments are not actually constant until 2009. The model uses the Ballast Weights (described in 

Appendix B, section B.2, Weights Menu, and section B.3) to calculate the number of I-lamp F40T12 

ballasts used in 3-lamp non-tandem-wired fIxtures. Because the ballast weights are assumed to change 

fi'om 1997 to 2009, the shipments for those I-lamp ballasts increase each year during that period, 

becoming constant in 2009. Shipments for the other ballast categories (2-lamp F40T12 ballasts, 1-

lamp F40T12 ballasts in I-lamp fIxtures, 2-lamp F96T12 ballasts and 2-lamp F96T121HO ballasts) are 

constant at 1997 levels. Total magnetic T12 ballast shipments become constant at a slightly higher level 

than 1997 shipments and remain at that level through 2030. The increase is about 5 percent relative 

to1997 shipments (2 percent relative to 2005 shipments). Details may be viewed in the NES model, 

Shipments worksheet, using Constant Shipments in the Shipments menu. 

E.2.2 Scenario Assumptions 

The consensus standards scenario assumed that the standards took effect in 2005. We 

modeled the electronic ballast trial standard level. The NES model assumes that a standard takes effect 

in January 1st of the start year; we did not adjust the results to account for the April 1 start date since 

the difference would be small. There was a delay period of 5 years for the replacement ballast market. 

This delay did not apply to HO ballasts; the standard for all HO ballasts was assumed to be effective 

April 1, 2005. The new/renovation market was assumed to comprise 70 percent of magnetic ballast 

shipments and to become 100 percent T8 electronic ballasts under the standard. The replacement 

market was assumed to comprise 30 percent of magnetic ballast shipments and to become 95 percent 

T8 electronic and 5 percent T12 electronic. The ballast assumptions (ballast price, energy savings, 

labor costs, lamp costs, and equipment lifetimes) as well as the ballast weights were the same as those 

described in the scenarios in Chapter 5, with the exception of the F96T12HO energy savings and 

ballast prices, as described below. As for those scenarios, the social discount rate was 7 percent real 

and the NPV savings and costs were discounted to 1997. The results were modeled for the AEO 

Reference Case electricity price forecast. While the consensus standard includes a date of April 1 st, 

2005 for ballasts sold by manufacturers and April 1 st, 2006 for ballasts sold in luminaires, we used the 

simplifying assumption that the standards took full effect in 2005 for all ballasts in the new/renovation 

market. 

In the NES model, instead of analyzing HO ballasts shifting from EEM to ERS ballasts as done 

for the Chapter 5 scenarios, we analyzed the cold temperature HO ballasts shifting from standard 

magnetic to EEM ballasts. The impact of this change yielded greater savings for the HO ballast 

category, since the savings gained from removing the cold temperature HO exemption were larger than 

those lost from keeping the HO ballast BEF at the existing EEM levels. The end-user price increased 

from about $20.20 for the standard magnetic ballast to about $31.95 for the energy efficient magnetic 

E-2 
ballast. The unit energy savings was estimated at 12 Watts and operating hours were estimated at 4500

hrs/year which resulted in a unit annual energy savings of 54 kWh. The shipments of these ballasts

were estimated at about one million per year. In the base case, it was assumed that HO ballast

shipments remained constant and that there were no conversions from standard magnetic to energyefficient magnetic ballasts.

The consensus standards scenarios run with the three shipments base cases were named 7a

(Decreasing Shipments to 2015), 7b (Decreasing Shipments to 2027), and 7c (Constant Shipments).

The results are shown in Table E.1 below.

E.2.3 National Energy Savings and NPV

This section presents the summary of results for the three standards scenarios, as well as the

detailed results by lamp-ballast combination.

We estimated that the base case cumulative fluorescent lighting energy consumption for the

period from 2005 to 2030 was approximately 85 Quads or 90 exajoules (source energy) for the

Decreasing Shipments to 2027 base case. The calculation method was the same as that described in

Chapter 5 (section 5.3.6, Energy Consumption) with the total summed from 2005 instead of 2003.

The savings from the consensus standards for the 2027 base case was about 2.7 percent of this total

estimated consumption.

Table E.1 Energy Savings and Net Present Value to Society of Standards for Fluorescent

Ballasts Purchased from 2005-2030 (1997 Billion Dollars, Discounted to 1997 at 7 percent

Real)

For Units Sold from 2005 to 2030

Discounted at 7% to 1997 (in billion 1997 $

Seen 7A Seen 7B Seen 7C

SCENARIO i Deer20I5 0eer2027 Cnnstant

Total Exajoules Saved w/ HVAC*

Total Benefit

Total Equipment Cost

Net Present Value

1.20 2.32 4.90

1.27 2.46 5.21

1.27 2.45 5.17

1.34 2.60 5.50

1.95 3.51 7.24

0.53 0.91 1.83

1.42 2.60 1 5.41

*For energy savings only ; Total Benefit and Net Present Value do not

include HVAC savings.

E-3

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

ballast. The unit energy savings was estimated at 12 Watts and operating hours were estimated at 4500 

hrsIyear which resulted in a unit annual energy savings of 54 kWh. The shipments of these ballasts 

were estimated at about one million per year. In the base case, it was assumed that HO ballast 

shipments remained constant and that there were no conversions from standard magnetic to energyefficient magnetic ballasts. 

The consensus standards scenarios run with the three shipments base cases were named 7 a 

(Decreasing Shipments to 2015), 7b (Decreasing Shipments to 2027), and 7c (Constant Shipments). 

The results are shown in Table E.1 below. 

E.2.3 National Energy Savings and NPV 

This section presents the summary of results for the three standards scenarios, as well as the 

detailed results by lamp-ballast combination. 

We estimated that the base case cmllulative fluorescent lighting energy consumption for the 

period from 2005 to 2030 was approximately 85 Quads or 90 exajoules (source energy) for the 

Decreasing Shipments to 2027 base case. The calculation method was the same as that described in 

Chapter 5 (section 5.3.6, Energy Consumption) with the total summed from 2005 instead of2003. 

The savings from the consensus standards for the 2027 base case was about 2.7 percent of this total 

estimated consumption. 

Table E.1 Energy Savings and Net Present Value to Society of Standards for Fluorescent 

Ballasts Purchased from 2005-2030 (1997 Billion Dollars, Discounted to 1997 at 7 percent 

For Units Sold from 2005 to 2030 

Discounted at 7% to 1997 

SCENARIO 

E-3 

ballast. The unit energy savings was estimated at 12 Watts and operating hours were estimated at 4500 

hrsIyear which resulted in a unit annual energy savings of 54 kWh. The shipments of these ballasts 

were estimated at about one million per year. In the base case, it was assumed that HO ballast 

shipments remained constant and that there were no conversions from standard magnetic to energyefficient magnetic ballasts. 

The consensus standards scenarios run with the three shipments base cases were named 7 a 

(Decreasing Shipments to 2015), 7b (Decreasing Shipments to 2027), and 7c (Constant Shipments). 

The results are shown in Table E.1 below. 

E.2.3 National Energy Savings and NPV 

This section presents the summary of results for the three standards scenarios, as well as the 

detailed results by lamp-ballast combination. 

We estimated that the base case cmllulative fluorescent lighting energy consumption for the 

period from 2005 to 2030 was approximately 85 Quads or 90 exajoules (source energy) for the 

Decreasing Shipments to 2027 base case. The calculation method was the same as that described in 

Chapter 5 (section 5.3.6, Energy Consumption) with the total summed from 2005 instead of2003. 

The savings from the consensus standards for the 2027 base case was about 2.7 percent of this total 

estimated consumption. 

Table E.1 Energy Savings and Net Present Value to Society of Standards for Fluorescent 

Ballasts Purchased from 2005-2030 (1997 Billion Dollars, Discounted to 1997 at 7 percent 

*For energy savings only; Total Benefit and Net Present Value do not 

include HV AC 

E-3 
Table E.2 Scenario 7a

For Units Sold from 2005 to 2030

Discounted at 7% to 1997 (in billion 1997 $)

2F40 IF40 2F96/ES 2F96HO/ES Total

Total Quads Saved 0.88 0.02 0.17 0.12 1.20

Total Quads Saved w/ HVAC 0.94 0.02 0.18 0.13 1.27

Total Benefit 1.51 0.04 0.29 0.11 1.95

Total Equipment Cost 0.25 0.01 0.17 0.09 0.53

Net Present Value 1.25 0:03 0.11 0.03 1.42

Table E.3 Scenario 7b

For Units Sold from 2005 to 2030

Discounted at 7% to 1997 (in billion 1997 $)

2F40 IF40 2F96/ES 2F96HO/ES Total

Total Quads Saved 1.81 0.05 0.34 0.12 2.32

Total Quads Saved w/ HVAC 1.92 0.05 0.37 0.13 2.46

Total Benefit 2.79 0.07 0.53 0.11 3.51

Total Equipment Cost 0.47 0.02 0.32 0 .09 0.91

Net Present Value 2.32 0.05 0.20 0.03 2.60

Table E.4 Scenario 7c

For Units Sold from 2005 to 2030

Discounted at 7% to 1997 (in billion 1997 $)

2F40 IF40 2F96/ES 2F96HO/ES Total

Total Quads Saved 3 .93 0.10 0 .74 0.12 4.90

Total Quads Saved w/ HVAC 4.17 0.11 0.79 0.13 5.21

Total Benefit 5.86 0.16 1.11 0 .11 7.24

Total Equipment Cost 1.00 0.05 0.69 0 .09 1.83

Net Present Value 4.85 0 .11 0.42 0.03 5.41

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

Table E.2 Scenario 7a 

Total Quads Saved 

Total Quads Saved wI HV AC 

Total Benefit 

Total Equipment Cost 

Net Present Value 

Table E.3 Scenario 7b 

Total Quads Saved 

Total Quads Saved wI HV AC 

Total Benefit 

Total Equipment Cost 

Net Present Value 

Table E.4 Scenario 7c 

Total Quads Saved 

Total Quads Saved wI HV AC 

Total Benefit 

Total Equipment Cost 

Net Present Value 

For Units Sold from 2005 to 2030 

Discounted at 7% to 1997 (in billion 1997 $) 

2F40 IF40 2F961ES 

0.88 0.02 0.17 

0.94 0.02 0.18 

1.51 0.04 0.29 

0.25 0.01 0.17 

1.25 0;03 0.11 

For Units Sold from 2005 to 2030 

Discounted at 7% to 1997 (in billion 1997 $) 

2F40 IF40 2F961ES 

1.81 0.05 0.34 

1.92 0.05 0.37 

2.79 0.07 0.53 

0.47 0.02 0.32 

2.32 0.05 0.20 

For Units Sold from 2005 to 2030 

Discounted at 7% to 1997 (in billion 1997 $) 

2F40 IF40 2F961ES 

3.93 0.10 0.74 

4.17 0.11 0.79 

5.86 0.16 1.11 

1.00 0.05 0.69 

4.85 0.11 0.42 

E-4 

2F96HOIES 

0.12 

0.13 

0.11 

0.09 

0.03 

2F96HOIES 

0.12 

0.13 

0.11 

0.09 

0.03 

2F96HOIES 

0.12 

0.13 

0.11 

0.09 

0.03 

Total 

1.20 

1.27 

1.95 

0.53 

1.42 

Total 

2.32 

2.46 

3.51 

0.91 

2.60 

Total 

4.90 

5.21 

7.24 

1.83 

5.41 

Table E.2 Scenario 7a 

Total Quads Saved 

Total Quads Saved wI HV AC 

Total Benefit 

Total Equipment Cost 

Net Present Value 

Table E.3 Scenario 7b 

Total Quads Saved 

Total Quads Saved wI HV AC 

Total Benefit 

Total Equipment Cost 

Net Present Value 

Table E.4 Scenario 7c 

Total Quads Saved 

Total Quads Saved wI HV AC 

Total Benefit 

Total Equipment Cost 

Net Present Value 

For Units Sold from 2005 to 2030 

Discounted at 7% to 1997 (in billion 1997 $) 

2F40 IF40 2F961ES 

0.88 0.02 0.17 

0.94 0.02 0.18 

1.51 0.04 0.29 

0.25 0.01 0.17 

1.25 0;03 0.11 

For Units Sold from 2005 to 2030 

Discounted at 7% to 1997 (in billion 1997 $) 

2F40 IF40 2F961ES 

1.81 0.05 0.34 

1.92 0.05 0.37 

2.79 0.07 0.53 

0.47 0.02 0.32 

2.32 0.05 0.20 

For Units Sold from 2005 to 2030 

Discounted at 7% to 1997 (in billion 1997 $) 

2F40 IF40 2F961ES 

3.93 0.10 0.74 

4.17 0.11 0.79 

5.86 0.16 1.11 

1.00 0.05 0.69 

4.85 0.11 0.42 

E-4 

2F96HOIES 

0.12 

0.13 

0.11 

0.09 

0.03 

2F96HOIES 

0.12 

0.13 

0.11 

0.09 

0.03 

2F96HOIES 

0.12 

0.13 

0.11 

0.09 

0.03 

Total 

1.20 

1.27 

1.95 

0.53 

1.42 

Total 

2.32 

2.46 

3.51 

0.91 

2.60 

Total 

4.90 

5.21 

7.24 

1.83 

5.41 
E.3 NET NATIONAL. EMPLOYMENT

Net national employment impacts from ballast standards were defined as net jobs created or

eliminated in the general economy as a consequence of reduced spending by commercial and industrial

sector businesses on electricity, increased spending on the purchase price of ballasts and reduced

spending on new power plants by the utility industry (along with the indirect effects of these three

factors). Figure E.1 shows the estimated net national employment impact of three different electronic

ballast standards scenarios that are described in the NES results section (E.2).

These results came from our use of an input/output model of the U.S. economy to estimate the

effects of standards on different major sectors of the U.S. economy most relevant to buildings and their

net impact on jobs. The impacts of new ballast standards were estimated in the NES spreadsheet as

energy savings (reduced electricity use), energy cost savings, and increased ballast purchase prices.

These three impacts (see Figures E2-E4 below) were output from NES and input to ImBuild. Direct

employment impacts, which would occur at ballast manufacturing plants, are discussed in the

Manufacturer Impact Analysis results section in this appendix.

The results shown here do not include a late change for HO ballasts (described earlier in this

appendix). The impact of not including the change for HO ballasts is expected to be very small since the

change in both equipment costs and energy savings are very small. For example, the cumulative energy

savings for scenarios 7a, 7b and 7c increase by 10%, 4% and 1%, respectively, relative to the values

used to generate Figure 1.

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

E.3 NET NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT 

Net national employment impacts ii-om ballast standards were defmed as net jobs created or 

eliminated in the general economy as a consequence of reduced spending by commercial and industrial 

sector businesses on electricity, increased spending on the purchase price of ballasts and reduced 

spending on new power plants by the utility industry (along with the indirect effects of these three 

factors). Figure E.1 shows the estimated net national employment impact of three different electronic 

ballast standards scenarios that are described in the NES results section (E.2). 

These results came from our use of an input/output model of the U.S. economy to estimate the 

effects of standards on different major sectors of the U.S. economy most relevant to buildings and their 

net impact on jobs. The impacts of new ballast standards were estimated in the NES spreadsheet as 

energy savings (reduced electricity use), energy cost savings, and increased ballast purchase prices. 

These three impacts (see Figures E2-E4 below) were output from NES and input to ImBuild. Direct 

employment impacts, which would occur at ballast manufacturing plants, are discussed in the 

Manufacturer Impact Analysis results section in this appendix. 

The results shown here do not include a late change for HO ballasts (described earlier in this 

appendix). The impact of not including the change for HO ballasts is expected to be very small since the 

change in both equipment costs and energy savings are very small. For example, the cumulative energy 

savings for scenarios 7a, 7b and 7c increase by 10%,4% and 1 %, respectively, relative to the values 

used to generate Figure 1. 

E-5 

E.3 NET NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT 

Net national employment impacts ii-om ballast standards were defmed as net jobs created or 

eliminated in the general economy as a consequence of reduced spending by commercial and industrial 

sector businesses on electricity, increased spending on the purchase price of ballasts and reduced 

spending on new power plants by the utility industry (along with the indirect effects of these three 

factors). Figure E.1 shows the estimated net national employment impact of three different electronic 

ballast standards scenarios that are described in the NES results section (E.2). 

These results came from our use of an input/output model of the U.S. economy to estimate the 

effects of standards on different major sectors of the U.S. economy most relevant to buildings and their 

net impact on jobs. The impacts of new ballast standards were estimated in the NES spreadsheet as 

energy savings (reduced electricity use), energy cost savings, and increased ballast purchase prices. 

These three impacts (see Figures E2-E4 below) were output from NES and input to ImBuild. Direct 

employment impacts, which would occur at ballast manufacturing plants, are discussed in the 

Manufacturer Impact Analysis results section in this appendix. 

The results shown here do not include a late change for HO ballasts (described earlier in this 

appendix). The impact of not including the change for HO ballasts is expected to be very small since the 

change in both equipment costs and energy savings are very small. For example, the cumulative energy 

savings for scenarios 7a, 7b and 7c increase by 10%,4% and 1 %, respectively, relative to the values 

used to generate Figure 1. 

E-5 
Net National Employment Impacts

Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts

20.0

18.0

16.0

4.0

12.0

10.0

8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0

--------------

Leve17A

Level

Level 7C

-------------- - -

Year

Figure E.1 Net National Employment Impacts

Input Data Analysis

Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts

Energy Costs Saved ($ Million)

1800

1600

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

-4- Level 7A .. A..... .A.... A..... A..... A.... A.... A

Level 7B A

A"" Level 7C

o a r, ' 4, C ao m a a r^ v w ov w o $ a ni ra .v vv a vi a a r>

N N N N

N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Year

Figure E.2 Energy Costs Saved

E-6

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

20.0 

18.0 

16.0 

14.0 

I 12.0 

10.0 

8.0 

6.0 

4.0 

2.0 

Net National Employment Impacts 

Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ = ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ = ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Year 

Figure E.1 Net National Employment Impacts 

Input Data Analysis 

Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts 

Energy Costs Saved ($ Million) 

1800 t======;----.------

--+- Level 7 A .... = .... Level 78 1------------------,.-:&". "'" ..... t.~. ~.'-'OO;':':;···::LA"'·:;.:··..,A"_··:;.:··..,A"'· .", . .",,,,,. :;.:··""·A,,,· ·",··",,0,--< 

;w .A .11' -u1600 

1400 ---Ll." , Level 7CI--------------b.&r"------------------i 

1200 +------------------------------~A~-------------------------------------~ 

Year 

Figure E.2 Energy Costs Saved 

E-6 

20.0 

18.0 

16.0 

14.0 

I 12.0 

10.0 

8.0 

6.0 

4.0 

2.0 

Net National Employment Impacts 

Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ = ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ = ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Year 

Figure E.1 Net National Employment Impacts 

1600 

Input Data Analysis 

Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts 

Energy Costs Saved ($ Million) 

--+- Level 7 A .... = .... Level 78 1-----------------,-.-:;sA . .",,,.,.,t.~. ~.""A",. ",···""A",· .", ••:£1\", .• :.:; ••:£1\",. ':':;"/.il."':':;"c:.!'"'''' ':':;""""':.....; 

;w .A .11' -u1400 ---Ll." , Level 7CI------------/!;&..'-"------------------i 

1200 +-----------------~A~----------·------------~ 

Year 

Figure E.2 Energy Costs Saved 

E-6 
Input Data Analysis

Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts

Increase in Incremental Equipment Cost

c 200 0

^sr 150

50

0

250

100

-e- Level 7A

----- Level 76 p _^ .Q. .o._. a o .fl ..d ..

-.d---- Level 7C

/ - ---•8 . ,

14) N- 6)

O O O

N N N

M IC)

O O O

N N N

P- 6) M 1f) N- O)

N N N N N

N N N N N N N

Year

Figure E.3 Increase in incremental equipment cost

120

100

20

0

Net National Employment Impacts

Input Data: Ballasts

Site Energy Saved

e Levr.FFA

Level 78

Lc)^ell, ;

O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N (+)

In O N- W O) O N 0)I0 (0 N- W 0) O N M fl In O N- O O) O

N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Year

Figure E.4 Site energy saved E-7

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

Input Data Analysis 

Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts 

Increase in Incremental Equipment Cost 

350 ....................................................................................................................................................................................... . 

--Level7A 

300 ···w···· Level 7B f------------"-,,... .. -oc--p;-K' 

./1 Level7e 

c: 200 +-______ ~'--------_ ... ---.-... -------.------------l 

~ 

:E 

~ 150 1;. .... f,. --/;~-A---_Jii&=___cc_------.----------------------I 

l{) 

o 

o 

N 

I'-

o 

o 

N 

(J) 

o 

o 

N 

~ 

o 

N 

C') 

~ 

C> 

N 

l{) 

~ 

o 

N 

I'-

o 

N 

Year 

(J) 

o 

N 

Figure E.3 Increase in incremental equipment cost 

Net National Employment Impacts 

Input Data: Ballasts 

Site Energy Saved 

.-

N 

o 

N 

M 

N 

o 

N 

~ C> 

N 

(J) 

~ N 

120 ............................... -......................................................................................... -..................... __ ....................................... , 

s 

m 00+------------------- ----~.---.----------------~ 

I 

on 

'" c: 

~ oo+----------------·~~---------·--------------I 

'" ,., 

E' 

~ 40 +-__________ 7-" ____ ---:~,..<·i-<-:::--:...··----·-··:;.I·-·~·oJ •• -•• -:?.--·;":·-·-~,-·.x 

i ~fiIt) "" .... eo '" 0 '" '" .,. It) "" .... <Xl '" 0 N '" '" .,. It) "" .... eo '" 0 0 0 0 0 0 ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; 0 0 0 0 0 '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

'" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" N N N '" '" '" '" '" N '" '" '" '" '" N N N N 

Year 

Figure E.4 Site energy saved E-7 

Input Data Analysis 

Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts 

Increase in Incremental Equipment Cost 

350 ....................................................................................................................................................................................... . 

--Level7A 

300 ···w···· Level 7B f------------"-,,... .. -oc--p;-K' 

./1 Level7e 

c: 200 +-______ ~'--------_ ... ---.-... -------.------------l 

~ 

:E 

~ 150 1;. .... f,. --/;~-A---_Jii&=___cc_------.----------------------I 

l{) 

o 

o 

N 

I'-

o 

o 

N 

(J) 

o 

o 

N 

~ 

o 

N 

C') 

~ 

C> 

N 

l{) 

~ 

o 

N 

I'-

o 

N 

Year 

(J) 

o 

N 

Figure E.3 Increase in incremental equipment cost 

Net National Employment Impacts 

Input Data: Ballasts 

Site Energy Saved 

.-

N 

o 

N 

M 

N 

o 

N 

~ C> 

N 

(J) 

~ N 

120 ............................... -......................................................................................... -..................... __ ....................................... , 

s 

m 00+------------------- ----~.---.----------------~ 

I 

on 

'" c: 

~ oo+----------------·~~---------·--------------I 

'" ,., 

E' 

~ 40 +-__________ 7-" ____ ---:~,..<·i-<-:::--:...··----·-··:;.I·-·~·oJ •• -•• -:?.--·;":·-·-~,-·.x 

i ~fiIt) "" .... eo '" 0 '" '" .,. It) "" .... <Xl '" 0 N '" '" .,. It) "" .... eo '" 0 0 0 0 0 0 ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; 0 0 0 0 0 '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

'" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" N N N '" '" '" '" '" N '" '" '" '" '" N N N N 

Year 

Figure E.4 Site energy saved E-7 
E.4 UTILITY ACT

Results for trial standard level 7 are presented in Tables E.5 through E.7 for each of the three

cases, a, b, and c. Although energy savings from the proposed ballast standards continue through

2030, the effects of these savings are reported through 2020 because this is the NEMS-BRS time

horizon. Each table shows forecasts using interpolated results as described above for commercial

energy sales and total U.S. electric generation and installed capacity. As expected, gas-fired generation

is more affected by the standard levels than coal-fired generation. This effect reflects the peaking

nature of the ballast end use, and the fact that gas generation, in general, is used to serve this peak

However, effects of standards on installed capacity are small relative to the energy savings.'

Commercial energy sales fall for all three standard 7 scenario cases compared to the AE099

Reference Case. The decrease in sales is proportional to the amount of energy that the National

Energy Savings (NES) model predicts will be saved by each standard, from 0.5% to 1.9% of total

commercial electricity sales in the peak savings year reported. Total U.S. generation decreases relative

to the AE099 baseline in each standards case, from just under 0.6% of total U.S. electric generation in

the peak savings year of the maximum savings case (standard scenario 7c) to 0.2% in the peak year of

the smallest savings case (standard scenario 7a). Total installed capacity is also slightly reduced in each

standard level scenario, by just under 0.5% in the final year of the maximum savings case.

'Capacity factor, a ratio of generation to installed capacity, is an indicator of the robustness of the forecast. The implied

capacity factors of the displaced capacity in this forecast are within reasonable limits.

E-8

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

E.4 UTILITY IMPACT 

Results for trial standard level 7 are presented in Tables E.5 through E.7 for each of the three 

cases, a, b, and c. Although energy savings from the proposed ballast standards continue through 

2030, the effects of these savings are rep011ed through 2020 because this is the NEMS-BRS time 

horizon. Each table shows forecasts using interpolated results as described above for commercial 

energy sales and total U.S. electric generation and installed capacity. As expected, gas-fired generation 

is more affected by the standard levels than coal-fired generation. This effect reflects the peaking 

nature of the ballast end use, and the fact that gas generation, in general, is used to serve this peak 

However, effects of standards on installed capacity are small relative to the energy savings. i 

Commercial energy sales fall for all three standard 7 scenario cases compared to the AE099 

Reference Case. The decrease in sales is proportional to the amount of energy that the National 

Energy Savings (NES) model predicts will be saved by each standard, from 0.5% to 1.9% of total 

commercial electricity sales in the peak savings year reported. Total U.S. generation decreases relative 

to the AE099 baseline in each standards case, from just under 0.6% of total U.S. electric generation in 

the peak savings year ofthe maximum savings case (standard scenario 7c) to 0.2% in the peak year of 

the smallest savings case (standard scenario 7a). Total installed capacity is also slightly reduced in each 

standard level scenario, by just under 0.5% in the final year of the maximum savings case. 

iCapacity factor, a ratio of generation to installed capacity, is an indicator ofthe robustness ofthe forecast. The implied 

capacity factors ofthe displaced capacity in this forecast are within reasonable limits. 

E-8 

E.4 UTILITY IMPACT 

Results for trial standard level 7 are presented in Tables E.5 through E.7 for each of the three 

cases, a, b, and c. Although energy savings from the proposed ballast standards continue through 

2030, the effects of these savings are rep011ed through 2020 because this is the NEMS-BRS time 

horizon. Each table shows forecasts using interpolated results as described above for commercial 

energy sales and total U.S. electric generation and installed capacity. As expected, gas-fired generation 

is more affected by the standard levels than coal-fired generation. This effect reflects the peaking 

nature of the ballast end use, and the fact that gas generation, in general, is used to serve this peak 

However, effects of standards on installed capacity are small relative to the energy savings. i 

Commercial energy sales fall for all three standard 7 scenario cases compared to the AE099 

Reference Case. The decrease in sales is proportional to the amount of energy that the National 

Energy Savings (NES) model predicts will be saved by each standard, from 0.5% to 1.9% of total 

commercial electricity sales in the peak savings year reported. Total U.S. generation decreases relative 

to the AE099 baseline in each standards case, from just under 0.6% of total U.S. electric generation in 

the peak savings year ofthe maximum savings case (standard scenario 7c) to 0.2% in the peak year of 

the smallest savings case (standard scenario 7a). Total installed capacity is also slightly reduced in each 

standard level scenario, by just under 0.5% in the final year of the maximum savings case. 

iCapacity factor, a ratio of generation to installed capacity, is an indicator ofthe robustness ofthe forecast. The implied 

capacity factors ofthe displaced capacity in this forecast are within reasonable limits. 

E-8 
Table E.5 Standard Scenario 7a Forecast

TOTEMS-NAECA Results: Standards Level Difference from AE099 Reference

i.:\U::::,:: •::3^\»"4 :ti\,\\:.i4:h4W:\:: \'•:::::::......:T:.:\hh:^::^:1 \t i1\\4\::.1'4:W.1: s\\ \:YCT.\1C\•X•::\::::\:9:h:K•::: %t^?hS's::::::::.\':.\`.l'. `\ .v\1\\::\\\R\\\U\\\\\h\\\'•J4h'vN1::.\'ti:•:::•:.111::::\\ 111':\'•T:::.\\\XA^:^W.l'\^::.\\^T\\'^\\\ti\\\\4\S::ti\l

h ='

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Commercial-Sector Energy Consumption Commercial-Sector Energy Consumption

4Electricity Sales (TWh)

Total U.S. Electric Generation

1,081 1,161 1,244 1,326 1,378 Electricity Sales (TWh)

Total U.S. Electric Generation

0.0 -0.8 -4.1 -6.0 -6.0

Coal (TWh) 1,990 2,037 2,091 2,202 2,344 Coal (TWh) 0.0 -0.3 -0.5 -1.7 -3.6

;Gas (TWh) 547 858 1,145 1,437 1,586 Gas (TWh) 0.0 -0.5 -3.6 -4.4 -2.5

Petroleum (TWh) 109 44 35 33 31 Petroleum (TWh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

:Nuclear (1'Wh) 660 631 554 419 359 Nuclear (TWh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Renewables (TWh) 423 433 446 461 483 Renewables (TWh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.2 -0.3

11Total (TWh) 3 729 4 002 4 272 4,552 4,803 Total (TWh) 0.0 -0.7 -4.1 -6.3 -6.4

:Installed Generating Capacity

, , ,

Installed Generating Capacity

Coal (GW) 315.2 315.0 318.9 326.0 343.0 Coal (GW) 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.2 -0.5

Other Fossil (GW) 301.5 369.7 396.8 469.0 512.8 Other Fossil (GW) 0.0 0.0 -0.5 -1.1 -0.7

Nuclear (GW) 94.8 87.4 74.2 56.4 48.9 Nuclear (GW) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Renewables (GW) 97.2 98.9 100.3 102.3 105.4 Renewables (GW) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

L:\ballast\tsd\draft99\chap7002_dcm.wpd E-9 January 4, 2000

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

r Table E.5 Standard Scenario 7a Forecast .................... ......: .. -.: .............. --=·:.. .......... :..... """'-..................... :.: ..... :... ;.;..-.: ............................................ :-:.:... :-:............................ :............... x.x .... -..x..-........... _ ............. "';.. ................ :..... -.: .................... _ ............ """' ....... x..-..-..-........... _ ....... -................................... 1-.."wx......................... _:.. .................................................. -........................... -.......................... -.»:... ».. ........................................................................... :.................................... _ .. :.:............................................................... :.................................................. ;.;.: ............................... _ .............. 1 

mEMS-NAECA Results: Standards Level ~ Difference from AE099 Reference ~ 

ICommercial-Sector Energy CO(lsumption l Commercial-Sector Energy Cousumption I 

!E1ectricity Sales (TWb) 1 1,081 1,161 1,244 1,326 1,378 l Electricity Sales (TWb) ! 0.0 -0.8 -4.1 -6.0 -6.0 i 

1~~s::CG'""ro·""ll'l~ 2'~E i::;! i~:: i~~~ ! ~~3~7G"""ro'""1 H ::l :H ~.~ :~1 I 

§Nuc1ear (TWb) i 660 631 554 419 359 ~! Nuclear (TWh) ! 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 I ~Renewables (TWb) I 423 433 446 461 483 !: Renewables (TWh) ! 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.2 -0.3 1 

jTOtal (TWb) :l 3,729 4,002 4,272 4,552 4,803 II Total (TWh) I 0.0 -0.7 -4.1 -6.3 -6.4 ! 

IInstalled Generating Capacity I II Installed Generating Capacity ~ I 

!coal (OW) !! 315.2 315.0 318.9 326.0 343.0 !! Coal(OW) !: 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.2 -0.5 ~ 

gOther Fossil (OW) !! 301.5 369.7 396.8 469.0 512.8 ! Other Fossil (OW) % 0.0 0.0 -0.5 -lJ -0.7 I ~Nuclear ~;: 

(OW) 1 94.8 87.4 74.2 56.4 48.9 I Nuclear (OW) ! 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ! :: ~ ~ 

~Renewables (OW) :~ 97.2 98.9 100.3 102.3 105.4 ~~ Renewables (OW) ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ~ 

b::mal./OW),.,,,,,.,.,,.,,.,.m,,,,,,,.,.,.,,,,.,.,,J,,8.D.lLJ,,JU.J.iL,J~9.D..J.,,,,95J.,2,,J,,QJ,QJ'.'''''.M,,,,,,,,,,L,J.Q.t~J,,(DJ~!'},,,,,,,,,,,"".".,."w".,.",,,.,,L,,,,.,.D,,Q,,,.,,,,,,.Q,Q,,,,.,,,dt6.,,,,,,,,.,.LJ,.,.",.".,J.,"2"",.""".".".".,J 

L: \ballast\tsd\draft9 9\chap7002_dcm. wpd E-9 January 4, 2000 

r Table E.5 Standard Scenario 7a Forecast .................... ......: .. -.: .............. --=·:.. .......... :..... """'-..................... :.: ..... :... ;.;..-.: ............................................ :-:.:... :-:............................ :............... x.x .... -..x..-........... _ ............. "';.. ................ :..... -.: .................... _ ............ """' ....... x..-..-..-........... _ ....... -................................... 1-.."wx......................... _:.. .................................................. -........................... -.......................... -.»:... ».. ........................................................................... :.................................... _ .. :.:............................................................... :.................................................. ;.;.: ............................... _ .............. 1 

mEMS-NAECA Results: Standards Level ~ Difference from AE099 Reference ~ 

ICommercial-Sector Energy CO(lsumption l Commercial-Sector Energy Cousumption I 

!E1ectricity Sales (TWb) 1 1,081 1,161 1,244 1,326 1,378 l Electricity Sales (TWb) ! 0.0 -0.8 -4.1 -6.0 -6.0 i 

1~~s::CG'""ro·""ll'l~ 2'~E i::;! i~:: i~~~ ! ~~3~7G"""ro'""1 H ::l :H ~.~ :~1 I 

§Nuc1ear (TWb) i 660 631 554 419 359 ~! Nuclear (TWh) ! 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 I ~Renewables (TWb) I 423 433 446 461 483 !: Renewables (TWh) ! 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.2 -0.3 1 

jTOtal (TWb) :l 3,729 4,002 4,272 4,552 4,803 II Total (TWh) I 0.0 -0.7 -4.1 -6.3 -6.4 ! 

IInstalled Generating Capacity I II Installed Generating Capacity ~ I 

!coal (OW) !! 315.2 315.0 318.9 326.0 343.0 !! Coal(OW) !: 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.2 -0.5 ~ 

gOther Fossil (OW) !! 301.5 369.7 396.8 469.0 512.8 ! Other Fossil (OW) % 0.0 0.0 -0.5 -lJ -0.7 I ~Nuclear ~;: 

(OW) 1 94.8 87.4 74.2 56.4 48.9 I Nuclear (OW) ! 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ! :: ~ ~ 

~Renewables (OW) :~ 97.2 98.9 100.3 102.3 105.4 ~~ Renewables (OW) ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ~ 

b::mal./OW),.,,,,,.,.,,.,,.,.m,,,,,,,.,.,.,,,,.,.,,J,,8.D.lLJ,,JU.J.iL,J~9.D..J.,,,,95J.,2,,J,,QJ,QJ'.'''''.M,,,,,,,,,,L,J.Q.t~J,,(DJ~!'},,,,,,,,,,,"".".,."w".,.",,,.,,L,,,,.,.D,,Q,,,.,,,,,,.Q,Q,,,,.,,,dt6.,,,,,,,,.,.LJ,.,.",.".,J.,"2"",.""".".".".,J 

L: \ballast\tsd\draft9 9\chap7002_dcm. wpd E-9 January 4, 2000 
Table E.6 Standard Scenario 7bForecast>.....*.,>,.,..,.,......,, ,...., z,,,,.,.,t,w,....,.,t.,,...,,, .,,, ,...,..,.,.....,.,.k,,....,,..,......,.,,.,.,t ,t.,,,., ........,.......

NEMS-NAECA Results: Standards Level Difference from AE®99 Reference

:.\4':::::^\1\\T4'^::::ti•.'::::h1`^`:: TLL41L44h` h`:v\:::::f:T::\':::\4'.14LX:4\L\::\\1\':::::.^A:44\\\\:v:•\4\: \1`::1:::\U.\v':: :L \LV: \444:::1 TW1\:\\\\\\4v 4\\444\\444\A,LC\LU.L\'.\':\\\'•:•.4':+L':::::::\\\4\::4:::::::LL\::4:AL`::9::YL\\\`hR h4 h44\:

` LUUU 4w^ 6VIV cvi^ 2020 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

;:Commercial-Sector Energy Consumption Commercial-Sector Energy Consumption

Electricity Sales (TWh) 1,081

Total U.S. Electric Generation?

1,161 1,242 1,321 1,371 Electricity Sales (TWh) 0.0

Total U.S. Electric Generation

-1.0 -5.9 -11.0 -13.3

Coal (TWh) i 1,990 2,037 2,091 2,201 2,342 Coal (TWh) 0.0 -0.3 -0.6 -2.7 -6.5

Gas (TWh) 547 857 1,144 1,433 1,581 Gas (TWh) -0.1 -0.6 -5.3 -8.4 -7.2

Petroleum (TWh) 109 44 35 33 31 Petroleum (TWh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

`Nuclear (TWh) 660 631 554 419 359 Nuclear (TWh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

>Renewables (TWh) 423 433 446 461 482 Renewables (TWh) 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.6

;Total (TWh) 3,729 4,002 4,270 4,547 4,795 Total (TWh) -0.1 -0.9 -6.0 -11.4 -14.3

nstalled Generating Capacity Installed Generating Capacity

Coal (GW) 315.2 315.0 318.9 326.0 342.7 :'•. Coal (GW) 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.2 -0.8

Other Fossil (GW) 301.5 369.7 396.5 468.2 511.6 Other Fossil (GW) 0.0 0.0 -0.8 -1.9 -1.9

Nuclear (GW) 94.8 87.4 74.2 56.4 48.9 E'•, Nuclear (GW) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Renewables (GW) 97.2 98.9 100.3 102.3 105.4 Renewables (GW) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

E-10

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

Table E.6 Standard Scenario 7b Forecast 

!NEMS-NAECA Results: Standards Level 1 Difference from AE099 Reference ~ 

ICommercial-Sector Energy Consumption ~i Commercial-Sector Energy COf)sumption 1 ~E1ectricity Sales (TWh) j 1,081 1,161 1,242 1,321 1,371 ~! Electricity Sales (TWh) ~ 0.0 -1.0 -5.9 -11.0 -13.3 i 

!~~~[~"k G""'''''ll'::~ 2,::; ;:~: ::.:: ;j:; ! 'i£:;;!::,~kd'k Gffl'ro<u,,! _~: ~: ::: :i~ :;; I 

Wetro1eum (TWh) 1 109 44 35 33 31 1 Petroleum (TWh) ! 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 :: 

!Nuclear (TWh) ~~ 660 631 554 419 359 ~i Nuclear (TWh) \ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 l 

!Renewab1es (TWh) ! 423 433 446 461 482 ~i ~~~~~:) (TWh) I 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.6 1 

t;;;:,,,",,,,gc,,p,,,ryl :~7:: :~:o: :~:: :::: :::: I ~:~~~ffl"o'mgc"~'~1 :: -:: -:: -:::: I ~Other Fossil (OW) ~ 301.5 369.7 396.5 468.2 511.6 ~ Other Fossil (OW) ! 0.0 0.0 -0.8 -1.9 -1.9 ~ 

~Nuclear (OW) i 94.8 87.4 74.2 56.4 48.9 ~i Nuclear (OW) ! 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ~ 

~Renewab1es (OW) ~~ 97.2 98.9 100.3 102.3 105.4 ~ Renewab1es (OW) ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ~! 

l.rm.~.1.!::CIW,l.»".,.".".,.w~"",,,,,",,,,,,,,,.,.L.B.Q82,,,,,$21J~,x"M~t.9.".",95.2"9.,J)lQ8='i.,."".".,.,,,,,",.,,.I,,,:r.Q.t,aL(QW}.".,,,,,,.,.,,,,.,~,,,,,,,,w,,.,,,,I.m,,Jl,Q..,,,,.,,,.,{'Ul'mmlU:L".".~2»L,,,,.,.,,, .. 1,J~.,,,,,,.~ .. ,,,, .. ,,J 

E-IO 

Table E.6 Standard Scenario 7b Forecast 

!NEMS-NAECA Results: Standards Level 1 Difference from AE099 Reference ~ 

ICommercial-Sector Energy Consumption ~i Commercial-Sector Energy COf)sumption 1 ~E1ectricity Sales (TWh) j 1,081 1,161 1,242 1,321 1,371 ~! Electricity Sales (TWh) ~ 0.0 -1.0 -5.9 -11.0 -13.3 i 

!~~~[~"k G""'''''ll'::~ 2,::; ;:~: ::.:: ;j:; ! 'i£:;;!::,~kd'k Gffl'ro<u,,! _~: ~: ::: :i~ :;; I 

Wetro1eum (TWh) 1 109 44 35 33 31 1 Petroleum (TWh) ! 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 :: 

!Nuclear (TWh) ~~ 660 631 554 419 359 ~i Nuclear (TWh) \ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 l 

!Renewab1es (TWh) ! 423 433 446 461 482 ~i ~~~~~:) (TWh) I 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.6 1 

t;;;:,,,",,,,gc,,p,,,ryl :~7:: :~:o: :~:: :::: :::: I ~:~~~ffl"o'mgc"~'~1 :: -:: -:: -:::: I ~Other Fossil (OW) ~ 301.5 369.7 396.5 468.2 511.6 ~ Other Fossil (OW) ! 0.0 0.0 -0.8 -1.9 -1.9 ~ 

~Nuclear (OW) i 94.8 87.4 74.2 56.4 48.9 ~i Nuclear (OW) ! 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ~ 

~Renewab1es (OW) ~~ 97.2 98.9 100.3 102.3 105.4 ~ Renewab1es (OW) ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ~! 

l.rm.~.1.!::CIW,l.»".,.".".,.w~"",,,,,",,,,,,,,,.,.L.B.Q82,,,,,$21J~,x"M~t.9.".",95.2"9.,J)lQ8='i.,."".".,.,,,,,",.,,.I,,,:r.Q.t,aL(QW}.".,,,,,,.,.,,,,.,~,,,,,,,,w,,.,,,,I.m,,Jl,Q..,,,,.,,,.,{'Ul'mmlU:L".".~2»L,,,,.,.,,, .. 1,J~.,,,,,,.~ .. ,,,, .. ,,J 

E-IO 
Table E.7 Standard Scenario 7c Forecast ,,,,,,,

NEMS-NAECA Results: Standards Level Difference from AE099 Reference

:„4 A:•ti•:?:x. x.4ti•\:XC.X.•vt:.???;,,:i•\i•\+XC..:+.•ri•X•?*..%xi•?..%x.x t:??:.?.. \4\4:k\:•%.:4:??\???,4,\41\l}tii.:ti4\•\?h,:,'A4'•:•:,\\Ki•:\\htiJ:fi\44414'•:Ll'•h\h\?.`G\4444444'•:1,hht\ti4?:ii.?:{.ti,,?y\+?:.}:.}p}ti•:•%{ti.:iOv :,Kbi.:r,.y????h,J:t'•:.xx\?:{itiv \ti.:v,Sh`}:•:?hYti,l .

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

iComrnercial-Sector Energy Consumption

Electricity Sales (TWh) 1,081 1,161 1,239 1,314 1,358

Total U.S. Electric Generation

'Coal (TWh) 1,990 2,036 2,091 2,200 2,337

Gas (TWh) 547 857 1,141 1,427 1,572

Petroleum (TWh) 109 44 35 33 31

Nuclear (TWh) 660 631 554 419 359

:Renewables (TWh) 423 433 446 461 482

'Total (TWh) 3,729 4,002 4,267 4,539 4,781

'Installed Generating Capacity

Coal (GW) 315.2 315.0 318.9 325.8 342.1

Other Fossil (GW) 301.5 369.6 396.1 467.1 509.9

NNuclear (GW) 94.8 87.4 74.2 56.4 48.9

Renewables (GW) 97.2 98.9 100.3 102.3 105.4

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

} Commercial-Sector Energy Consumption

Electricity Sales (TWh) 0.0 1.3 8.7 -18.4 -26.4

Total U.S. Electric Generation:

Coal (TWh) 0.0 -0.5 -0.7 -4.4 -11.5

Gas (TWh) -0.1 -0.6 -7.7 -14.4 -15.6

Petroleum (TWh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Nuclear(TWb) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Renewables (TWh) 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.3 - 1.0

Total (TWh) -0.1 -1.1 -8.5 -19.1 -28.1

Installed Generating Capacity

Coal (GW)

Other Fossil (GW)

Nuclear (GW)

Renewables (GW)

0.0 0.0

0.0 -0.1

0.0 0.0

0.0 -0.4 -1.4

-1.2 -3.0 -3.6

0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

^......... 1..... .,, ..,.,,.,..,..z

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

Table E.7 Standard Scenario 7c Forecast ~ ........................................................................................... , ........................................ .,.. .................................................................................. .,.. ............................................................. ~ ............................................................................................. v.. ................................................................................................. .,.. .................................................................................... -....;., 

iNEMS-NAECA Results: Standards Level ! Difference from AE099 Reference I 

i ~ 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 ~ ~ 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 I 

:lCommercial-Sector Energy COf./sumption ~: Commercial-Sector Energy COllsumption l 

~Electricity Sales (TWh) ! 1,081 1,161 1,239 1,314 1,358 ! Electricity Sales (TWh) I 0.0 -1.3 -8.7 -18.4 -26.4 ~ 

ITotal U.S. Electric Generationl II Total U.s. Electric Generation~ II ~Coal (TWh) 1~ 1,990 2,036 2,091 2,200 2,337 11 Coal (TWh) ~ 0.0 -0.5 -0.7 -4.4 -11.5 l 

rGas (TWh) Ii 547 857 1,141 1,427 1,572 ~ Gas (TWh) ~ -0.1 -0.6 -7.7 -14.4 -15.6 ~ 

~Petrolewn (TWh) i 109 44 35 33 31 ~j Petrolewn (TWh) ! 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ji 

!NUc1ear(TWh) I 660 631 554 419 359 I Nuc1ear(TWh) ! 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 II 

::Renewables (TWh) :: 423 433 446 461 482 ; Renewables (TWh) \ 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.3 -1.0 :; 

ITotal (TWh) 13,729 4,002 4,267 4,539 4,781 II Total (TWh) ) -0.1 -1.1 -8.5 -19.1 -28.1 i ~Installed Generating Capacity! I Installed Generating Capacity I l ~Coal (GW) I 315.2 315.0 318.9 325.8 342.1 II Coal (GW) i 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.4 -1.4 I 

I. Other Fossil (GW) ;301.5 369.6 396.1 467.1 509.9 II Other Fossil (GW) ! 0.0 -0.1 -1.2 -3.0 -3.6 l.~ ~Nuclear (OW) :: 94.8 87.4 74.2 56.4 48.9 .: Nuclear (GW) ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -: 

~Renewables (GW) ! 97.2 98.9 100.3 102.3 105.4 ~ Renewables (GW) ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ~ 

b::ma!~(GW\...,,,x<''''''''''''w''''''''',tJ~f)S.;L,,,,R.IQ,&..,,,aa&,,'k,,&5J,,Q.~1,QQb.2''''~'w"""""L~J:Qt.:ll.{£lW.)..w,,,,,'''.'''''''''',,,,,,,,,,,,L,,,,,Q,Q,,,,,,,,Q,L,,,,,,,,t,1m'''''.J.,,4»,w.,.x5,L~,,,,,w,,'''',,} 

E-ll 

Table E.7 Standard Scenario 7c Forecast ~ ........................................................................................... , ........................................ .,.. .................................................................................. .,.. ............................................................. ~ ............................................................................................. v.. ................................................................................................. .,.. .................................................................................... -....;., 

iNEMS-NAECA Results: Standards Level ! Difference from AE099 Reference I 

i ~ 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 ~ ~ 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 I 

:lCommercial-Sector Energy COf./sumption ~: Commercial-Sector Energy COllsumption l 

~Electricity Sales (TWh) ! 1,081 1,161 1,239 1,314 1,358 ! Electricity Sales (TWh) I 0.0 -1.3 -8.7 -18.4 -26.4 ~ 

ITotal U.S. Electric Generationl II Total U.s. Electric Generation~ II ~Coal (TWh) 1~ 1,990 2,036 2,091 2,200 2,337 11 Coal (TWh) ~ 0.0 -0.5 -0.7 -4.4 -11.5 l 

rGas (TWh) Ii 547 857 1,141 1,427 1,572 ~ Gas (TWh) ~ -0.1 -0.6 -7.7 -14.4 -15.6 ~ 

~Petrolewn (TWh) i 109 44 35 33 31 ~j Petrolewn (TWh) ! 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ji 

!NUc1ear(TWh) I 660 631 554 419 359 I Nuc1ear(TWh) ! 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 II 

::Renewables (TWh) :: 423 433 446 461 482 ; Renewables (TWh) \ 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.3 -1.0 :; 

ITotal (TWh) 13,729 4,002 4,267 4,539 4,781 II Total (TWh) ) -0.1 -1.1 -8.5 -19.1 -28.1 i ~Installed Generating Capacity! I Installed Generating Capacity I l ~Coal (GW) I 315.2 315.0 318.9 325.8 342.1 II Coal (GW) i 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.4 -1.4 I 

I. Other Fossil (GW) ;301.5 369.6 396.1 467.1 509.9 II Other Fossil (GW) ! 0.0 -0.1 -1.2 -3.0 -3.6 l.~ ~Nuclear (OW) :: 94.8 87.4 74.2 56.4 48.9 .: Nuclear (GW) ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -: 

~Renewables (GW) ! 97.2 98.9 100.3 102.3 105.4 ~ Renewables (GW) ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ~ 

b::ma!~(GW\...,,,x<''''''''''''w''''''''',tJ~f)S.;L,,,,R.IQ,&..,,,aa&,,'k,,&5J,,Q.~1,QQb.2''''~'w"""""L~J:Qt.:ll.{£lW.)..w,,,,,'''.'''''''''',,,,,,,,,,,,L,,,,,Q,Q,,,,,,,,Q,L,,,,,,,,t,1m'''''.J.,,4»,w.,.x5,L~,,,,,w,,'''',,} 

E-ll 
The results shown here do not include a late change for HO ballasts (described earlier in this appendix).

The impact of not including the change for HO ballasts is expected to be very small since the change in

energy savings are very shall. For example, the cumulative energy savings for scenarios 7a, 7b and 7c

increase by 10%, 4% and 1%, respectively, relative to the values used to generate the utility impacts

above.

E.5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

As described above, the results for the environmental analysis are comparable to a complete

NEMS-BRS run. Although energy savings from the proposed appliance standards continue through

2030, the effects of these savings are reported through 2020 because this is the time horizon of NEMSBRS. Total carbon and NO,, emissions for each of the 3 cases of standard scenario 7 are reported in

Table E.8. The annual carbon emission reductions range up to 4.0 Mt in 2020 and the NO,, emissions

reductions up to 8.8 kt in the same year.2' 3

Table E.8 Power Sector Emissions: Electronic Ballast Standard Scenarios

NEMS-NAECA Results Difference from AE099 Reference

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020: 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

'AE099 Reference

:Carbon (Mt/a)1'3 588.9 612.9 653.2 704.6 744.6,

NOx(kt/a)2' 4,191.2 3,547.1 3,665.0 3,819.2 3,882.8'

Standard Scenario 7a

:Carbon (Mt/a) 588.9 612.8 652.7 703.8 743.6: Carbon (Mt/a) 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.8 1.0

•'::NOx(kt/a) 4,191.2 3,546.2 3,663.0 3,817.0 3,881.3:: NOx(kt/a) 0.0 0.9 2.0 2.3 1.S

r f

Standard Scenario 7b

;Carbon (Mt/a) 588.9 612.7 652.4 703.1 742.6. Carbon (Mt/a) 0.0 -0.2 -0.8 -1.5 -2.0

NOx(kt/a) 4,191.2 3,546.1 3,662.1 3,814.8 3,878.8i NOx(kt/a) 0.0 -1.0 -2.9 -4.5 44.0

'Standard Scenario 7c f

Carbon (Mt/a) 588.9 612.7 652.2 702.1 740.6. Carbon (Mt/a) 0.0 -0.2 -1.0 -2.5 -4.0

NOx(kt/a) 4,191.2 3,545.3 3,661.8 3,810.9 3,873.9 NOx(kt/a)

I

0.0 - 1.8 -3.2 -8.4 8.8r

IComnarable to Table A17 of AE099 : Electric Generators

2Cmmnarahle to Tahle AR of AFf99• Emissions

3All results in metric. tnnc (tl ennivalent to 1 1 chnrt tons

2million metric tons (Mt)

3thousand metric tons (kt)

E-12

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

The results shown here do not include a late change for HO ballasts (described earlier in this appendix). 

The impact of not including the change for HO ballasts is expected to be very small since the change in 

energy savings are very small. For example, the cumulative energy savings for scenarios 7a, 7b and 7c 

increase by 10%, 4% and 1 %, respectively, relative to the values used to generate the utility impacts 

above. 

E.5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 

As described above, the results for the environmental analysis are comparable to a complete 

NEMS-BRS run. Although energy savings from the proposed appliance standards continue through 

2030, the effects of these savings are reported through 2020 because this is the time horizon ofNEMSBRS. Total carbon and NOx emissions for each of the 3 cases of standard scenario 7 are reported in 

Table E.8. The annual carbon emission reductions range up to 4.0 Mt in 2020 and the NOx emissions 

reductions up to 8.8 kt in the same year.2, 3 

Table E.8 Power Sector Emissions: Electronic Ballast Standard Scenarios ~'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''U'''''''''''''''' .............. .v''I1' ••• , .............................................................................................................................................................. ~ ....................................... ••• .. h·.· ... · ... ·.·.· ... •.· ... ·.· ... ·.·.·•·.· ............. · ... · ... · ... ••• ..... ••••••••• ... · ..... • ....... ·.·.· ... ·•· ... • ...... b·.·.· ..... · ............................................. ~ 

iNEMS-NAECA Results ; Difference from AE099 Reference j r",,,,',,,,,,'··,,,OWNN.w,,,,,,mr··'·w;ooo'··········,;oos········,······;·0·10'··.wN·20·

1

·

s

··,········'·io;or··············""-..N .. ", .. ", ...... ",m .... 1"'.w···20·00""N····200Sm·"";0;:·0·",N····'2015'",,,,··;0201 ~AE099 Reference ! :: § } ~ 1 1 ~ ~::3 ~ 

~Carbon (Mt/a) ,. :l 588.9 612.9 653.2 704.6 744.6) § 1 ~ 2,3 ~ ~ U: ~ 1NOx(ktla) 1 4,191.2 3,547.1 3,665.0 3,819.2 3,882.81 l 1 

~ . ~ ~ M ~ ~Standard Scenario 7a ~ ~ ~~ ~ 

;Carbon (MtJa) ! 588.9 612.8 652.7 703.8 743.6; Carbon (MtJa) [ 0.0 -0.1 -0.5 -0.8 -1.01 ... ~ .:..: ~ 

iNOx(ktla) ~ 4,191.2 3,546.2 3,663.0 3,817.0 3,881.3!l NOx(ktJa) ~ 0.0 -0.9 -2.0 -2.3 -1.5i 

~ ~ ~ ~ a :- ~ :. ~ >: 

jStandard Scenario 7b i i ~ ~ 

iCarbon (MtJa) 1 588.9 612.7 652.4 703.1 742.61 Carbon (Mtla) ~ 0.0 -0.2 -0.8 -1.5 -2.of ;0 ~ ,,~~ ~ 

1NOx(ktJa) i. 4,191.2 3,546.1 3,662.1 3,814.8 3,878.81 NOx(ktJa) ~ 0.0 -1.0 -2.9 -4.5 -4.0~ 

:::: 

~~ ~ l~ m ~ :- ~ ~ 

~Standard Scenario 7c ? ~ ij ~ ~ ~ :: ~ ~ !Carbon (MtJa) ~ 588.9 612.7 652.2 702.1 740.6; Carbon (MtJa) ~ 0.0 -0.2 -1.0 -2.5 -4.0j 

iNOx(ktJa) J 4,191.2 3,545.3 3,661.8 3,810.9 3,873.91 NOx(ktla) ~ 0.0 -1.8 -3.2 -8.4 -8.8! 

~ .................................................................................. J ..................................................................................................................................................... ..11.. .................................................................... [ ........................................................................................................................................................ J 

I Comoarable to Table AI7 of AE099: Electric Generators 

2('nmnofoh1<, tn Tohlp. AR nf A FOQQ' Fmiooinno 

3 All fP.011ltO in mp.tfil'. tnno (t) p.1111ivolp.nttn 1 1 ohort tnno 

2million metric tons (Mt) 

3thousand metric tons (kt) 

E-12 

The results shown here do not include a late change for HO ballasts (described earlier in this appendix). 

The impact of not including the change for HO ballasts is expected to be very small since the change in 

energy savings are very small. For example, the cumulative energy savings for scenarios 7a, 7b and 7c 

increase by 10%, 4% and 1 %, respectively, relative to the values used to generate the utility impacts 

above. 

E.5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 

As described above, the results for the environmental analysis are comparable to a complete 

NEMS-BRS run. Although energy savings from the proposed appliance standards continue through 

2030, the effects of these savings are reported through 2020 because this is the time horizon ofNEMSBRS. Total carbon and NOx emissions for each of the 3 cases of standard scenario 7 are reported in 

Table E.8. The annual carbon emission reductions range up to 4.0 Mt in 2020 and the NOx emissions 

reductions up to 8.8 kt in the same year.2, 3 

Table E.8 Power Sector Emissions: Electronic Ballast Standard Scenarios ~'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''U'''''''''''''''' .............. .v''I1' ••• , .............................................................................................................................................................. ~ ....................................... ••• .. h·.· ... · ... ·.·.· ... •.· ... ·.· ... ·.·.·•·.· ............. · ... · ... · ... ••• ..... ••••••••• ... · ..... • ....... ·.·.· ... ·•· ... • ...... b·.·.· ..... · ............................................. ~ 

iNEMS-NAECA Results ; Difference from AE099 Reference j r",,,,',,,,,,'··,,,OWNN.w,,,,,,mr··'·w;ooo'··········,;oos········,······;·0·10'··.wN·20·

1

·

s

··,········'·io;or··············""-..N .. ", .. ", ...... ",m .... 1"'.w···20·00""N····200Sm·"";0;:·0·",N····'2015'",,,,··;0201 ~AE099 Reference ! :: § } ~ 1 1 ~ ~::3 ~ 

~Carbon (Mt/a) ,. :l 588.9 612.9 653.2 704.6 744.6) § 1 ~ 2,3 ~ ~ U: ~ 1NOx(ktla) 1 4,191.2 3,547.1 3,665.0 3,819.2 3,882.81 l 1 

~ . ~ ~ M ~ ~Standard Scenario 7a ~ ~ ~~ ~ 

;Carbon (MtJa) ! 588.9 612.8 652.7 703.8 743.6; Carbon (MtJa) [ 0.0 -0.1 -0.5 -0.8 -1.01 ... ~ .:..: ~ 

iNOx(ktla) ~ 4,191.2 3,546.2 3,663.0 3,817.0 3,881.3!l NOx(ktJa) ~ 0.0 -0.9 -2.0 -2.3 -1.5i 

~ ~ ~ ~ a :- ~ :. ~ >: 

jStandard Scenario 7b i i ~ ~ 

iCarbon (MtJa) 1 588.9 612.7 652.4 703.1 742.61 Carbon (Mtla) ~ 0.0 -0.2 -0.8 -1.5 -2.of ;0 ~ ,,~~ ~ 

1NOx(ktJa) i. 4,191.2 3,546.1 3,662.1 3,814.8 3,878.81 NOx(ktJa) ~ 0.0 -1.0 -2.9 -4.5 -4.0~ 

:::: 

~~ ~ l~ m ~ :- ~ ~ 

~Standard Scenario 7c ? ~ ij ~ ~ ~ :: ~ ~ !Carbon (MtJa) ~ 588.9 612.7 652.2 702.1 740.6; Carbon (MtJa) ~ 0.0 -0.2 -1.0 -2.5 -4.0j 

iNOx(ktJa) J 4,191.2 3,545.3 3,661.8 3,810.9 3,873.91 NOx(ktla) ~ 0.0 -1.8 -3.2 -8.4 -8.8! 

~ .................................................................................. J ..................................................................................................................................................... ..11.. .................................................................... [ ........................................................................................................................................................ J 

I Comoarable to Table AI7 of AE099: Electric Generators 

2('nmnofoh1<, tn Tohlp. AR nf A FOQQ' Fmiooinno 

3 All fP.011ltO in mp.tfil'. tnno (t) p.1111ivolp.nttn 1 1 ohort tnno 

2million metric tons (Mt) 

3thousand metric tons (kt) 

E-12 
Cumulative emissions savings over the 18-year period modeled are listed below for the three cases of

standard scenario 7:

Table E.9 Cumulative Emissions Reductions (2003-2020)

Emission Standard 7a Standard 7b Standard 7c

Carbon (Mt) 10.9 19.0 32.1

NOx (kt) 34.0 59.6 103.4

The results shown here do not include a late change for HO ballasts (described earlier in this appendix).

The impact of not including the change for HO ballasts is expected to be very small since the change in

energy savings are very small. For example, the cumulative energy savings for scenarios 7a, 7b and 7c

increase by 10%, 4% and 1%, respectively, relative to the values used to generate the results in Table

E.9.

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

Cumulative emissions savings over the I8-year period modeled are listed below for the three cases of 

standard scenario 7; 

Table E.9 Cumulative Emissions Reductions (2003-2020) 

Emission Standard 7a Standard 7b Standard 7c 

Carbon (Mt) 10.9 19.0 32.1 

NOx(kt) 34.0 59.6 103.4 

The results shown here do not include a late change for HO ballasts (described earlier in this appendix). 

The impact of not including the change for HO ballasts is expected to be very small since the change in 

energy savings are very small. For example, the cumulative energy savings for scenarios 7a, 7b and 7c 

increase by 10%,4% and 1 %, respectively, relative to the values used to generate the results in Table 

E.9. 

E-13 

Cumulative emissions savings over the I8-year period modeled are listed below for the three cases of 

standard scenario 7; 

Table E.9 Cumulative Emissions Reductions (2003-2020) 

Emission Standard 7a Standard 7b Standard 7c 

Carbon (Mt) 10.9 19.0 32.1 

NOx(kt) 34.0 59.6 103.4 

The results shown here do not include a late change for HO ballasts (described earlier in this appendix). 

The impact of not including the change for HO ballasts is expected to be very small since the change in 

energy savings are very small. For example, the cumulative energy savings for scenarios 7a, 7b and 7c 

increase by 10%,4% and 1 %, respectively, relative to the values used to generate the results in Table 

E.9. 

E-13 
REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS

Energy Conservation Standards

for Consumer Products

Covering: Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office of Building Technologies

October 1999

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS 

Energy Conservation Standards 

for Consumer Products 

Covering: Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office of Building Technologies 

October 1999 

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS 

Energy Conservation Standards 

for Consumer Products 

Covering: Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office of Building Technologies 

October 1999 
REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS

1. INTRODUCTION

Part B of Title Ill of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) (P1. 94-163), as

amended by the National Energy Conservation Policy Act (NECPA) (P.L. 95-619), by the National

Appliance Energy Conservation Act (NAECA) (P.L. 100-12), by the National Energy Conservation

Amendments of 1988 (NAECA 1988) (P.L. 100-357), and the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct)

(P.L. 102-486) created the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products other than

Automobiles. The consumer products covered by this program (often referred to hereafter as

"covered products") are: refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers and freezers; dishwashers; clothes dryers;

water heaters; central air conditioners and central air conditioning heat pumps; furnaces; direct

heating equipment; television sets; kitchen ranges and ovens; clothes washers; room air conditioners;

pool heaters; fluorescent lamp ballasts; and any other consumer product classified by the Secretary

of Energy [Section 322]. To date, the Secretary has not so classified any additional products.

For 12 covered products, the Act prescribes an initial Federal energy conservation standard

[Section 325 (b) - (h)]. The Act establishes effective dates for the standards in 1988, 1990, 1992,

or 1993, depending on the product, and specifies that the standards are to be reviewed by the

Department within three to ten years, also depending on the product [Section 325(b) - (h)]. After

the specified three- to ten-year period, DOE may promulgate new standards for each product;

however, the Secretary may not prescribe any amended standard which increases the maximum

allowable energy use, or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency, of a covered product

[Section 325 (1) (1)].

The Act required DOE to publish a final rule no later than January 1, 1992, to determine if

the standards on fluorescent lamp ballasts should be amended. [Section 325(g) (4) (A) (i)] This

product is the subject of the rulemaking for which this Regulatory Impact Analysis is being issued.

Any new or amended standard must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in

energy efficiency that is technologically feasible, and economically justified [Section 325 (1) (2)

(A)]•

Section 325 (1) (2) (B) (i) provides that before DOE determines whether a standard is

economically justified, it must first solicit comments on a proposed standard. After reviewing

comments on the proposal, DOE must then determine that the benefits of the standard exceed its

burdens, based, to the greatest extent practicable, on a weighing of the following seven factors:

R-1

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS 

1. INTRODUCTION 

Part B of Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) (P.L. 94-163), as 

amended by the National Energy Conservation Policy Act (NECPA) (P.L. 95-619), by the National 

Appliance Energy Conservation Act (NAECA) (P.L. 100-12), by the National Energy Conservation 

Amendments of 1988 (NAECA 1988) (P.L. 100-357), and the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct) 

(P.L. 102-486) created the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products other than 

Automobiles. The consumer products covered by this program (often referred to hereafter as 

"covered products ") are: refrigerators, refrigerator-ft'eezers and freezers; dishwashers; clothes dryers; 

water heaters; central air conditioners and central air conditioning heat pumps; furnaces; direct 

heating equipment; television sets; kitchen ranges and ovens; clothes washers; room air conditioners; 

pool heaters; fluorescent lamp ballasts; and any other consumer product classified by the Secretary 

of Energy [Section 322]. To date, the Secretary has not so classified any additional products. 

For 12 covered products, the Act prescribes an initial Federal energy conservation standard 

[Section 325 (b) - (h)]. The Act establishes effective dates for the standards in 1988, 1990, 1992, 

or 1993, depending on the product, and specifies that the standards are to be reviewed by the 

Department within three to ten years, also depending on the product [Section 325(b) - (h)]. After 

the specified three- to ten-year period, DOE may promulgate new standards for each product; 

however, the Secretary may not prescribe any amended standard which increases the maximum 

allowable energy use, or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency, of a covered product 

[Section 325 (1) (1)]. 

The Act required DOE to publish a final rule no later than January 1, 1992, to determine if 

the standards on fluorescent lamp ballasts should be amended. [Section 325(g) (4) (A) (i)] This 

product is the subject of the rulemaking for which this Regulatory Impact Analysis is being issued. 

Any new or amended standard must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in 

energy efficiency that is technologically feasible, and economically justified [Section 325 (1) (2) 

(A)]. 

Section 325 (1) (2) (B) (i) provides that before DOE deternlines whether a standard is 

economically justified, it must first solicit comments on a proposed standard. After reviewing 

comments on the proposal, DOE must then determine that the benefits of the standard exceed its 

burdens, based, to the greatest extent practicable, on a weighing of the following seven factors: 

R-1 

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS 

1. INTRODUCTION 

Part B of Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) (P.L. 94-163), as 

amended by the National Energy Conservation Policy Act (NECPA) (P.L. 95-619), by the National 

Appliance Energy Conservation Act (NAECA) (P.L. 100-12), by the National Energy Conservation 

Amendments of 1988 (NAECA 1988) (P.L. 100-357), and the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct) 

(P.L. 102-486) created the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products other than 

Automobiles. The consumer products covered by this program (often referred to hereafter as 

"covered products ") are: refrigerators, refrigerator-ft'eezers and freezers; dishwashers; clothes dryers; 

water heaters; central air conditioners and central air conditioning heat pumps; furnaces; direct 

heating equipment; television sets; kitchen ranges and ovens; clothes washers; room air conditioners; 

pool heaters; fluorescent lamp ballasts; and any other consumer product classified by the Secretary 

of Energy [Section 322]. To date, the Secretary has not so classified any additional products. 

For 12 covered products, the Act prescribes an initial Federal energy conservation standard 

[Section 325 (b) - (h)]. The Act establishes effective dates for the standards in 1988, 1990, 1992, 

or 1993, depending on the product, and specifies that the standards are to be reviewed by the 

Department within three to ten years, also depending on the product [Section 325(b) - (h)]. After 

the specified three- to ten-year period, DOE may promulgate new standards for each product; 

however, the Secretary may not prescribe any amended standard which increases the maximum 

allowable energy use, or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency, of a covered product 

[Section 325 (1) (1)]. 

The Act required DOE to publish a final rule no later than January 1, 1992, to determine if 

the standards on fluorescent lamp ballasts should be amended. [Section 325(g) (4) (A) (i)] This 

product is the subject of the rulemaking for which this Regulatory Impact Analysis is being issued. 

Any new or amended standard must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in 

energy efficiency that is technologically feasible, and economically justified [Section 325 (1) (2) 

(A)]. 

Section 325 (1) (2) (B) (i) provides that before DOE deternlines whether a standard is 

economically justified, it must first solicit comments on a proposed standard. After reviewing 

comments on the proposal, DOE must then determine that the benefits of the standard exceed its 

burdens, based, to the greatest extent practicable, on a weighing of the following seven factors: 

R-1 
(1) The economic impact of the standard on the manufacturers and on the consumers of the

products.subject to such standard;

(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered

product in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price of, or in the initial charges for,

or maintenance expenses of, the covered products which are likely to result from the imposition of

the standard;

(3) The total projected amount of energy savings likely to result directly from the imposition

of the standard;

(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered products likely to result

from the imposition of the standard;

(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, determined in writing by the Attorney

General, that is likely to result from the imposition of the standard;

(6) The need for national energy conservation; and

(7) Other factors the Secretary considers relevant.

In addition, the Act specifies criteria for petitions to DOE in regard to amendments to standards

[Section 325 (k)]. Under the Act, any person may petition the Department to conduct a rulemaking

to amend a Federal energy conservation standard for any covered product [Section 325 (k) (1)]. The

Department must grant such a petition if it determines that an amended standard will result in

significant conservation of energy, is technologically feasible and is cost-effective [Section 325 (k)

(2)].

This Regulatory Impact Analysis describes the analyses performed by DOE to arrive at the

proposed energy efficiency standards for the product types listed above.

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) directs that, in proposing a

significant regulatory action, an agency perform a regulatory analysis. Such an analysis presents

major alternatives to the regulation that could achieve substantially the same regulatory goal, as well

as a description of the costs and benefits (quantified, to the extent feasible) of the proposed rule.

DOE has determined that this proposed rule is a "significant regulatory action".

Since Congress mandated that DOE promulgate performance standards, the only other

alternative within the boundaries of the law is a no-standard alternative . However, in preparing this

Regulatory Impact Analysis, the list of alternatives has been expanded to include alternatives that

would require new enabling legislation or statutory amendments.

R-2

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

(1) The economic impact of the standard on the manufacturers and on the consumers of the 

products-subject to such standard; 

(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered 

product in the type ( or class) compared to any increase in the price of, or in the initial charges for, 

or maintenance expenses of, the covered products which are likely to result from the imposition of 

the standard; 

(3) The total proj ected amount of energy savings likely to result directly from the imposition 

of the standard; 

(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered products likely to result 

from the imposition of the standard; 

(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, determined in writing by the Attorney 

General, that is likely to result from the imposition of the standard; 

(6) The need for national energy conservation; and 

(7) Other factors the Secretary considers relevant. 

In addition, the Act specifies criteria for petitions to DOE in regard to amendments to standards 

[Section 325 (k)]. Under the Act, any person may petition the Department to conduct a rulemaking 

to amend a Federal energy conservation standard for any covered product [Section 325 (k) (1)]. The 

Department must grant such a petition if it determines that an amended standard will result in 

significant conservation of energy, is technologically feasible and is cost-effective [Section 325 (k) 

(2)]. 

This Regulatory Impact Analysis describes the analyses performed by DOE to arrive at the 

proposed energy efficiency standards for the product types listed above. 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) directs that, in proposing a 

significant regulatory action, an agency perform a regulatory analysis. Such an analysis presents 

major alternatives to the regulation that could achieve substantially the same regulatory goal, as well 

as a description of the costs and benefits (quantified, to the extent feasible) of the proposed rule. 

DOE has detemlined that this proposed rule is a "significant regulatory action". 

Since Congress mandated that DOE promulgate performance standards, the only other 

alternative within the boundaries of the law is a no-standard alternative. However, in preparing this 

Regulatory Impact Analysis, the list of alternatives has been expanded to include alternatives that 

would require new enabling legislation or statutory amendments. 

R-2 

(1) The economic impact of the standard on the manufacturers and on the consumers of the 

products-subject to such standard; 

(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered 

product in the type ( or class) compared to any increase in the price of, or in the initial charges for, 

or maintenance expenses of, the covered products which are likely to result from the imposition of 

the standard; 

(3) The total proj ected amount of energy savings likely to result directly from the imposition 

of the standard; 

(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered products likely to result 

from the imposition of the standard; 

(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, determined in writing by the Attorney 

General, that is likely to result from the imposition of the standard; 

(6) The need for national energy conservation; and 

(7) Other factors the Secretary considers relevant. 

In addition, the Act specifies criteria for petitions to DOE in regard to amendments to standards 

[Section 325 (k)]. Under the Act, any person may petition the Department to conduct a rulemaking 

to amend a Federal energy conservation standard for any covered product [Section 325 (k) (1)]. The 

Department must grant such a petition if it determines that an amended standard will result in 

significant conservation of energy, is technologically feasible and is cost-effective [Section 325 (k) 

(2)]. 

This Regulatory Impact Analysis describes the analyses performed by DOE to arrive at the 

proposed energy efficiency standards for the product types listed above. 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) directs that, in proposing a 

significant regulatory action, an agency perform a regulatory analysis. Such an analysis presents 

major alternatives to the regulation that could achieve substantially the same regulatory goal, as well 

as a description of the costs and benefits (quantified, to the extent feasible) of the proposed rule. 

DOE has detemlined that this proposed rule is a "significant regulatory action". 

Since Congress mandated that DOE promulgate performance standards, the only other 

alternative within the boundaries of the law is a no-standard alternative. However, in preparing this 

Regulatory Impact Analysis, the list of alternatives has been expanded to include alternatives that 

would require new enabling legislation or statutory amendments. 

R-2 
This Regulatory Impact Analysis is concerned with the projected economic impacts of the

standards, and their major alternatives , on the nation as a whole.

In addition to examining possible alternatives to the proposed standards , this Regulatory

Impact Analysis examines the way in which performance criteria and other factors are defined and

measured for the proposed standards. The proposed alternatives are examined for reasonableness

and possible biases which might affect the success of the standards in achieving the legislated goals

of energy conservation and reduced demand for energy. The analysis briefly presents the results of

the Technical Support Document (TSD)` and explains how these results were used to determine the

relative impact of the proposed standards on the nation.

2. DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS OF MAJOR ALTERNATIVES

There are many methods to achieve energy conservation through the increased energy

efficiency of consumer products. This section describes and analyzes various regulatory and

non-regulatory alternatives and their effectiveness in conserving energy.

The alternatives examined in this analysis ranged from the no -action alternative or the "base

case" against which the benefits of other alternatives were measured to alternatives requiring new

legislation for implementation.

Each alternative has been analyzed in comparison to the other alternatives in terms of

potential energy savings, net present value, and other impacts that differ among the alternatives. A

summary of this comparative analysis is presented in the following section. A detailed discussion

and quantitative description of each alternative is presented in the remaining sections of this chapter.

2.1 Comparative Analysis of the Alternatives

To compare each alternative quantitatively to the proposed conservation standards in terms

of energy savings and the net present value (or cost savings), it was necessary to quantify the effect

of each alternative on the purchase and use of energy-efficient fluorescent ballasts. Each alternative

to the proposed regulation was quantified so that inputs to the Lawrence Berkeley National

Laboratory model (LBNL-NES v.4) could be determined. The NES model was used to calculate

the energy use and the net present value corresponding to each alternative . The key inputs to the

forecasting model were:

® national shipments forecasts;

® electricity price projections;

® ballast system characteristics;

R-3

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

This Regulatory Impact Analysis is concerned with the projected economic impacts of the 

standards, and their major alternatives, on the nation as a whole. 

In addition to examining possible alternatives to the proposed standards, this Regulatory 

Impact Analysis examines the way in which perfornlance criteria and other factors are defined and 

measured for the proposed standards. The proposed alternatives are examined for reasonableness 

and possible biases which might affect the success of the standards in achieving the legislated goals 

of energy conservation and reduced demand for energy. The analysis briefly presents the results of 

the Technical Support Document (TSDY and explains how these results were used to determine the 

relative impact of the proposed standards on the nation. 

2. DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS OF MAJOR AL TERNA TIVES 

There are many methods to achieve energy conservation through the increased energy 

efficiency of consumer products. This section describes and analyzes various regulatory and 

non-regulatory alternatives and their effectiveness in conserving energy. 

The alternatives examined in this analysis ranged from the no-action alternative or the "base 

case" against which the benefits of other alternatives were measured to alternatives requiring new 

legislation for implementation. 

Each alternative has been analyzed in comparison to the other alternatives in terms of 

potential energy savings, net present value, and other impacts that differ among the alternatives. A 

summary of this comparative analysis is presented in the following section. A detailed discussion 

and quantitative description of each alternative is presented in the remaining sections of this chapter. 

2.1 Comparative Analysis of the Alternatives 

To compare each alternative quantitatively to the proposed conservation standards in terms 

of energy savings and the net present value (or cost savings), it was necessary to quantify the effect 

of each alternative on the purchase and use of energy-efficient fluorescent ballasts. Each alternative 

to the proposed regulation was quantified so that inputs to the Lawrence Berkeley National 

Laboratory model (LBNL-NES vA) could be determined. The NES model was used to calculate 

the energy use and the net present value corresponding to each alternative. The key inputs to the 

forecasting model were: 

" national shipments forecasts; 

" electricity price projections; 

.. ballast system characteristics; 

R-3 

This Regulatory Impact Analysis is concerned with the projected economic impacts of the 

standards, and their major alternatives, on the nation as a whole. 

In addition to examining possible alternatives to the proposed standards, this Regulatory 

Impact Analysis examines the way in which perfornlance criteria and other factors are defined and 

measured for the proposed standards. The proposed alternatives are examined for reasonableness 

and possible biases which might affect the success of the standards in achieving the legislated goals 

of energy conservation and reduced demand for energy. The analysis briefly presents the results of 

the Technical Support Document (TSDY and explains how these results were used to determine the 

relative impact of the proposed standards on the nation. 

2. DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS OF MAJOR AL TERNA TIVES 

There are many methods to achieve energy conservation through the increased energy 

efficiency of consumer products. This section describes and analyzes various regulatory and 

non-regulatory alternatives and their effectiveness in conserving energy. 

The alternatives examined in this analysis ranged from the no-action alternative or the "base 

case" against which the benefits of other alternatives were measured to alternatives requiring new 

legislation for implementation. 

Each alternative has been analyzed in comparison to the other alternatives in terms of 

potential energy savings, net present value, and other impacts that differ among the alternatives. A 

summary of this comparative analysis is presented in the following section. A detailed discussion 

and quantitative description of each alternative is presented in the remaining sections of this chapter. 

2.1 Comparative Analysis of the Alternatives 

To compare each alternative quantitatively to the proposed conservation standards in terms 

of energy savings and the net present value (or cost savings), it was necessary to quantify the effect 

of each alternative on the purchase and use of energy-efficient fluorescent ballasts. Each alternative 

to the proposed regulation was quantified so that inputs to the Lawrence Berkeley National 

Laboratory model (LBNL-NES vA) could be determined. The NES model was used to calculate 

the energy use and the net present value corresponding to each alternative. The key inputs to the 

forecasting model were: 

" national shipments forecasts; 

" electricity price projections; 

.. ballast system characteristics; 

R-3 
® percentages of different ballast types in fixtures;

® percentages of ballasts converted to different ballast types under standards;

® years of standards implementation; and

® social discount rate.

The price and energy consumption inputs to the forecasting model are shown in Table R. 1.

Only those parameters that were needed to specify the alternatives were changed from the base case.

Otherwise, all aspects of the base case remained constant throughout the analysis to permit a

quantitative comparison of the alternatives without extraneous effects.

Note that for this regulatory impact analysis, the alternative policies assumed that for fourfoot electronic systems, T8 electronic ballasts are used. The lamp/ballast systems were assumed to

operate in commercial sector buildings, except for eight-foot HO ballasts, which were assumed to

operate in the industrial sector.

The results from the forecasting model are summarized in the first two columns of Table R.2

for each alternative evaluated. All results are reported relative to the base or no-action case so that

the energy savings resulting from each alternative can be assessed readily. Most alternatives would

result in some energy savings and in positive net present value compared to the base case. As the

comparison shows, the proposed approach resulted in appreciably higher energy savings and a

greater national net present value than the other alternatives.

Technology Option

Incremental

Ballast Price

( 1997$)

Unit Energy

Savings

kWh/a

1-lamp F32T8 (Commercial) 6.69 52

2-lamp F32T8 (Commercial) 8.37 62

3-lamp F32T8 tandem-wired (Commercial ) 12.56 92

3-lamp F32T8 non-tandem-wired (Commercial) -4.03 116

4-lamp F32T8 (Commercial) - 1.45 122

2-lamp F96T12/ES (Commercial) 17.37 49

24amp F96T12H0/ES (Industrial) 12.05 108

The impacts of measures of each program were:

Table RA Ballast Price vs Ener Consumption

R-4

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

.. percentages of different ballast types in fixtures; 

.. percentages of ballasts convelied to different ballast types under standards; 

.. years of standards implementation; and 

.. social discount rate . 

The price and energy consumption inputs to the forecasting model are shown in Table R.I. 

Only those parameters that were needed to specify the alternatives were changed from the base case. 

Otherwise, all aspects of the base case remained constant throughout the analysis to pernlit a 

quantitative comparison of the alternatives without extraneous effects. 

Note that for this regulatory impact analysis, the alternative policies assumed that for fourfoot electronic systems, T8 electronic ballasts are used. The lamplballast systems were assumed to 

operate in commercial sector buildings, except for eight-foot HO ballasts, which were assumed to 

operate in the industrial sector. 

The results from the forecasting model are summarized in the first two columns of Table R.2 

for each alternative evaluated. All results are reported relative to the base or no-action case so that 

the energy savings resulting from each alternative can be assessed readily. Most alternatives would 

result in some energy savings and in positive net present value compared to the base case. As the 

comparison shows, the proposed approach resulted in appreciably higher energy savings and a 

greater national net present value than the other alternatives. 

Table R.l Ballast Price vs Energy Consumption 

Incremental 

Technology Option Ballast Price 

(1997$) 

I-lamp F32T8 (Commercial) 6.69 

2-lamp F32T8 (Commercial) 8.37 

3-lamp F32T8 tandem-wired (Commercial) 12.56 

3-lamp F32T8 non-tandem-wired (Commercial) -4.03 

4-lamp F32T8 (Commercial) -1.45 

2-lamp F96Tl2/ES (Commercial) 17.37 

2-lamp F96Tl2HO/ES (Industrial) 12.05 

The impacts of measures of each program were: 

R-4 

Unit Energy 

Savings 

kWh/a 

52 

62 

92 

116 

122 

49 

108 

.. percentages of different ballast types in fixtures; 

.. percentages of ballasts convelied to different ballast types under standards; 

.. years of standards implementation; and 

.. social discount rate . 

The price and energy consumption inputs to the forecasting model are shown in Table R.I. 

Only those parameters that were needed to specify the alternatives were changed from the base case. 

Otherwise, all aspects of the base case remained constant throughout the analysis to pernlit a 

quantitative comparison of the alternatives without extraneous effects. 

Note that for this regulatory impact analysis, the alternative policies assumed that for fourfoot electronic systems, T8 electronic ballasts are used. The lamplballast systems were assumed to 

operate in commercial sector buildings, except for eight-foot HO ballasts, which were assumed to 

operate in the industrial sector. 

The results from the forecasting model are summarized in the first two columns of Table R.2 

for each alternative evaluated. All results are reported relative to the base or no-action case so that 

the energy savings resulting from each alternative can be assessed readily. Most alternatives would 

result in some energy savings and in positive net present value compared to the base case. As the 

comparison shows, the proposed approach resulted in appreciably higher energy savings and a 

greater national net present value than the other alternatives. 

Table R.l Ballast Price vs Energy Consumption 

Incremental 

Technology Option Ballast Price 

(1997$) 

I-lamp F32T8 (Commercial) 6.69 

2-lamp F32T8 (Commercial) 8.37 

3-lamp F32T8 tandem-wired (Commercial) 12.56 

3-lamp F32T8 non-tandem-wired (Commercial) -4.03 

4-lamp F32T8 (Commercial) -1.45 

2-lamp F96Tl2/ES (Commercial) 17.37 

2-lamp F96Tl2HO/ES (Industrial) 12.05 

The impacts of measures of each program were: 

R-4 

Unit Energy 

Savings 

kWh/a 

52 

62 

92 

116 

122 

49 

108 
® Commercial and Industrial Energy Savings (Quads, exajoules =1018 joule). Cumulative

energy use from the base case projection minus the alternative case projection.

Cumulative from 2003-2030 or 2005-2030. Electricity consumption reported as primary

energy.

® Net Present Value. Value of future savings from ballasts bought in the period 2003-2030

or 2005-2030. Calculated as the present value of the equipment and energy expenditures

in the base case minus the present value of expenditures in the alternative case. Future

fuel and equipment expenditures discounted to 1997 using a 7 percent real discount rate.

Electricity cost savings associated with any ballasts purchased by 2030 and occurring in

years after 2030, as well as the costs of replacement lamps purchased after 2030 to be

used in ballasts purchased before 2030, were included in the total for the NPV

calculations.

The additional columns presented in Table R.2 focus on other aspects of each alternative

that are pertinent to the regulatory analysis, including:

® equity impacts (or effects on the well-being of the nation);

® whether legislative authority exists for implementing the alternative;

® major barriers to implementation and enforcement (other than legislative);

® impact of the alternative on competition; and

® compliance and reporting requirements of each alternative.

These factors for each alternative were compared to the proposed standards. None of the

alternatives showed energy or economic savings comparable to the proposed program. The proposed

approach appeared to be less favorable than some of the other program alternatives in competition

and reporting/compliance requirements. (See Table R.2, Expected Impacts of Program Alternatives)

Those program alternatives (voluntary targets, enhanced labeling/consumer education, government

purchases, lighting research) that involve non-mandatory methods for achieving more

energy-efficient consumer products fared better in these two areas. However, the

reporting/compliance requirements and the potential effects on competition of the performance

standards must be weighed against the greater and more certain energy savings of the proposed

approach compared to what the alternatives could achieve in this area.

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

.. Commercial and Industrial Energy Savings (Quads, exajoules = 1018 joule). Cumulative 

energy use from the base case projection minus the alternative case projection. 

Cumulative from 2003-2030 or 2005-2030. Electricity consumption reported as primary 

energy. 

.. Net Present Value. Value of future savings from ballasts bought in the period 2003-2030 

or 2005-2030. Calculated as the present value of the equipment and energy expenditures 

in the base case minus the present value of expenditures in the alternative case. Future 

fuel and equipment expenditures discounted to 1997 using a 7 percent real discount rate. 

Electricity cost savings associated with any ballasts purchased by 2030 and occurring in 

years after 2030, as well as the costs of replacement lamps purchased after 2030 to be 

used in ballasts purchased before 2030, were included in the total for the NPV 

calculations. 

The additional columns presented in Table R.2 focus on other aspects of each alternative 

that are pertinent to the regulatory analysis, including: 

.. equity impacts (or effects on the well-being of the nation); 

.. whether legislative authority exists for implementing the alternative; 

" major barriers to implementation and enforcement (other than legislative); 

" impact of the alternative on competition; and 

.. compliance and reporting requirements of each alternative. 

These factors for each alternative were compared to the proposed standards. None of the 

alternatives showed energy or economic savings comparable to the proposed program. The proposed 

approach appeared to be less favorable than some of the other program alternatives in competition 

and reporting/ comp Hance requirements. (See Table R.2, Expected Impacts of Program Alternatives) 

Those program alternatives (voluntary targets, enhanced labeling/consumer education, government 

purchases, lighting research) that involve non-mandatory methods for achieving more 

energy-efficient consumer products fared better in these two areas. However, the 

reporting/compliance requirements and the potential effects on competition of the performance 

standards must be weighed against the greater and more certain energy savings of the proposed 

approach compared to what the alternatives could achieve in this area. 

R-5 

.. Commercial and Industrial Energy Savings (Quads, exajoules = 1018 joule). Cumulative 

energy use from the base case projection minus the alternative case projection. 

Cumulative from 2003-2030 or 2005-2030. Electricity consumption reported as primary 

energy. 

.. Net Present Value. Value of future savings from ballasts bought in the period 2003-2030 

or 2005-2030. Calculated as the present value of the equipment and energy expenditures 

in the base case minus the present value of expenditures in the alternative case. Future 

fuel and equipment expenditures discounted to 1997 using a 7 percent real discount rate. 

Electricity cost savings associated with any ballasts purchased by 2030 and occurring in 

years after 2030, as well as the costs of replacement lamps purchased after 2030 to be 

used in ballasts purchased before 2030, were included in the total for the NPV 

calculations. 

The additional columns presented in Table R.2 focus on other aspects of each alternative 

that are pertinent to the regulatory analysis, including: 

.. equity impacts (or effects on the well-being of the nation); 

.. whether legislative authority exists for implementing the alternative; 

" major barriers to implementation and enforcement (other than legislative); 

" impact of the alternative on competition; and 

.. compliance and reporting requirements of each alternative. 

These factors for each alternative were compared to the proposed standards. None of the 

alternatives showed energy or economic savings comparable to the proposed program. The proposed 

approach appeared to be less favorable than some of the other program alternatives in competition 

and reporting/ comp Hance requirements. (See Table R.2, Expected Impacts of Program Alternatives) 

Those program alternatives (voluntary targets, enhanced labeling/consumer education, government 

purchases, lighting research) that involve non-mandatory methods for achieving more 

energy-efficient consumer products fared better in these two areas. However, the 

reporting/compliance requirements and the potential effects on competition of the performance 

standards must be weighed against the greater and more certain energy savings of the proposed 

approach compared to what the alternatives could achieve in this area. 

R-5 
2.2 No-Action Alternative

This alternative was analyzed as the "base case" and assumed that the proposed standards

were not implemented. The no-action alternative did not imply that no energy savings would be

realized; some energy savings would be achieved because of higher energy costs, the continuation

of other Federal and private sector energy conservation activities, and state adoption of building

energy codes. These programs include the deregulation of energy prices, the Environmental

Protection Agency's (EPA) Energy Star Buildings/Green Lights program, the National Electrical

Manufacturers Association's (NEMA) Energy Cost Savings Council, the Federal Energy

Management Program's activities, and the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct) voluntary luminaire

efficacy rating program.

2.2.1 Energy Prices

In recent years, the prices of natural gas and oil have been deregulated. Projected energy

prices to the year 2020 for the commercial and industrial sectors were developed by the Energy

Information Agency in the Annual Energy Outlook 1999 (AEO 99). Prices after the year 2020 were

assumed to be constant at the 2020 price. The AEO 99 Reference case electricity price projection

was adjusted to represent marginal prices for each sector.

The results in Table R.2 show energy savings andNPV for the Decreasing Shipments to 2027

base case. The savings are in source Quads, with source Exajoules in parentheses and italics. These

are the savings in lighting electricity use; savings including net HVAC interactions are about 6

percent higher (see Appendix B). For most of the alternative cases, the savings shown are from

2003 to 2030. For the Voluntary Energy Efficiency Targets and the Performance Standards, the

savings shown are from 2005 to 2030 (as discussed below, those scenarios were assumed to begin

in 2005).

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

2.2 No-Action Alternative 

This alternative was analyzed as the "base case" and assumed that the proposed standards 

were not implemented. The no-action alternative did not imply that no energy savings would be 

realized; some energy savings would be achieved because of higher energy costs, the continuation 

of other Federal and private sector energy conservation activities, and state adoption of building 

energy codes. These programs include the deregulation of energy prices, the Environmental 

Protection Agency's (EPA) Energy Star Buildings/Green Lights program, the National Electrical 

Manufacturers Association's (NEMA) Energy Cost Savings Council, the Federal Energy 

Management Program's activities, and the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct) voluntary luminaire 

efficacy rating program. 

2.2.1 Energy Prices 

In recent years, the prices of natural gas and oil have been deregulated. Projected energy 

prices to the year 2020 for the commercial and industrial sectors were developed by the Energy 

Information Agency in the Annual Energy Outlook 1999 (AEO 99). Prices after the year 2020 were 

assumed to be constant at the 2020 price. The AEO 99 Reference case electricity price projection 

was adjusted to represent marginal prices for each sector. 

The results in Tab Ie R.2 show energy savings and NPV for the Decreasing Shipments to 2027 

base case. The savings are in source Quads, with source Exajoules in parentheses and italics. These 

are the savings in lighting electricity use; savings including net HV AC interactions are about 6 

percent higher (see Appendix B). For most of the alternative cases, the savings shown are from 

2003 to 2030. For the Voluntary Energy Efficiency Targets and the Perforn1ance Standards, the 

savings shown are from 2005 to 2030 (as discussed below, those scenarios were assumed to begin 

in 2005). 

R-6 

2.2 No-Action Alternative 

This alternative was analyzed as the "base case" and assumed that the proposed standards 

were not implemented. The no-action alternative did not imply that no energy savings would be 

realized; some energy savings would be achieved because of higher energy costs, the continuation 

of other Federal and private sector energy conservation activities, and state adoption of building 

energy codes. These programs include the deregulation of energy prices, the Environmental 

Protection Agency's (EPA) Energy Star Buildings/Green Lights program, the National Electrical 

Manufacturers Association's (NEMA) Energy Cost Savings Council, the Federal Energy 

Management Program's activities, and the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct) voluntary luminaire 

efficacy rating program. 

2.2.1 Energy Prices 

In recent years, the prices of natural gas and oil have been deregulated. Projected energy 

prices to the year 2020 for the commercial and industrial sectors were developed by the Energy 

Information Agency in the Annual Energy Outlook 1999 (AEO 99). Prices after the year 2020 were 

assumed to be constant at the 2020 price. The AEO 99 Reference case electricity price projection 

was adjusted to represent marginal prices for each sector. 

The results in Tab Ie R.2 show energy savings and NPV for the Decreasing Shipments to 2027 

base case. The savings are in source Quads, with source Exajoules in parentheses and italics. These 

are the savings in lighting electricity use; savings including net HV AC interactions are about 6 

percent higher (see Appendix B). For most of the alternative cases, the savings shown are from 

2003 to 2030. For the Voluntary Energy Efficiency Targets and the Perforn1ance Standards, the 

savings shown are from 2005 to 2030 (as discussed below, those scenarios were assumed to begin 

in 2005). 

R-6 
Table R.2 Expected Impacts of Program Alternatives

Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts Legislative Major Barriers to Compliance &

Energy NPV*** Equity lmpacts* Authority Implementation & Competition Reporting

Savings

Alterative Programs Quad (EJ) (billion 1997$) Enforcement Requirements

No Action 0 None None ** None None None

Tax Credits (Consumers) Some costs will be

borne by all May favor

0.21(0.22) 0.31 taxpayers regardless No None, other than large Could be

of purchase of legislative manufacturers

unwieldy

energy efficient

product

Tax Credits (Manufacturers) 0 0 No Enforcement

problems likely

Rebates (Consumers) Potential

0.36 (0.38) 0.53 No difficulties in

administration

10-yr delay 0.77 (0.81) 0.68 No assurance that

Voluntary Energy Vol

Vo unt er y

None No participation will None None

l ry En g

5-yr delay 1.54 (1.62) 1.52 be widespread

Current 0.09 (0.09) 0.12

Consumer Tech.

Education and Advanced None Yes None None Minimal

(labeling)

Labeling Tech. 0.10 (0.10) 0.13

(Controls)

Government Purchases 0.30 (0.32) 0.40 None No None Not anticompetitive None

Technology

Lighting Research 0.04 (0.05) 0.04 None Yes None transfer must None

be distributed

R-7

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

Table R.2 Expected Impacts of Program Alternatives 

Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts Legislative Major Barriers to Compliance & 

Energy NPV*** Equity Impacts* Authority Implementation & Competition Reporting Savings 

Alterative Programs Quad (EJ) (billion 1997$) Enforcement Requirements 

No Action 0 None None ** None None None 

Tax Credits (Consumers) Some costs will be 

borne by all May favor 

0.21 (0.22) 0.31 taxpayers regardless No None, other than large Could be 

of purchase of legislative manufacturers unwieldy 

energy efficient 

product 

Tax Credits (Manufacturers) 0 0 " No Enforcement " " problems likely 

Rebates (Consumers) Potential 

0.36 (0.38) 0.53 " No difficulties in " " 

administration 

Voluntary Energy 10-yr delay 0.77 (0.81) 0.68 No assurance that 

None No participation will None None Efficiency Targets 5-yrdelay 1.54 (1.62) 1.52 be widespread 

Current 0.09 (0.09) 0.12 

Consumer Tech. 

Education and None Yes None None Minimal 

Labeling Advanced (labeling) 

Tech. 0.10 (0.10) 0.13 

(Controls) 

Government Purchases 0.30 (0.32) 0.40 None No None Not anti- None competitive 

Technology 

Lighting Research 0.04 (0.05) 0.04 None Yes None transfer must None 

be distributed 

R-7 

Table R.2 Expected Impacts of Program Alternatives 

Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts Legislative Major Barriers to Compliance & 

Energy NPV*** Equity Impacts* Authority Implementation & Competition Reporting Savings 

Alterative Programs Quad (EJ) (billion 1997$) Enforcement Requirements 

No Action 0 None None ** None None None 

Tax Credits (Consumers) Some costs will be 

borne by all May favor 

0.21 (0.22) 0.31 taxpayers regardless No None, other than large Could be 

of purchase of legislative manufacturers unwieldy 

energy efficient 

product 

Tax Credits (Manufacturers) 0 0 " No Enforcement " " problems likely 

Rebates (Consumers) Potential 

0.36 (0.38) 0.53 " No difficulties in " " 

administration 

Voluntary Energy 10-yr delay 0.77 (0.81) 0.68 No assurance that 

None No participation will None None Efficiency Targets 5-yrdelay 1.54 (1.62) 1.52 be widespread 

Current 0.09 (0.09) 0.12 Tech. Consumer Minimal Education and Advanced None Yes None None (labeling) Labeling Tech. 0.10 (0.10) 0.13 

(Controls) 

Government Purchases 0.30 (0.32) 0.40 None No None Not anti- None competitive 

Technology 

Lighting Research 0.04 (0.05) 0.04 None Yes None transfer must None 

be distributed 

R-7 
Compliance

Building Codes 0.15 (0.16) 0.18 None Yes verification None Extensive

necessary

Not antiPerformance Standards 2 .23 (2.35) 2.59 None Yes None Reasonable competitive

Key: None = 0 or not significant Notes: * Economic well-being of nation as a whole.

EJ =1014 Joule ** Yes, if no standard is justified

Quad = 1015 Btu of energy *** Net present value for fuel and equipment discounted to 1997 at 7percent real

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

Building Codes 

Performance Standards 

Key: None = 0 or not significant 

EJ =1018 Joule 

Quad = 1015 Btu of energy 

0.15 (0.16) 

2.23 (2.35) 

Compliance 

0.18 None Yes verification 

necessary 

2.59 None Yes None 

Notes: * Economic well-being of nation as a whole. 

** Yes, ifno standard is justified 

None Extensive 

Not anti- Reasonable competitive 

*** Net present value for fuel and equipment discounted to 1997 at 7percent real 

R-8 

Building Codes 

Performance Standards 

Key: None = 0 or not significant 

EJ =1018 Joule 

Quad = 1015 Btu of energy 

0.15 (0.16) 

2.23 (2.35) 

Compliance 

0.18 None Yes verification 

necessary 

2.59 None Yes None 

Notes: * Economic well-being of nation as a whole. 

** Yes, ifno standard is justified 

None Extensive 

Not anti- Reasonable competitive 

*** Net present value for fuel and equipment discounted to 1997 at 7percent real 

R-8 
2.2.2 Existing Consumer Information Programs

Congress mandated in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) (P.L. 94-163) both

a labeling program and a complementary consumer education and information program. The

labeling program took effect on May 21, 1980, implemented by the Federal Trade Commission

(FTC); the public education and information program is being handled by DOE. In the Energy Policy

Act of 1992 (EPAct, P.L. 102-486), Congress also stimulated the formation of a voluntary luminaire

program to provide information on the efficacy of the fluorescent luminaire system. The luminaire

efficacy rating (LER) is greatly improved with the use of an electronic ballast.

Under the labeling program, consumer awareness of the relative efficacies of luminaires

available in the marketplace is expected to increase. That is, the basic information that consumers

need to make a rational purchase decision would be more available to them.

The EPA's Energy Star Buildings program (including the Green Lights program), NEMA's

Enegy Cost Savings Council, and the EPAct voluntary luminaire efficacy rating program, provide

information and assistance to consumers on selecting efficient ballasts and upgrading lighting

systems. The educational activities focus on steering the consumer away from the idea of

minimizing first cost and on promoting the use of life-cycle costing as the primary factor in selecting

a ballast for purchase.

There are several drawbacks to relying wholly on the education and labeling program above

to achieve the desired results:

® Consumer education and labeling programs are directed only at the demand for

consumer products; they will not guarantee the appropriate supply-side responses by

manufacturers;

® In many cases, fluorescent lamp ballasts are installed by builders, and minimum first

cost is an overriding consideration;

® Building tenants who pay the energy bills do not often make the decisions on ballast

efficiency;

® Energy efficiency is only one factor in consumers' purchase decisions;

® There is a long lag before the effect of such educational activities is manifest in the

marketplace.

As a means of achieving the level of energy savings believed possible under the proposed

standards, the education and labeling effort, is expected to have only a moderate effect.

R-9

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

2.2.2 Existing Consumer Information Programs 

Congress mandated in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) (P.L. 94-163) both 

a labeling program and a complementary consumer education and information program. The 

labeling program took effect on May 21, 1980, implemented by the Federal Trade Commission 

(FTC); the public education and information program is being handled by DOE. In the Energy Policy 

Act of 1992 (EPAct, P.L. 102-486), Congress also stimulated the fom1ation of a voluntary luminaire 

program to provide information on the efficacy ofthe fluorescent luminaire system. The luminaire 

efficacy rating (LER) is greatly improved with the use of an electronic ballast. 

Under the labeling program, consumer awareness of the relative efficacies of luminaires 

available in the marketplace is expected to increase. That is, the basic information that consumers 

need to make a rational purchase decision would be more available to them. 

The EPA's Energy Star Buildings program (including the Green Lights program), NEMA's 

Enegy Cost Savings Council, and the EP Act voluntary luminaire efficacy rating program, provide 

information and assistance to consumers on selecting efficient ballasts and upgrading lighting 

systems. The educational activities focus on steering the consumer away from the idea of 

minimizing first cost and on promoting the use oflife-cyc1e costing as the primary factor in selecting 

a ballast for purchase. 

There are several drawbacks to relying wholly on the education and labeling program above 

to achieve the desired results: 

.. Consumer education and labeling programs are directed only at the demand for 

consumer products; they will not guarantee the appropriate supply-side responses by 

manufacturers; 

.. In many cases, fluorescent lamp ballasts are installed by builders, and minimum first 

cost is an overriding consideration; 

.. Building tenants who pay the energy bills do not often make the decisions on ballast 

efficiency; 

.. Energy efficiency is only one factor in consumers' purchase decisions; 

.. There is a long lag before the effect of such educational activities is manifest in the 

marketplace. 

As a means of achieving the level of energy savings believed possible under the proposed 

standards, the education and labeling effort, is expected to have only a moderate effect. 

R-9 

2.2.2 Existing Consumer Information Programs 

Congress mandated in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) (P.L. 94-163) both 

a labeling program and a complementary consumer education and information program. The 

labeling program took effect on May 21, 1980, implemented by the Federal Trade Commission 

(FTC); the public education and information program is being handled by DOE. In the Energy Policy 

Act of 1992 (EPAct, P.L. 102-486), Congress also stimulated the fom1ation of a voluntary luminaire 

program to provide information on the efficacy ofthe fluorescent luminaire system. The luminaire 

efficacy rating (LER) is greatly improved with the use of an electronic ballast. 

Under the labeling program, consumer awareness of the relative efficacies of luminaires 

available in the marketplace is expected to increase. That is, the basic information that consumers 

need to make a rational purchase decision would be more available to them. 

The EPA's Energy Star Buildings program (including the Green Lights program), NEMA's 

Enegy Cost Savings Council, and the EP Act voluntary luminaire efficacy rating program, provide 

information and assistance to consumers on selecting efficient ballasts and upgrading lighting 

systems. The educational activities focus on steering the consumer away from the idea of 

minimizing first cost and on promoting the use oflife-cyc1e costing as the primary factor in selecting 

a ballast for purchase. 

There are several drawbacks to relying wholly on the education and labeling program above 

to achieve the desired results: 

.. Consumer education and labeling programs are directed only at the demand for 

consumer products; they will not guarantee the appropriate supply-side responses by 

manufacturers; 

.. In many cases, fluorescent lamp ballasts are installed by builders, and minimum first 

cost is an overriding consideration; 

.. Building tenants who pay the energy bills do not often make the decisions on ballast 

efficiency; 

.. Energy efficiency is only one factor in consumers' purchase decisions; 

.. There is a long lag before the effect of such educational activities is manifest in the 

marketplace. 

As a means of achieving the level of energy savings believed possible under the proposed 

standards, the education and labeling effort, is expected to have only a moderate effect. 

R-9 
2.2.3 Existing Mandatory Standards

Before the passage of the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987 (NAECA),

several states established programs that set minimum efficiency levels for certain consumer products.

The National Appliance Energy Conservation Amendments of 1988 (NAECA 1988) brought

fluorescent lamp ballasts under EPCA coverage. EPAct requires that states adopt building energy

codes at least as strict as the ASHRAE/IES.90 .11 code. These programs have changed the

distribution patterns for ballasts which has impacts at the national level.

2.2.4 Base Case Description

The base case included the following assumptions about factors likely to increase commercial

and industrial lighting energy efficiency:

Commercial and industrial electricity prices were projected to decline until the year

2020. After 2020, prices were assumed to be constant at the 2020 level.

® The FTC labeling program for consumer products would continue;

The U.S. Department of Energy's existing public information program would

continue;

Manufacturers would be able to produce the more energy-efficient equipment

demanded by consumers;

® Magnetic ballast shipments would steadily decline;

The electronic ballast standards scenarios were analyzed with the assumption that

when four-foot T8 electronic ballasts were purchased, they were T8 electronic rapid

start (ERS) ballasts. While this somewhat underestimated the savings vs. the T8

electronic instant start (EIS) ballasts that predominate the market, it retained the NES

model's assumption that ERS ballasts were those proposed as the standard (rather

than EIS ballasts). Eight-foot and eight-foot high output systems used electronic T 12

ballasts.

The NES model does not calculate fluorescent lighting energy consumption. The cumulative

consumption from 2003 to 2030 was estimated as 90.6 Quads (95.6 EJ) for the Decreasing

Shipments to 2027 base case. For the same base case, the estimated cumulative consumption for

2005 to 2030 was 85 Quads (90 EJ). See Chapter 5, section 5.3.6, Energy Consumption for a

1 ASHRAE=Association of Heating Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers. IES=Illuminating

Engineering Society (of North America).

R-10

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

2.2.3 Existing Mandatory Standards 

Before the passage ofthe National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987 (NAECA), 

several states established programs that set minimum efficiency levels for certain consumer products. 

The National Appliance Energy Conservation Amendments of 1988 (NAECA 1988) brought 

fluorescent lamp ballasts under EPCA coverage. EP Act requires that states adopt building energy 

codes at least as strict as the ASHRAE/IES.90.1 1 code. These programs have changed the 

distribution patterns for ballasts which has impacts at the national leveL 

2.2.4 Base Case Description 

The base case included the following assumptions aboutfactors likely to increase commercial 

and industrial lighting energy efficiency: 

" Commercial and industrial electricity prices were projected to decline until the year 

2020. After 2020, prices were assumed to be constant at the 2020 level. 

" The FTC labeling program for consumer products would continue; 

" The U.S. Department of Energy's existing public information program would 

continue; 

" Manufacturers would be able to produce the more energy-efficient equipment 

demanded by consumers; 

" Magnetic ballast shipments would steadily decline; 

" The electronic ballast standards scenarios were analyzed with the assumption that 

when four-foot T8 electronic ballasts were purchased, they were T8 electronic rapid 

start (ERS) ballasts. While this somewhat underestimated the savings vs. the T8 

electronic instant start (ElS) ballasts that predominate the market, it retained the NES 

model's assumption that ERS ballasts were those proposed as the standard (rather 

than EIS ballasts). Eight-foot and eight-foot high output systems used electronic T 12 

ballasts. 

The NES model does not calculate fluorescent lighting energy consumption. The cumulative 

consumption from 2003 to 2030 was estimated as 90.6 Quads (95.6 EJ) for the Decreasing 

Shipments to 2027 base case. For the same base case, the estimated cumulative consumption for 

2005 to 2030 was 85 Quads (90 EJ). See Chapter 5, section 5.3.6, Energy Consumption for a 

1 ASHRAE=Association of Heating Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers. IES=I1luminating 

Engineering Society (of North America). 

R-I0 

2.2.3 Existing Mandatory Standards 

Before the passage ofthe National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987 (NAECA), 

several states established programs that set minimum efficiency levels for certain consumer products. 

The National Appliance Energy Conservation Amendments of 1988 (NAECA 1988) brought 

fluorescent lamp ballasts under EPCA coverage. EP Act requires that states adopt building energy 

codes at least as strict as the ASHRAE/IES.90.1 1 code. These programs have changed the 

distribution patterns for ballasts which has impacts at the national leveL 

2.2.4 Base Case Description 

The base case included the following assumptions aboutfactors likely to increase commercial 

and industrial lighting energy efficiency: 

" Commercial and industrial electricity prices were projected to decline until the year 

2020. After 2020, prices were assumed to be constant at the 2020 level. 

" The FTC labeling program for consumer products would continue; 

" The U.S. Department of Energy's existing public information program would 

continue; 

" Manufacturers would be able to produce the more energy-efficient equipment 

demanded by consumers; 

" Magnetic ballast shipments would steadily decline; 

" The electronic ballast standards scenarios were analyzed with the assumption that 

when four-foot T8 electronic ballasts were purchased, they were T8 electronic rapid 

start (ERS) ballasts. While this somewhat underestimated the savings vs. the T8 

electronic instant start (ElS) ballasts that predominate the market, it retained the NES 

model's assumption that ERS ballasts were those proposed as the standard (rather 

than EIS ballasts). Eight-foot and eight-foot high output systems used electronic T 12 

ballasts. 

The NES model does not calculate fluorescent lighting energy consumption. The cumulative 

consumption from 2003 to 2030 was estimated as 90.6 Quads (95.6 EJ) for the Decreasing 

Shipments to 2027 base case. For the same base case, the estimated cumulative consumption for 

2005 to 2030 was 85 Quads (90 EJ). See Chapter 5, section 5.3.6, Energy Consumption for a 

1 ASHRAE=Association of Heating Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers. IES=I1luminating 

Engineering Society (of North America). 

R-I0 
description of the calculations.

For most of the alternative cases, the start year was assumed to be 2003 . For the Voluntary

Efficiency Targets cases, the start year was assumed to be 2005 , as discussed below.

2.3 Tax Credits to Consumers

2.3.1 Discussion

Tax credits for ballasts would require new legislation that would include all covered

products. The costs of such a program would be borne by all taxpayers because it would result in

less tax revenues to the government.

Tax credits alone affect only the demand for consumer products. There is no guarantee that

manufacturers will respond to consumer needs by producing more efficient products.

2.3.2 Quantitative description

A program offering a tax credit of 50 percent of the increased cost of more energy efficient

ballasts was evaluated . This program might be more easily administered than a rebate program

because it could be carried out through an existing organization, the IRS. The program as evaluated

here would return to a participating consumer exactly the same amount of money as the rebate

program described in Section 2.5 below. The most important difference to the consumer between

rebate and tax credit programs is that a rebate can be obtained quickly whereas a tax credit is delayed

until income taxes are filed or a tax refund is provided by the IRS.

To simulate this impact, DOE has assumed that only 7 percent of consumers would purchase

more energy-efficient products as a result of the tax credit program. This percentage reflected the

same proportion of consumer response to utility demand-side-management (DSM) rebate programs,

with some adjustment for the tax credit time delay. As described in Appendix B, LBNL analyzed

data for 1992 - 1997 from utility DSM programs representing over 15 percent of national energyefficiency expenditures and extrapolated the results using EIA data on national energy-efficiency

spending. We found that for the peak rebate years of 1993 - 1995, the average rebate was equivalent

to the full incremental cost ( 100 percent) of an electronic ballast, and that rebates were received for

a quantity of electronic ballasts representing about one -fourth the number of magnetic ballasts that

would have been purchased without the rebate. We make the assumption that for half of this cost

reduction, the consumer response would be about half that it was for the DSM rebates, or 12 percent.

The 1994 refrigerator RIA assumed that 60 percent of consumers would take advantage of the credit

vs. 100 percent for consumer rebates, since there is a time delay for reimbursement of expenditures

with a tax credit. We assume that a similar impact would occur for ballasts, with a net 7 percent (12

R-11

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

description of the calculations. 

For most ofthe alternative cases, the start year was assumed to be 2003. For the Voluntary 

Efficiency Targets cases, the start year was assumed to be 2005, as discussed below. 

2.3 Tax Credits to Consumers 

2.3.1 Discussion 

Tax credits for ballasts would require new legislation that would include all covered 

products. The costs of such a program would be borne by all taxpayers because it would result in 

less tax revenues to the government. 

Tax credits alone affect only the demand for consumer products. There is no guarantee that 

manufacturers will respond to consumer needs by producing more efficient products. 

2.3.2 Quantitative description 

A program offering a tax credit of 50 percent of the increased cost of more energy efficient 

ballasts was evaluated. This program might be more easily administered than a rebate program 

because it could be carried out through an existing organization, the IRS. The program as evaluated 

here would return to a participating consumer exactly the same amount of money as the rebate 

program described in Section 2.5 below. The most important difference to the consumer between 

rebate and tax credit programs is that a rebate can be obtained quickly whereas a tax credit is delayed 

until income taxes are filed or a tax refund is provided by the IRS. 

To simulate this impact, DOE has assumed that only 7 percent of consumers would purchase 

more energy-efficient products as a result of the tax credit program. This percentage reflected the 

same proportion of consumer response to utility demand -side-management (DSM) rebate programs, 

with some adjustment for the tax credit time delay. As described in Appendix B, LBNL analyzed 

data for 1992 - 1997 from utility DSM programs representing over 15 percent of national energyefficiency expenditures and extrapolated the results using EIA data on national energy-efficiency 

spending. We found that for the peak rebate years of 1993 - 1995, the average rebate was equivalent 

to the full incremental cost (1 00 percent) of an electronic ballast, and that rebates were received for 

a quantity of electronic ballasts representing about one-fourth the number of magnetic ballasts that 

would have been purchased without the rebate. We make the assumption that for half of this cost 

reduction, the consumer response would be about half that it was for the DSM rebates, or 12 percent. 

The 1994 refrigerator RIA assumed that 60 percent of consumers would take advantage ofthe credit 

vs. 100 percent for consumer rebates, since there is a time delay for reimbursement of expenditures 

with a tax credit. We assume that a similar impact would occur for ballasts, with a net 7 percent (12 

R-ll 

description of the calculations. 

For most ofthe alternative cases, the start year was assumed to be 2003. For the Voluntary 

Efficiency Targets cases, the start year was assumed to be 2005, as discussed below. 

2.3 Tax Credits to Consumers 

2.3.1 Discussion 

Tax credits for ballasts would require new legislation that would include all covered 

products. The costs of such a program would be borne by all taxpayers because it would result in 

less tax revenues to the government. 

Tax credits alone affect only the demand for consumer products. There is no guarantee that 

manufacturers will respond to consumer needs by producing more efficient products. 

2.3.2 Quantitative description 

A program offering a tax credit of 50 percent of the increased cost of more energy efficient 

ballasts was evaluated. This program might be more easily administered than a rebate program 

because it could be carried out through an existing organization, the IRS. The program as evaluated 

here would return to a participating consumer exactly the same amount of money as the rebate 

program described in Section 2.5 below. The most important difference to the consumer between 

rebate and tax credit programs is that a rebate can be obtained quickly whereas a tax credit is delayed 

until income taxes are filed or a tax refund is provided by the IRS. 

To simulate this impact, DOE has assumed that only 7 percent of consumers would purchase 

more energy-efficient products as a result of the tax credit program. This percentage reflected the 

same proportion of consumer response to utility demand -side-management (DSM) rebate programs, 

with some adjustment for the tax credit time delay. As described in Appendix B, LBNL analyzed 

data for 1992 - 1997 from utility DSM programs representing over 15 percent of national energyefficiency expenditures and extrapolated the results using EIA data on national energy-efficiency 

spending. We found that for the peak rebate years of 1993 - 1995, the average rebate was equivalent 

to the full incremental cost (1 00 percent) of an electronic ballast, and that rebates were received for 

a quantity of electronic ballasts representing about one-fourth the number of magnetic ballasts that 

would have been purchased without the rebate. We make the assumption that for half of this cost 

reduction, the consumer response would be about half that it was for the DSM rebates, or 12 percent. 

The 1994 refrigerator RIA assumed that 60 percent of consumers would take advantage ofthe credit 

vs. 100 percent for consumer rebates, since there is a time delay for reimbursement of expenditures 

with a tax credit. We assume that a similar impact would occur for ballasts, with a net 7 percent (12 

R-ll 
percent times 60 percent) conversion rate2 to electronic ballasts.

The forecast results showed energy savings of 0.21 Quads (0.22 EJ ) for the tax credit

program alternative. The net present value (in 1997 dollars), discounted at 7 percent real, was 0.31

billion.

2.4 Tax Credits to Manufacturers

2.4.1 Discussion

DOE examined the possibility of providing tax credits to manufacturers. This approach

would allow manufacturers to recoup some of the costs of manufacturing more energy-efficient

consumer products. In combination with tax incentives or rebates for consumers, manufacturer tax

credits could correct some of the market imperfections resulting from focusing only on incentives

to consumers. However, the timing of a dual program for manufacturers and consumers would have

to be precise to ensure that maximum benefits are achieved.

In any event, the potential would exist that many manufacturers would not respond to tax

incentives. The cost of a manufacturer tax credit program could be very high. A tax credit program

that would attract a high manufacturer participation rate could have very large costs. Also, the

strictness of energy efficiency requirements for receiving a tax credit would affect participation.

Less stringent requirements would result in greater participation but limit the energy savings

achieved bythe program; more stringent requirements might result in reduced participation and, thus,

also limit energy savings.

Therefore, although the tax credit program would have the potential for achieving energy

savings, the many issues associated with optimizing the benefits would need to be analyzed carefully.

Some of this analysis has been performed by DOE and indicates that the cost of achieving significant

energy savings through a tax credit program would be very high.

2.4.2 Quantitative Description

Offering tax incentives to consumer product manufacturers was considered as an alternative

to regulation. The tax incentive analyzed would be an investment tax credit for installation of

machinery and tools required to produce more energy-efficient ballasts.

Production of energy-efficient consumer product requires investment in some new tools and

machinery. The manufacturer tax credit considered by DOE provided a 20 percent credit for

2Conversion rate refers to the percentage of magnetic ballast shipments that would be magnetic in the base case and were

instead electronic in the alternative case. The conversion rate was an annual average for the period and was applied in the NES model

to each year's magnetic ballast shipments. Note that for the performance standards case, this rate was 100 percent (T8 or T12).

R-12

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

percent times 60 percent) conversion rate2 to electronic ballasts. 

The forecast results showed energy savings of 0.21 Quads (0.22 EJ ) for the tax credit 

program alternative. The net present value (in 1997 dollars), discounted at 7 percent real, was 0.31 

billion. 

2.4 Tax Credits to Manufacturers 

2.4.1 Discussion 

DOE examined the possibility of providing tax credits to manufacturers. This approach 

would allow manufacturers to recoup some of the costs of manufacturing more energy-efficient 

consumer products. In combination with tax incentives or rebates for consumers, manufacturer tax 

credits could correct some of the market imperfections resulting from focusing only on incentives 

to consumers. However, the timing of a dual program for manufacturers and consumers would have 

to be precise to ensure that maximum benefits are achieved. 

In any event, the potential would exist that many manufacturers would not respond to tax 

incentives. The cost of a manufacturer tax credit program could be very high. A tax credit program 

that would attract a high manufacturer participation rate could have very large costs. Also, the 

strictness of energy efficiency requirements for receiving a tax credit would affect participation. 

Less stringent requirements would result in greater participation but limit the energy savings 

achieved by the program; more stringent requirements might result in reduced participation and, thus, 

also limit energy savings. 

Therefore, although the tax credit program would have the potential for achieving energy 

savings, the many issues associated with optimizing the benefits would need to be analyzed carefully. 

Some ofthis analysis has been perfonned by DOE and indicates that the cost of achieving significant 

energy savings through a tax credit program would be very high. 

2.4.2 Quantitative Description 

Offering tax incentives to consumer product manufacturers was considered as an alternative 

to regulation. The tax incentive analyzed would be an investment tax credit for installation of 

machinery and tools required to produce more energy-efficient ballasts. 

Production of energy-efficient consumer product requires investment in some new tools and 

machinery. The manufacturer tax credit considered by DOE provided a 20 percent credit for 

2Conversion rate refers to the percentage of magnetic ballast shipments that would be magnetic in the base case and were 

instead electronic in the alternative case. The conversion rate was an annual average for the period and was applied in the NES model 

to each year's magnetic ballast shipments. Note that for the performance standards case, this rate was 100 percent (T8 or T12). 

R-12 

percent times 60 percent) conversion rate2 to electronic ballasts. 

The forecast results showed energy savings of 0.21 Quads (0.22 EJ ) for the tax credit 

program alternative. The net present value (in 1997 dollars), discounted at 7 percent real, was 0.31 

billion. 

2.4 Tax Credits to Manufacturers 

2.4.1 Discussion 

DOE examined the possibility of providing tax credits to manufacturers. This approach 

would allow manufacturers to recoup some of the costs of manufacturing more energy-efficient 

consumer products. In combination with tax incentives or rebates for consumers, manufacturer tax 

credits could correct some of the market imperfections resulting from focusing only on incentives 

to consumers. However, the timing of a dual program for manufacturers and consumers would have 

to be precise to ensure that maximum benefits are achieved. 

In any event, the potential would exist that many manufacturers would not respond to tax 

incentives. The cost of a manufacturer tax credit program could be very high. A tax credit program 

that would attract a high manufacturer participation rate could have very large costs. Also, the 

strictness of energy efficiency requirements for receiving a tax credit would affect participation. 

Less stringent requirements would result in greater participation but limit the energy savings 

achieved by the program; more stringent requirements might result in reduced participation and, thus, 

also limit energy savings. 

Therefore, although the tax credit program would have the potential for achieving energy 

savings, the many issues associated with optimizing the benefits would need to be analyzed carefully. 

Some ofthis analysis has been perfonned by DOE and indicates that the cost of achieving significant 

energy savings through a tax credit program would be very high. 

2.4.2 Quantitative Description 

Offering tax incentives to consumer product manufacturers was considered as an alternative 

to regulation. The tax incentive analyzed would be an investment tax credit for installation of 

machinery and tools required to produce more energy-efficient ballasts. 

Production of energy-efficient consumer product requires investment in some new tools and 

machinery. The manufacturer tax credit considered by DOE provided a 20 percent credit for 

2Conversion rate refers to the percentage of magnetic ballast shipments that would be magnetic in the base case and were 

instead electronic in the alternative case. The conversion rate was an annual average for the period and was applied in the NES model 

to each year's magnetic ballast shipments. Note that for the performance standards case, this rate was 100 percent (T8 or T12). 

R-12 
investment in tools and machinery required to produce energy-efficient ballasts. The credit would

not apply to investments in other forms of tools and machinery, nor would it apply to other forms

of investment such as acquisition of subsidiaries, financial instruments, i.e., stock, loans, or new

construction of plants.

Because the tax credit only applied to the portion of investment going toward production of

energy-efficient consumer products and not toward investment in replacement equipment, an

enforcement mechanism would be needed to prevent abuse. Enforcement would probably be divided

between DOE and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). DOE would have to stipulate specific

categories of investment subject to the credit. IRS would have principal responsibility for review

of claims for the credit. Investigation of alleged violations would probably require joint action by

DOE and IRS. The cost of the enforcement program was not investigated, but it was thought to be

high; the program would probably not be cost effective.

The effect of the investment tax credit was to lower the cost of design options requiring new

tooling and machinery. From the Manufacturer Impact Analysis (see Chapter 6), the additional

conversion capital expenditures for electronic ballasts from 2001 - 2003 were about $2.78 per

ballast3. (The expenditures in the base case for gradual electronic ballast conversion over the entire

period were incurred in the alternative case primarily in the year 2002.) The depreciated value of

these costs was equal to the cost divided by the useful life of 13.9 years (for electronic ballasts,

assuming 3600 hours); this value was $0.20. A manufacturer tax credit of 20 percent of these values

would be $0.04. Since not all of this manufacturer benefit would be passed on to the consumer, the

impact on NPV would be negligible. This alternative would have no energy savings.

The results showed no energy savings and an NPV of 0.

2.5 Rebates to Consumers

2.5.1 Discussion

Providing rebates to consumers who purchase energy-efficient ballasts would be difficult to

implement. As discussed under Consumer Tax Credits above, there has been widespread national

experience with rebate programs, but these were implemented by electric utilities as part of DSM

programs. The concept of government-mandated rebates would entail complex interference in the

market place; decisions would need to be made on which products should qualify, amount of rebate,

time period covered, etc.

The rebate concept could be coupled with a tariff, much like the proposed "gas-guzzler tax"

for automobiles; consumers who purchased inefficient units would be charged a federally imposed

tax. It would be a costly, unwieldy, and cumbersome program to implement. However, it might be

'The difference in electronic ballast shipments from base case to standards case for 2001 - 2003

R-13

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

investment in tools and machinery required to produce energy-efficient ballasts. The credit would 

not apply to investments in other forms of tools and machinery, nor would it apply to other forms 

of investment such as acquisition of subsidiaries, financial instruments, i.e., stock, loans, or new 

construction of plants. 

Because the tax credit only applied to the portion of investment going toward production of 

energy-efficient consumer products and not toward investment in replacement equipment, an 

enforcement mechanism would be needed to prevent abuse. Enforcement would probably be divided 

between DOE and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). DOE would have to stipulate specific 

categories of investment subject to the credit. IRS would have principal responsibility for review 

of claims for the credit. Investigation of alleged violations would probably require joint action by 

DOE and IRS. The cost of the enforcement program was not investigated, but it was thought to be 

high; the program would probably not be cost effective. 

The effect of the investment tax credit was to lower the cost of design options requiring new 

tooling and machinery. From the Manufacturer Impact Analysis (see Chapter 6), the additional 

conversion capital expenditures for electronic ballasts from 2001 - 2003 were about $2.78 per 

ballasf. (The expenditures in the base case for gradual electronic ballast conversion over the entire 

period were incurred in the alternative case primarily in the year 2002.) The depreciated value of 

these costs was equal to the cost divided by the useful life of 13.9 years (for electronic ballasts, 

assuming 3600 hours); this value was $0.20. A manufacturer tax credit of20 percent ofthese values 

would be $0.04. Since not all of this manufacturer benefit would be passed on to the consumer, the 

impact on NPV would be negligible. This alternative would have no energy savings. 

The results showed no energy savings and an NPV of O. 

2.5 Rebates to Consumers 

2.5.1 Discussion 

Providing rebates to consumers who purchase energy-efficient ballasts would be difficult to 

implement. As discussed under Consumer Tax Credits above, there has been widespread national 

experience with rebate programs, but these were implemented by electric utilities as part ofDSM 

programs. The concept of government-mandated rebates would entail complex interference in the 

market place; decisions would need to be made on which products should qualify, amount of rebate, 

time period covered, etc. 

The rebate concept could be coupled with a tariff, much like the proposed "gas-guzzler tax" 

for automobiles; consumers who purchased inefficient units would be charged a federally imposed 

tax. It would be a costly, unwieldy, and cumbersome program to implement. However, it might be 

3The difference in electronic ballast shipments from base case to standards case for 2001 - 2003 

R-13 

investment in tools and machinery required to produce energy-efficient ballasts. The credit would 

not apply to investments in other forms of tools and machinery, nor would it apply to other forms 

of investment such as acquisition of subsidiaries, financial instruments, i.e., stock, loans, or new 

construction of plants. 

Because the tax credit only applied to the portion of investment going toward production of 

energy-efficient consumer products and not toward investment in replacement equipment, an 

enforcement mechanism would be needed to prevent abuse. Enforcement would probably be divided 

between DOE and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). DOE would have to stipulate specific 

categories of investment subject to the credit. IRS would have principal responsibility for review 

of claims for the credit. Investigation of alleged violations would probably require joint action by 

DOE and IRS. The cost of the enforcement program was not investigated, but it was thought to be 

high; the program would probably not be cost effective. 

The effect of the investment tax credit was to lower the cost of design options requiring new 

tooling and machinery. From the Manufacturer Impact Analysis (see Chapter 6), the additional 

conversion capital expenditures for electronic ballasts from 2001 - 2003 were about $2.78 per 

ballasf. (The expenditures in the base case for gradual electronic ballast conversion over the entire 

period were incurred in the alternative case primarily in the year 2002.) The depreciated value of 

these costs was equal to the cost divided by the useful life of 13.9 years (for electronic ballasts, 

assuming 3600 hours); this value was $0.20. A manufacturer tax credit of20 percent ofthese values 

would be $0.04. Since not all of this manufacturer benefit would be passed on to the consumer, the 

impact on NPV would be negligible. This alternative would have no energy savings. 

The results showed no energy savings and an NPV of O. 

2.5 Rebates to Consumers 

2.5.1 Discussion 

Providing rebates to consumers who purchase energy-efficient ballasts would be difficult to 

implement. As discussed under Consumer Tax Credits above, there has been widespread national 

experience with rebate programs, but these were implemented by electric utilities as part ofDSM 

programs. The concept of government-mandated rebates would entail complex interference in the 

market place; decisions would need to be made on which products should qualify, amount of rebate, 

time period covered, etc. 

The rebate concept could be coupled with a tariff, much like the proposed "gas-guzzler tax" 

for automobiles; consumers who purchased inefficient units would be charged a federally imposed 

tax. It would be a costly, unwieldy, and cumbersome program to implement. However, it might be 

3The difference in electronic ballast shipments from base case to standards case for 2001 - 2003 

R-13 
more effective than the no-action alternative.

As with tax credits, the rebate alternative would affect only the demand for energy-efficient

consumer products. There would be uncertainty about the manufacturers' ability and/or desire to

respond to the demand, particularly if the rebate program is not continued over a long enough time

period to account for manufacturers' lead time to produce energy-efficient products. Thus, as a

separate alternative , rebates would have only a small and potentially short-term effect on energy

consumption.

2.5.2 Quantitative Description

A Federal program that gave consumers a rebate to encourage the purchase of

energy-efficient ballasts was analyzed . This program would apply to all new ballasts whether they

are replacements or for new construction . The program was assumed to provide a rebate of 50

percent of the increased cost of electronic ballasts. The 50 percent cost reduction was chosen under

the same rationale described above for consumer tax credits. The response was assumed to be

greater than that for tax credits, with a 12 percent electronic ballast conversion rate, similar to the

proportional response rate for DSM rebate programs (see section 2.3.2). No assumption was made

regarding the means of implementing the rebate (for example, through the distributor or

manufacturer with a refund from the Federal government or directly by the government).

The forecast results showed energy savings of 0.36 Quads (0.38 EJ) for the consumer rebate

program alternative. The net present value (in 1997 dollars), discounted at 7 percent real, was 0.53

billion.

2.6 Voluntary Energy Efficiency Targets

2.6.1 Discussion

EPCA called for industry to meet voluntary energy-efficiency targets for the covered

products. If industry did not meet the voluntary targets, provisions were made for establishing

Federal standards. In amending the Act with the National Energy Conservation Policy Act , P.L.95-

619 (NECPA), Congress specifically changed the legislation to provide for immediate establishment

of Federal standards to ensure the timely manufacture of energy-efficient consumer products.

Although it is possible that voluntary targets might be as effective as mandated performance

standards in achieving the energy savings goals, there probably would be a considerable time lag

because of the many uncertainties associated with a program requiring concurrence from so many

participants as well as uncertainties about future consumer demand for energy -efficient products.

2.6.2 Quantitative Description

It was assumed for analysis purposes that the voluntary program would specify the

R-14

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

more effective than the no-action alternative. 

As with tax credits, the rebate alternative would affect only the demand for energy-efficient 

consumer products. There would be uncertainty about the manufacturers' ability and/or desire to 

respond to the demand, particularly ifthe rebate program is not continued over a long enough time 

period to account for manufacturers' lead time to produce energy-efficient products. Thus, as a 

separate alternative, rebates would have only a small and potentially short-ternl effect on energy 

consumption. 

2.5.2 Quantitative Description 

A Federal program that gave consumers a rebate to encourage the purchase of 

energy-efficient ballasts was analyzed. This program would apply to all new ballasts whether they 

are replacements or for new construction. The program was assumed to provide a rebate of 50 

percent ofthe increased cost of electronic ballasts. The 50 percent cost reduction was chosen under 

the same rationale described above for consumer tax credits. The response was assumed to be 

greater than that for tax credits, with a 12 percent electronic ballast conversion rate, similar to the 

proportional response rate for DSM rebate programs (see section 2.3.2). No assumption was made 

regarding the means of implementing the rebate (for example, through the distributor or 

manufacturer with a refund from the Federal government or directly by the government). 

The forecast results showed energy savings of 0.36 Quads (0.38 EJ) for the consumer rebate 

program alternative. The net present value (in 1997 dollars), discounted at 7 percent real, was 0.53 

billion. 

2.6 Voluntary Energy Efficiency Targets 

2.6.1 Discussion 

EPCA called for industry to meet voluntary energy-efficiency targets for the covered 

products. If industry did not meet the voluntary targets, provisions were made for establishing 

Federal standards. In amending the Act with the National Energy Conservation Policy Act, P .L.95-

619 (NECPA), Congress specifically changed the legislation to provide for immediate establishment 

of Federal standards to ensure the timely manufacture of energy-efficient consumer products. 

Although it is possible that voluntary targets might be as effective as mandated performance 

standards in achieving the energy savings goals, there probably would be a considerable time lag 

because of the many uncertainties associated with a program requiring concurrence from so many 

participants as well as uncertainties about future consumer demand for energy-efficient products. 

2.6.2 Quantitative Description 

It was assumed for analysis purposes that the voluntary program would specify the 

R-14 

more effective than the no-action alternative. 

As with tax credits, the rebate alternative would affect only the demand for energy-efficient 

consumer products. There would be uncertainty about the manufacturers' ability and/or desire to 

respond to the demand, particularly ifthe rebate program is not continued over a long enough time 

period to account for manufacturers' lead time to produce energy-efficient products. Thus, as a 

separate alternative, rebates would have only a small and potentially short-ternl effect on energy 

consumption. 

2.5.2 Quantitative Description 

A Federal program that gave consumers a rebate to encourage the purchase of 

energy-efficient ballasts was analyzed. This program would apply to all new ballasts whether they 

are replacements or for new construction. The program was assumed to provide a rebate of 50 

percent ofthe increased cost of electronic ballasts. The 50 percent cost reduction was chosen under 

the same rationale described above for consumer tax credits. The response was assumed to be 

greater than that for tax credits, with a 12 percent electronic ballast conversion rate, similar to the 

proportional response rate for DSM rebate programs (see section 2.3.2). No assumption was made 

regarding the means of implementing the rebate (for example, through the distributor or 

manufacturer with a refund from the Federal government or directly by the government). 

The forecast results showed energy savings of 0.36 Quads (0.38 EJ) for the consumer rebate 

program alternative. The net present value (in 1997 dollars), discounted at 7 percent real, was 0.53 

billion. 

2.6 Voluntary Energy Efficiency Targets 

2.6.1 Discussion 

EPCA called for industry to meet voluntary energy-efficiency targets for the covered 

products. If industry did not meet the voluntary targets, provisions were made for establishing 

Federal standards. In amending the Act with the National Energy Conservation Policy Act, P .L.95-

619 (NECPA), Congress specifically changed the legislation to provide for immediate establishment 

of Federal standards to ensure the timely manufacture of energy-efficient consumer products. 

Although it is possible that voluntary targets might be as effective as mandated performance 

standards in achieving the energy savings goals, there probably would be a considerable time lag 

because of the many uncertainties associated with a program requiring concurrence from so many 

participants as well as uncertainties about future consumer demand for energy-efficient products. 

2.6.2 Quantitative Description 

It was assumed for analysis purposes that the voluntary program would specify the 

R-14 
energy-efficiency levels of the performance standards as goals. A fully voluntary program was

assumed to cause a 10-year delay in achieving the energy conservation goals of the proposed

standards. A voluntary program that was made mandatory if the goals were not met was assumed

to achieve the energy efficiencies of the performance standards with a 5-year delay. Thus, the effects

of a voluntary program were bounded by the assumptions of a 5- to 10-year delay.

The start year for this alternative was assumed to be 2005, the same year the performance

standards would take effect. Since these would be voluntary targets, we assumed that the alternative

would apply to all ballasts without an additional 5-year delay for the replacement market.

The forecast results for the voluntary program with 10 year delay showed energy savings of

1.05 Quads (1.11 EJ). The net present value (in 1997 dollars), discounted at 7 percent real, was 0.96

billion.

The forecast results for the voluntary/mandatory program with 5 year delay showed energy

savings of 1.91 Quads (2.02 EJ). The net present value (in 1997 dollars), discounted at 7 percent

real, was 2.04 billion.

2.7 Enhanced Consumer Education and Labeling Programs - Current Technologies

2.7.1 Discussion

This alternative includes enhancing the efforts of programs such as the EPA Energy Star

Buildings/Green Lights program, NEMA's Energy Cost Savings Council, DOE's Federal Energy

Management Program, and the EPAct voluntary luminaire program. These efforts would encourage

the use of existing efficient technologies, primarily the electronic ballast.

The Environmental Protection Agency's Green Lights program, now encompassed by the

Energy Star Buildings program, has provided high-profile incentives and comprehensive information

services for building owners and lighting decision-makers to perform cost-effective lighting

upgrades. NEMA's Energy Cost Savings Council complements the EPA's programs and aims to

influence company executives, emphasize cutting costs and increasing profits. These voluntary

activities are educational for building owners, chief financial officers, specifiers including building

maintenance personnel, and lighting designers in the commercial and industrial sectors.

The voluntary luminaire program, created by a group of lighting organizations following

EPAct's mandate, is designed as a testing and rating method for fluorescent luminaires. It does not

encourage luminaire labeling per se, but rather the publication of the Luminaire Efficacy Rating

(LER) as part of manufacturer literature (catalogs and product specification sheets). This is more

effective than labeling, as commercial and industrial consumers typically select products from

literature rather than off the shelf. Fluorescent luminaires are recommended to be rated with both

magnetic T12 lamp ballast systems and electronic T8 systems; the LER is significantly higher when

R-15

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

energy-efficiency levels of the perfornlance standards as goals. A fully voluntary program was 

assumed to cause a 10-year delay in achieving the energy conservation goals of the proposed 

standards. A voluntary program that was made mandatolY if the goals were not met was assumed 

to achieve the energy efficiencies of the performance standards with a 5-year delay. Thus, the effects 

of a voluntary program were bounded by the assumptions of a 5- to 10-year delay. 

The start year for this alternative was assumed to be 2005, the same year the performance 

standards would take effect. Since these would be voluntary targets, we assumed that the alternative 

would apply to all ballasts without an additional 5-year delay for the replacement market. 

The forecast results for the voluntmy program with 10 year delay showed energy savings of 

1.05 Quads (1.11 EJ). The net present value (in 1997 dollars), discounted at 7 percent real, was 0.96 

billion. 

The forecast results for the voluntary/mandatory program with 5 year delay showed energy 

savings of 1.91 Quads (2.02 EJ). The net present value (in 1997 dollars), discounted at 7 percent 

real, was 2.04 billion. 

2.7 Enhanced Consumer Education and Labeling Programs - Current Technologies 

2.7.1 Discussion 

This alternative includes enhancing the efforts of programs such as the EPA Energy Star 

Buildings/Green Lights program, NEMA's Energy Cost Savings Council, DOE's Federal Energy 

Management Program, and the EP Act vo luntary luminaire program. These efforts would encourage 

the use of existing efficient technologies, primarily the electronic ballast. 

The Environmental Protection Agency's Green Lights program, now encompassed by the 

Energy Star Buildings program, has provided high-profile incentives and comprehensive information 

services for building owners and lighting decision-makers to perform cost-effective lighting 

upgrades. NEMA's Energy Cost Savings Council complements the EPA's programs and aims to 

influence company executives, emphasize cutting costs and increasing profits. These voluntary 

activities are educational for building owners, chief financial officers, specifiers including building 

maintenance personnel, and lighting designers in the commercial and industrial sectors. 

The voluntary luminaire program, created by a group of lighting organizations following 

EP Act's mandate, is designed as a testing and rating method for fluorescent luminaires. It does not 

encourage luminaire labeling per se, but rather the publication of the Luminaire Efficacy Rating 

(LER) as part of manufacturer literature (catalogs and product specification sheets). This is more 

effective than labeling, as commercial and industrial consumers typically select products from 

literature rather than off the shelf. Fluorescent luminaires are recommended to be rated with both 

magnetic T12 lamp ballast systems and electronic T8 systems; the LER is significantly higher when 

R-15 

energy-efficiency levels of the perfornlance standards as goals. A fully voluntary program was 

assumed to cause a 10-year delay in achieving the energy conservation goals of the proposed 

standards. A voluntary program that was made mandatolY if the goals were not met was assumed 

to achieve the energy efficiencies of the performance standards with a 5-year delay. Thus, the effects 

of a voluntary program were bounded by the assumptions of a 5- to 10-year delay. 

The start year for this alternative was assumed to be 2005, the same year the performance 

standards would take effect. Since these would be voluntary targets, we assumed that the alternative 

would apply to all ballasts without an additional 5-year delay for the replacement market. 

The forecast results for the voluntmy program with 10 year delay showed energy savings of 

1.05 Quads (1.11 EJ). The net present value (in 1997 dollars), discounted at 7 percent real, was 0.96 

billion. 

The forecast results for the voluntary/mandatory program with 5 year delay showed energy 

savings of 1.91 Quads (2.02 EJ). The net present value (in 1997 dollars), discounted at 7 percent 

real, was 2.04 billion. 

2.7 Enhanced Consumer Education and Labeling Programs - Current Technologies 

2.7.1 Discussion 

This alternative includes enhancing the efforts of programs such as the EPA Energy Star 

Buildings/Green Lights program, NEMA's Energy Cost Savings Council, DOE's Federal Energy 

Management Program, and the EP Act vo luntary luminaire program. These efforts would encourage 

the use of existing efficient technologies, primarily the electronic ballast. 

The Environmental Protection Agency's Green Lights program, now encompassed by the 

Energy Star Buildings program, has provided high-profile incentives and comprehensive information 

services for building owners and lighting decision-makers to perform cost-effective lighting 

upgrades. NEMA's Energy Cost Savings Council complements the EPA's programs and aims to 

influence company executives, emphasize cutting costs and increasing profits. These voluntary 

activities are educational for building owners, chief financial officers, specifiers including building 

maintenance personnel, and lighting designers in the commercial and industrial sectors. 

The voluntary luminaire program, created by a group of lighting organizations following 

EP Act's mandate, is designed as a testing and rating method for fluorescent luminaires. It does not 

encourage luminaire labeling per se, but rather the publication of the Luminaire Efficacy Rating 

(LER) as part of manufacturer literature (catalogs and product specification sheets). This is more 

effective than labeling, as commercial and industrial consumers typically select products from 

literature rather than off the shelf. Fluorescent luminaires are recommended to be rated with both 

magnetic T12 lamp ballast systems and electronic T8 systems; the LER is significantly higher when 

R-15 
using the electronic system, giving consumers a clear signal of the relatively higher efficacy of this

system type.

The impacts of the existing EPA, NEMA, and EPAct programs were assumed to be included

in the base case. This alternative would provide incentive for more aggressive consumer education

efforts. An enhanced education program could be expected to increase consumer demand in

proportion to the amount of money spent on publicity and dissemination of information. This

approach, as with the financial incentives to consumers , did not address the supply side of the

marketplace equation, and, therefore , could result in less-than-optimal energy savings because of

potential supply and demand inequalities.

2.7.2 Quantitative Description

Evaluating the combined impacts of the education and product information programs

discussed above required that assumptions be made about the number of consumers reached by the

expanded program and to what extent the information received would influence their purchase of

more energy-efficient consumer products . The program was defined , for purposes of analysis, as

being able to reach an average of 3 percent per year of the purchasers of fluorescent ballasts not

already influenced by the programs at their existing levels. These purchasers would be encouraged

to use life-cycle cost techniques for selecting products . Sources of information that would enable

consumers to make life-cycle cost decisions would be identified.

In general, any reasonable expansion of these consumer information programs would likely

reach a relatively small percentage of the purchasing public beyond those already reached by the

programs.

The variables in determining whether a purchaser of consumer products would respond

positively to information presented by the programs could not be assessed with any degree of

confidence . Response is highly dependent on the purchaser 's ability to comprehend the information,

agree with the concepts that are presented, gather needed information , and want and afford to make

the purchase . The quantitative description did not attempt to estimate this response. It merely

assumed that those reached will respond positively by purchasing the most energy-efficient ballasts

(in terms of life-cycle costs) for their particular needs. Thus, the energy savings identified by the

NES model would often be overestimates of the response to the program because not all purchasers

reached could be expected to respond positively.

The forecast results showed energy savings of 0.09 Quads (0.09 EJ ) for this enhanced

consumer education alternative . The net present value (in 1997 dollars), discounted at 7 percent real,

was 0 . 12 billion.

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

using the electronic system, giving consumers a clear signal ofthe relatively higher efficacy ofthis 

system type. 

The impacts ofthe existing EPA, NEMA, and EP Act programs were assumed to be included 

in the base case. This alternative would provide incentive for more aggressive consumer education 

efforts. An enhanced education program could be expected to increase consumer demand in 

proportion to the amount of money spent on publicity and dissemination of information. This 

approach, as with the financial incentives to consumers, did not address the supply side of the 

marketplace equation, and, therefore, could result in less-than-optimal energy savings because of 

potential supply and demand inequalities. 

2.7.2 Quantitative Description 

Evaluating the combined impacts of the education and product information programs 

discussed above required that assumptions be made about the number of consumers reached by the 

expanded program and to what extent the information received would influence their purchase of 

more energy-efficient consumer products. The program was defined, for purposes of analysis, as 

being able to reach an average of 3 percent per year of the purchasers of fluorescent ballasts not 

already influenced by the programs at their existing levels. These purchasers would be encouraged 

to use life-cycle cost techniques for selecting products. Sources of information that would enable 

consumers to make life-cycle cost decisions would be identified. 

In general, any reasonable expansion of these consumer information programs would likely 

reach a relatively small percentage of the purchasing public beyond those already reached by the 

programs. 

The variables in deternlining whether a purchaser of consumer products would respond 

positively to information presented by the programs could not be assessed with any degree of 

confidence. Response is highly dependent on the purchaser's ability to comprehend the information, 

agree with the concepts that are presented, gather needed information, and want and afford to make 

the purchase. The quantitative description did not attempt to estimate this response. It merely 

assumed that those reached will respond positively by purchasing the most energy-efficient ballasts 

(in terms oflife-cyc1e costs) for their particular needs. Thus, the energy savings identified by the 

NES model would often be overestimates of the response to the program because not all purchasers 

reached could be expected to respond positively. · 

The forecast results showed energy savings of 0.09 Quads (0.09 EJ) for this enhanced 

consumer education alternative. The net present value (in 1997 dollars), discounted at 7 percent real, 

was 0.12 billion. 

R-16 

using the electronic system, giving consumers a clear signal ofthe relatively higher efficacy ofthis 

system type. 

The impacts ofthe existing EPA, NEMA, and EP Act programs were assumed to be included 

in the base case. This alternative would provide incentive for more aggressive consumer education 

efforts. An enhanced education program could be expected to increase consumer demand in 

proportion to the amount of money spent on publicity and dissemination of information. This 

approach, as with the financial incentives to consumers, did not address the supply side of the 

marketplace equation, and, therefore, could result in less-than-optimal energy savings because of 

potential supply and demand inequalities. 

2.7.2 Quantitative Description 

Evaluating the combined impacts of the education and product information programs 

discussed above required that assumptions be made about the number of consumers reached by the 

expanded program and to what extent the information received would influence their purchase of 

more energy-efficient consumer products. The program was defined, for purposes of analysis, as 

being able to reach an average of 3 percent per year of the purchasers of fluorescent ballasts not 

already influenced by the programs at their existing levels. These purchasers would be encouraged 

to use life-cycle cost techniques for selecting products. Sources of information that would enable 

consumers to make life-cycle cost decisions would be identified. 

In general, any reasonable expansion of these consumer information programs would likely 

reach a relatively small percentage of the purchasing public beyond those already reached by the 

programs. 

The variables in deternlining whether a purchaser of consumer products would respond 

positively to information presented by the programs could not be assessed with any degree of 

confidence. Response is highly dependent on the purchaser's ability to comprehend the information, 

agree with the concepts that are presented, gather needed information, and want and afford to make 

the purchase. The quantitative description did not attempt to estimate this response. It merely 

assumed that those reached will respond positively by purchasing the most energy-efficient ballasts 

(in terms oflife-cyc1e costs) for their particular needs. Thus, the energy savings identified by the 

NES model would often be overestimates of the response to the program because not all purchasers 

reached could be expected to respond positively. · 

The forecast results showed energy savings of 0.09 Quads (0.09 EJ) for this enhanced 

consumer education alternative. The net present value (in 1997 dollars), discounted at 7 percent real, 

was 0.12 billion. 

R-16 
2.8 Enhanced Consumer Education and Labeling Programs - Advanced Technologies

This alternative assumed that the same enhanced education and labeling programs promoted

advanced technologies such as daylighting/dimming controls for fluorescent ballasts. Of the

consumers affected by the program , some selected the advanced systems and others chose regular

electronic ballasts.

2.8.1 Discussion

The same considerations described for the alternative promoting consumer education for

current technologies applied to this alternative.

The fraction of consumers using the advanced controls in this alternative was small because

the controls technologies are relatively new. While dimming ballasts are reliable, they still comprise

a tiny percentage of the fluorescent ballast market, in part because there have been problems with

the control systems that operate them . The Lighting Research alternative described in section 2.10

below assumed that research efforts developed daylight/ dimming control systems that were more

effective and therefore affected a larger number of buildings than they did with this alternative.

2.8.2 Quantitative Description

LBNL's Lighting Systems Research Group estimated the potential for daylighting (dimming

ballasts) and other controls to be 5 - 10 percent using available technology over ten years4 . Controls

had a 40 percent energy savings potential and could be used in 15 percent of existing floorspace. We

calculated a conversion rate of 0.6 percent per year (40 percent * 15 percent divided by 10 years).

According to LBNL, the current incremental price for dimming vs. non-dimming electronic

ballasts of $25 was expected to fall to $5 by 2004 or earlier. PNNL5 estimated that the additional

cost of a photocontroller including labor was about $ 100, divided by 50 ballasts that it could control

= $2 per ballast. We therefore assumed an additional cost per electronic ballast of $5 + $2 = $7.

Note that additional costs for skylights and architectural features in new buildings were not included.

In the NES model, the savings from electronic ballasts were increased by 40 percent to

account for energy use reduction from dimming, the incremental price for electronic ballasts was

increased by $7, and a conversion rate to electronic ballasts of 0.6 percent was used.

'Memo from Francis Rubinstein (LBNL Lighting Systems Research Group) memo to Dean

MacCauley (FEMP), 1999, "Estimated national energy savings potential for lighting controls" and

personal communication, 8/99.

'Eric Richman, PNNL, personal communication, 7/99. Estimates based on office building studies

by LBNL, PNNL, and others.

R-17

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

2.8 Enhanced Consumer Education and Labeling Programs - Advanced Technologies 

This alternative assumed that the same enhanced education and labeling programs promoted 

advanced technologies such as daylighting/dimming controls for fluorescent ballasts. Of the 

consumers affected by the program, some selected the advanced systems and others chose regular 

electronic ballasts. 

2.8.1 Discussion 

The same considerations described for the alternative promoting consumer education for 

current technologies applied to this alternative. 

The fraction of consumers using the advanced controls in this alternative was small because 

the controls technologies are relatively new. While dimming ballasts are reliable, they still comprise 

a tiny percentage of the fluorescent ballast market, in part because there have been problems with 

the control systems that operate them. The Lighting Research alternative described in section 2.10 

below assumed that research efforts developed daylight/dimming control systems that were more 

effective and therefore affected a larger number of buildings than they did with this alternative. 

2.8.2 Quantitative Description 

LBNL's Lighting Systems Research Group estimated the potential for daylighting (dimming 

ballasts) and other controls to be 5 - 10 percent using available technology over ten years4. Controls 

had a 40 percent energy savings potential and could be used in 15 percent of existing floorspace. We 

calculated a conversion rate of 0.6 percent per year (40 percent * 15 percent divided by 10 years). 

According to LBNL, the current incremental price for dimming vs. non-dimming electronic 

ballasts of $25 was expected to fall to $5 by 2004 or earlier. PNNL5 estimated that the additional 

cost of a photocontroller including labor was about $100, divided by 50 ballasts that it could control 

= $2 per ballast. We therefore assumed an additional cost per electronic ballast of $5 + $2 = $7. 

Note that additional costs for skylights and architectural features in new buildings were not included. 

In the NES model, the savings from electronic ballasts were increased by 40 percent to 

account for energy use reduction from dimming, the incremental price for electronic ballasts was 

increased by $7, and a conversion rate to electronic ballasts of 0.6 percent was used. 

4Memo from Francis Rubinstein (LBNL Lighting Systems Research Group) memo to Dean 

MacCauley (FEMP), 1999, "Estimated national energy savings potential for lighting controls" and 

personal communication, 8/99. 

5Eric Richman, PNNL, personal communication, 7/99. Estimates based on office building studies 

by LBNL, PNNL, and others. 

R-17 

2.8 Enhanced Consumer Education and Labeling Programs - Advanced Technologies 

This alternative assumed that the same enhanced education and labeling programs promoted 

advanced technologies such as daylighting/dimming controls for fluorescent ballasts. Of the 

consumers affected by the program, some selected the advanced systems and others chose regular 

electronic ballasts. 

2.8.1 Discussion 

The same considerations described for the alternative promoting consumer education for 

current technologies applied to this alternative. 

The fraction of consumers using the advanced controls in this alternative was small because 

the controls technologies are relatively new. While dimming ballasts are reliable, they still comprise 

a tiny percentage of the fluorescent ballast market, in part because there have been problems with 

the control systems that operate them. The Lighting Research alternative described in section 2.10 

below assumed that research efforts developed daylight/dimming control systems that were more 

effective and therefore affected a larger number of buildings than they did with this alternative. 

2.8.2 Quantitative Description 

LBNL's Lighting Systems Research Group estimated the potential for daylighting (dimming 

ballasts) and other controls to be 5 - 10 percent using available technology over ten years4. Controls 

had a 40 percent energy savings potential and could be used in 15 percent of existing floorspace. We 

calculated a conversion rate of 0.6 percent per year (40 percent * 15 percent divided by 10 years). 

According to LBNL, the current incremental price for dimming vs. non-dimming electronic 

ballasts of $25 was expected to fall to $5 by 2004 or earlier. PNNL5 estimated that the additional 

cost of a photocontroller including labor was about $100, divided by 50 ballasts that it could control 

= $2 per ballast. We therefore assumed an additional cost per electronic ballast of $5 + $2 = $7. 

Note that additional costs for skylights and architectural features in new buildings were not included. 

In the NES model, the savings from electronic ballasts were increased by 40 percent to 

account for energy use reduction from dimming, the incremental price for electronic ballasts was 

increased by $7, and a conversion rate to electronic ballasts of 0.6 percent was used. 

4Memo from Francis Rubinstein (LBNL Lighting Systems Research Group) memo to Dean 

MacCauley (FEMP), 1999, "Estimated national energy savings potential for lighting controls" and 

personal communication, 8/99. 

5Eric Richman, PNNL, personal communication, 7/99. Estimates based on office building studies 

by LBNL, PNNL, and others. 

R-17 
These savings were added to those from an NES run using the assumptions described in

section 2.7 with a smaller conversion rate of 2.4 percent. This assumed the same number of

consumers would be affected as by the consumer education alternative , but that consumers not

converting to dimming bal lasts (0.6 percent conversion rate ) would still convert to regular electronic

ballasts due to consumer education (3 percent minus 0.6 percent = 2.4 percent).

The forecast results showed energy savings of 0.10 Quads (0.10 EJ) for this enhanced

consumer education alternative . The net present value (in 1997 dollars), discounted at 7 percent real,

was 0. 13 billion.

2.9 Government Purchases

In this alternative , all Federal , State, and local government ballast purchases were electronic

ballasts. FEMP's existing Procurement Guidelines that encourage the selection of electronic ballasts,

with their anticipated partial compliance rates, were already included in the base case forecast. The

incremental impact of full FEMP compliance was covered in this alternative . In addition to

government purchases, there was assumed to be a "market-pull" impact influencing non-federal

purchases.

2.9.1 Discussion

This alternative had significant impacts since it assumed that all ballasts purchased in the

government sector became electronic ballasts. This would require substantial funding and

implementation efforts. The government sector market was estimated to comprise 20 percent of all

fluorescent ballast purchases ; municipal and state floor space includes public school and institutional

buildings.

"Market pull" impacts would most likely occur through the effects of manufacturers and

vendors achieving scale economies with the high -efficiency products, and marketing them more

effectively to consumers across the board (rather than through direct example to consumers).

2.9.2 Quantitative Description

We assumed that the CBECS floorspace comprised by government -owned buildings

corresponded to the percentage of ballast sales to the federal, state, and municipal sector. In the

Energy Information Administration's 1995 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey

(CBECS 1995)6, the government-owned floor space was 20 percent of the total floor space. The

"EIA/DOE. 1998. ALoolcatConnnercialBuildingsin 1995 : Characteristics, Energy Consuinption,

and Energy Expenditures, DOE/EIA-0625(95), Washington DC, October 1998.

R-18

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

These savings were added to those from an NES run using the assumptions described in 

section 2.7 with a smaller conversion rate of 2.4 percent. This assumed the same number of 

consumers would be affected as by the consumer education alternative, but that consumers not 

converting to dimming ballasts (0.6 percent conversion rate) would still convert to regular electronic 

ballasts due to consumer education (3 percent minus 0.6 percent = 2.4 percent). 

The forecast results showed energy savings of 0.10 Quads (0.10 EJ) for this enhanced 

consumer education alternative. The net presehtvalue (in 1997 dollars), discounted at 7 percent real, 

was 0.13 billion. 

2.9 Government Purchases 

In this alternative, all Federal, State, and local government ballast purchases were electronic 

ballasts. FEMP's existing Procurement Guidelines that encourage the selection of electronic ballasts, 

with their anticipated partial compliance rates, were already included in the base case forecast. The 

incremental impact of full FEMP compliance was covered in this alternative. In addition to 

government purchases, there was assumed to be a "market-pull" impact influencing non-federal 

purchases. 

2.9.1 Discussion 

This alternative had significant impacts since it assumed that all ballasts purchased in the 

government sector became electronic ballasts. This would require substantial funding and 

implementation efforts. The government sector market was estimated to comprise 20 percent of all 

fluorescent ballast purchases; municipal and state floor space includes public school and institutional 

buildings. 

"Market pull" impacts would most likely occur through the effects of manufacturers and 

vendors achieving scale economies with the high-efficiency products, and marketing them more 

effectively to consumers across the board (rather than through direct example to consumers). 

2.9.2 Quantitative Description 

We assumed that the CBECS floorspace comprised by government-owned buildings 

corresponded to the percentage of ballast sales to the federal, state, and municipal sector. In the 

Energy Information Administration's 1995 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey 

(CBECS 1995)6, the government-owned floor space was 20 percent of the total floor space. The 

6EIAIDOE. 1998. A Look at Commercial Buildings in 1995: Characteristics, Energy Consumption, 

and Energy Expenditures, DOE/EIA-0625(95), Washington DC, October 1998. 

R-18 

These savings were added to those from an NES run using the assumptions described in 

section 2.7 with a smaller conversion rate of 2.4 percent. This assumed the same number of 

consumers would be affected as by the consumer education alternative, but that consumers not 

converting to dimming ballasts (0.6 percent conversion rate) would still convert to regular electronic 

ballasts due to consumer education (3 percent minus 0.6 percent = 2.4 percent). 

The forecast results showed energy savings of 0.10 Quads (0.10 EJ) for this enhanced 

consumer education alternative. The net presehtvalue (in 1997 dollars), discounted at 7 percent real, 

was 0.13 billion. 

2.9 Government Purchases 

In this alternative, all Federal, State, and local government ballast purchases were electronic 

ballasts. FEMP's existing Procurement Guidelines that encourage the selection of electronic ballasts, 

with their anticipated partial compliance rates, were already included in the base case forecast. The 

incremental impact of full FEMP compliance was covered in this alternative. In addition to 

government purchases, there was assumed to be a "market-pull" impact influencing non-federal 

purchases. 

2.9.1 Discussion 

This alternative had significant impacts since it assumed that all ballasts purchased in the 

government sector became electronic ballasts. This would require substantial funding and 

implementation efforts. The government sector market was estimated to comprise 20 percent of all 

fluorescent ballast purchases; municipal and state floor space includes public school and institutional 

buildings. 

"Market pull" impacts would most likely occur through the effects of manufacturers and 

vendors achieving scale economies with the high-efficiency products, and marketing them more 

effectively to consumers across the board (rather than through direct example to consumers). 

2.9.2 Quantitative Description 

We assumed that the CBECS floorspace comprised by government-owned buildings 

corresponded to the percentage of ballast sales to the federal, state, and municipal sector. In the 

Energy Information Administration's 1995 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey 

(CBECS 1995)6, the government-owned floor space was 20 percent of the total floor space. The 

6EIAIDOE. 1998. A Look at Commercial Buildings in 1995: Characteristics, Energy Consumption, 

and Energy Expenditures, DOE/EIA-0625(95), Washington DC, October 1998. 

R-18 
percentage of federal ballast sales was estimated to be about 1 to 2 percent of the total ballast sales'.

We assumed that federal purchases were 2 percent and that half (1 percent) were already in

the base case. This left 19 percent to be influenced by this alternative. We estimated that 55 percent

are already electronic ballasts, based on the general market share for electronic ballasts in 1998,

yielding an 8.6 percent impact (19 percent * 55 percent = 8.6 percent). To this we added an

estimated 1.4 percent market-pull impact, for an overall 10 percent conversion rate to electronic

ballasts.

The forecast results showed energy savings of 0.30 Quads (0.32 EJ) for the massive

government purchases alternative. The net present value (in 1997 dollars), discounted at 7 percent

real, was 0.40 billion.

2.10 Lighting Research

This alternative involved lighting research and development adding more efficient

alternatives to currently available systems.

2.10.1. Discussion

This alternative assumed that R&D expanded the implementation of controls, including

daylighting with dimming ballasts (promoted by the Consumer Education for Advanced

Technologies alternative described in section 2.8 above). Despite the large increase in savings

potential due to controls, this alternative had a relatively small impact. Research and development

would take time to have an impact, while many of the magnetic ballasts sold during the analysis

period were sold in the earlier years.

2.10.2 Quantitative Description

From LBNL Lighting Systems Reseach Group, R&D could make control systems that are

more effectively used in buildings. They would be easier to commission, maintain, and monitor and

thus more appealing to consumers. We estimated that this would allow 40 percent penetration (as

compared with 15 percent in the Consumer Education alternative, section 2. 8). This would occur

over a ten year period; we calculated a conversion rate of 1.6 percent (40 percent * 40 percent

divided by 10 years). Since R&D would take awhile to penetrate the marketplace, we assumed a

time delay of 5 years for this alternative. The estimated incremental cost of $7 did not change, as

it was already projected to fall under current conditions.

'Jeff Harris, LBNL, personal commnunication, 6/99.

'Steve Johnson, LBNL, personal communication, 8/99.

R-19

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

percentage offederal ballast sales was estimated to be about 1 to 2 percent ofthe total ballast sales7

• 

We assumed that federal purchases were 2 percent and that half (1 percent) were already in 

the base case. This left 19 percent to be influenced by this alternative. We estimated that 55 percent 

are already electronic ballasts, based on the general market share for electronic ballasts in 1998, 

yielding an 8.6 percent impact (19 percent * 55 percent = 8.6 percent). To this we added an 

estimated 1.4 percent market-pull impact, for an overall 10 percent conversion rate to electronic 

ballasts. 

The forecast results showed energy savings of 0.30 Quads (0.32 EJ) for the massive 

government purchases alternative. The net present value (in 1997 dollars), discounted at 7 percent 

real, was 0.40 billion. 

2.10 Lighting Research 

This alternative involved lighting research and development adding more efficient 

alternatives to currently available systems. 

2.10.1. Discussion 

This alternative assumed that R&D expanded the implementation of controls, including 

daylighting with dimming ballasts (promoted by the Consumer Education for Advanced 

Technologies alternative described in section 2.8 above). Despite the large increase in savings 

potential due to controls, this alternative had a relatively small impact. Research and development 

would take time to have an impact, while many of the magnetic ballasts sold during the analysis 

period were sold in the earlier years. 

2.10.2 Quantitative Description 

From LBNL Lighting Systems Reseach Groups, R&D could make control systems that are 

more effectively used in buildings. They would be easier to commission, maintain, and monitor and 

thus more appealing to consumers. We estimated that this would allow 40 percent penetration (as 

compared with 15 percent in the Consumer Education alternative, section 2.8). This would occur 

over a ten year period; we calculated a conversion rate of 1.6 percent (40 percent * 40 percent 

divided by 10 years). Since R&D would take awhile to penetrate the marketplace, we assumed a 

time delay of 5 years for this alternative. The estimated incremental cost of $7 did not change, as 

it was already projected to fall under current conditions. 

7JeffHarris, LBNL, personal communication, 6/99. 

8Steve Johnson, LBNL, personal communication, 8/99. 

R-19 

percentage offederal ballast sales was estimated to be about 1 to 2 percent ofthe total ballast sales7

• 

We assumed that federal purchases were 2 percent and that half (1 percent) were already in 

the base case. This left 19 percent to be influenced by this alternative. We estimated that 55 percent 

are already electronic ballasts, based on the general market share for electronic ballasts in 1998, 

yielding an 8.6 percent impact (19 percent * 55 percent = 8.6 percent). To this we added an 

estimated 1.4 percent market-pull impact, for an overall 10 percent conversion rate to electronic 

ballasts. 

The forecast results showed energy savings of 0.30 Quads (0.32 EJ) for the massive 

government purchases alternative. The net present value (in 1997 dollars), discounted at 7 percent 

real, was 0.40 billion. 

2.10 Lighting Research 

This alternative involved lighting research and development adding more efficient 

alternatives to currently available systems. 

2.10.1. Discussion 

This alternative assumed that R&D expanded the implementation of controls, including 

daylighting with dimming ballasts (promoted by the Consumer Education for Advanced 

Technologies alternative described in section 2.8 above). Despite the large increase in savings 

potential due to controls, this alternative had a relatively small impact. Research and development 

would take time to have an impact, while many of the magnetic ballasts sold during the analysis 

period were sold in the earlier years. 

2.10.2 Quantitative Description 

From LBNL Lighting Systems Reseach Groups, R&D could make control systems that are 

more effectively used in buildings. They would be easier to commission, maintain, and monitor and 

thus more appealing to consumers. We estimated that this would allow 40 percent penetration (as 

compared with 15 percent in the Consumer Education alternative, section 2.8). This would occur 

over a ten year period; we calculated a conversion rate of 1.6 percent (40 percent * 40 percent 

divided by 10 years). Since R&D would take awhile to penetrate the marketplace, we assumed a 

time delay of 5 years for this alternative. The estimated incremental cost of $7 did not change, as 

it was already projected to fall under current conditions. 

7JeffHarris, LBNL, personal communication, 6/99. 

8Steve Johnson, LBNL, personal communication, 8/99. 

R-19 
In the NES model , we increased the kWh savings by 40 percent and increased the

incremental ballast cost by $7 (these are the same assumptions made in section 2.8). The conversion

rate was 1.6 percent, with a delay period of five years.

The forecast results showed energy savings of 0.04 Quads (0.05 EJ) for the lighting research

alternative . The net present value (in 1997 dollars), discounted at 7 percent real, was 0.04 billion.

2.11. Building Codes

This alternative involved the increased adoption and aggressive enforcement of commercial

building codes, particularly the ASHRAE/IES 90. 1-1999 (upgraded) code and the Federal

Commercial (FedCom) building code. The conversion rate for electronic ballasts represented

additional ballasts purchased (beyond those in the base case ) for new buildings or for substantially

renovated spaces, both of which are subject to the codes.

2.11.1 Discussion

The EPAct required that by 1994 states would adopt building codes , including lighting

provisions, that were at least as strict as those in the existing ASHRAE/IES 90.1-1989 standard. In

addition, the Department would review any update to the ASHRAE /IES standard and consider

whether to designate it the required code. The upcoming revision , ASHRAE/IES 90. 1-1999, is based

on an assumption that electronic ballasts are the state -of-the-art available fluorescent technology, and

therefore the use of electronic ballasts would greatly facilitate compliance. Similarly, electronic

ballasts would assist compliance with the FedCom federal building code currently under revision.

ASHRAE/IES 90.1-1999 was anticipated to have full impact beginning in the year 2005.

Adoption of the ASHRAE/IES 90 . 1-1989 code by the states has been uneven; while some

states already had building codes at least as strict, others had no legislative or institutional

mechanisms in place for a building energy code . The Department has provided technical assistance,

financial incentives, and code support materials to state energy offices and agencies to increase the

adoption rate.

Even when a state building energy code is in place, compliance with its provisions by

designers and builders has often been partial. Studies conducted in Washington, Minnesota, New

York, Idaho, California, and other locations indicate that codes have not been fully enforced.

However, the level of code compliance is not directly related to code enforcement. California studies

showing code enforcement at 70 percent to 80 percent in the buildings surveyed also found that the

level of compliance actually exceeded the code.'

9"Quality Metrics Impact Assessment," prepared for (DOE) Building Standards and Guidelines Program by

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, 1995.

R-20

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

In the NES model, we increased the kWh savings by 40 percent and increased the 

incremental ballast cost by $7 (these are the same assumptions made in section 2.8). The conversion 

rate was 1.6 percent, with a delay period of five years. 

The forecast results showed energy savings of 0.04 Quads (0.05 EJ) for the lighting research 

alternative. The net present value (in 1997 dollars), discounted at 7 percent real, was 0.04 billion. 

2.11. Building Codes 

This alternative involved the increased adoption and aggressive enforcement of commercial 

building codes, particularly the ASHRAE/IES 90.1-1999 (upgraded) code and the Federal 

Commercial (FedCom) building code. The conversion rate for electronic ballasts represented 

additional ballasts purchased (beyond those in the base case) for new buildings or for substantially 

renovated spaces, both of which are subject to the codes. 

2.11.1 Discussion 

The EP Act required that by 1994 states would adopt building codes, including lighting 

provisions, that were at least as strict as those in the existing ASHRAE/IES 90.1-1989 standard. In 

addition, the Department would review any update to the ASHRAE/IES standard and consider 

whether to designate itthe required code. The upcoming revision, ASHRAE/IES 90.1-1999, is based 

on an assumption that electronic ballasts are the state-of-the-art available fluorescent technology, and 

therefore the use of electronic ballasts would greatly facilitate compliance. Similarly, electronic 

ballasts would assist compliance with the FedCom federal building code currently under revision. 

ASHRAE/IES 90.1-1999 was anticipated to have full impact beginning in the year 2005. 

Adoption of the ASHRAE/IES 90.1-1989 code by the states has been uneven; while some 

states already had building codes at least as strict, others had no legislative or institutional 

mechanisms in place for a building energy code. The Department has provided technical assistance, 

financial incentives, and code support materials to state energy offices and agencies to increase the 

adoption rate. 

Even when a state building energy code is in place, compliance with its provisions by 

designers and builders has often been partial. Studies conducted in Washington, Minnesota, New 

York, Idaho, California, and other locations indicate that codes have not been fully enforced. 

However, the level of code compliance is not directly related to code enforcement. California studies 

showing code enforcement at 70 percent to 80 percent in the buildings surveyed also found that the 

level of compliance actually exceeded the code.9 

9"Quality Metrics Impact Assessment," prepared for (DOE) Building Standards and Guidelines Program by 

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, 1995. 

R-20 

In the NES model, we increased the kWh savings by 40 percent and increased the 

incremental ballast cost by $7 (these are the same assumptions made in section 2.8). The conversion 

rate was 1.6 percent, with a delay period of five years. 

The forecast results showed energy savings of 0.04 Quads (0.05 EJ) for the lighting research 

alternative. The net present value (in 1997 dollars), discounted at 7 percent real, was 0.04 billion. 

2.11. Building Codes 

This alternative involved the increased adoption and aggressive enforcement of commercial 

building codes, particularly the ASHRAE/IES 90.1-1999 (upgraded) code and the Federal 

Commercial (FedCom) building code. The conversion rate for electronic ballasts represented 

additional ballasts purchased (beyond those in the base case) for new buildings or for substantially 

renovated spaces, both of which are subject to the codes. 

2.11.1 Discussion 

The EP Act required that by 1994 states would adopt building codes, including lighting 

provisions, that were at least as strict as those in the existing ASHRAE/IES 90.1-1989 standard. In 

addition, the Department would review any update to the ASHRAE/IES standard and consider 

whether to designate itthe required code. The upcoming revision, ASHRAE/IES 90.1-1999, is based 

on an assumption that electronic ballasts are the state-of-the-art available fluorescent technology, and 

therefore the use of electronic ballasts would greatly facilitate compliance. Similarly, electronic 

ballasts would assist compliance with the FedCom federal building code currently under revision. 

ASHRAE/IES 90.1-1999 was anticipated to have full impact beginning in the year 2005. 

Adoption of the ASHRAE/IES 90.1-1989 code by the states has been uneven; while some 

states already had building codes at least as strict, others had no legislative or institutional 

mechanisms in place for a building energy code. The Department has provided technical assistance, 

financial incentives, and code support materials to state energy offices and agencies to increase the 

adoption rate. 

Even when a state building energy code is in place, compliance with its provisions by 

designers and builders has often been partial. Studies conducted in Washington, Minnesota, New 

York, Idaho, California, and other locations indicate that codes have not been fully enforced. 

However, the level of code compliance is not directly related to code enforcement. California studies 

showing code enforcement at 70 percent to 80 percent in the buildings surveyed also found that the 

level of compliance actually exceeded the code.9 

9"Quality Metrics Impact Assessment," prepared for (DOE) Building Standards and Guidelines Program by 

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, 1995. 

R-20 
2.11.2 Quantitative Description

The estimated impacts ofthe ASHRAE/IES 90.1-1989 code and the revised 90.1-1999 code,

including partial state adoption and compliance, were already included in the base case. Analysis

by PNNL and LBNL estimated the impacts of the 90.1-1999 code from 2005 to 2020. The number

of additional electronic ballasts sold instead of magnetic ballasts due to partial adoption and

compliance of the new code version was projected. The percentage for each year was relatively

steady, so we assumed that the impacts through 2030 would be similar.

This alternative assumed faster adoption and more aggressive enforcement, i.e. 100 percent

adoption and full compliance beginning in 2005. Therefore it represented an upper bound of

potential impacts of ASHRAE/IES 90.1-1999 on the ballast market. Using the PNNL model, we

calculated that full adoption/compliance resulted in sales of electronic ballasts about twice those with

partial adoption/compliance.

The 2027 base case had an implied 4 percent conversion rate, while the PNNL/LBNL

analysis with full compliance showed a 7 percent conversion rate. We assumed that the alternative

case causes a net conversion rate of 3 percent (7 percent minus 4 percent).

The forecast results showed energy savings of 0.15 Quads (0.16 EJ). The net present value

(in 1997 dollars), discounted at 7 percent real, was 0.18 billion.

2.12 Performance Standards

2.12.1 Discussion

The only alternative that fully complies with the Act is the setting of energy-efficiency or

performance standards. This alternative is being used in the proposed regulation.

The standards will establish the maximum energy consumption or minimum efficiency level

permitted for each lamp-ballast combination but will not prescribe the means by which that level is

to be achieved. The efficiencies are specified in ratios relating the output of a product to its energy

use. The standards levels vary among lamp-ballast combinations, depending on the design

characteristics of each class. The standards levels are based on test procedures developed by DOE,

which it intends, on a continuing basis, to modify to accommodate new product designs.

2.12.2 Quantitative Description

Performance standards were quantified by assuming that all ballasts would comply with the

standards as proposed. That is, all manufacturers would meet the deadlines for the 2005 efficiency

levels, and, after existing stocks of nonregulated products are depleted, only products meeting the

R-21

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

2.11.2 Quantitative Description 

The estimated impacts ofthe ASHRAE/IES 90.1-1989 code and the revised 90.1-1999 code, 

including partial state adoption and compliance, were already included in the base case. Analysis 

byPNNL and LBNL estimated the impacts of the 90.1-1999 code from 2005 to 2020. The number 

of additional electronic ballasts sold instead of magnetic ballasts due to partial adoption and 

compliance of the new code version was projected. The percentage for each year was relatively 

steady, so we assumed that the impacts through 2030 would be similar. 

This alternative assumed faster adoption and more aggressive enforcement, i.e. 100 percent 

adoption and full compliance beginning in 2005. Therefore it represented an upper bound of 

potential impacts of ASHRAE/IES 90.1-1999 on the ballast market. Using the PNNL model, we 

calculated that full adoption! compliance resulted in sales of electronic ballasts about twice those with 

partial adoption/compliance. 

The 2027 base case had an implied 4 percent conversion rate, while the PNNLlLBNL 

analysis with full compliance showed a 7 percent conversion rate. We assumed that the alternative 

case causes a net conversion rate of 3 percent (7 percent minus 4 percent). 

The forecast results showed energy savings of 0.15 Quads (0.16 EJ). The net present value 

(in 1997 dollars), discounted at 7 percent real, was 0.18 billion. 

2.12 Performance Standards 

2.12.1 Discussion 

The only alternative that fully complies with the Act is the setting of energy-efficiency or 

performance standards. This alternative is being used in the proposed regulation. 

The standards will establish the maximum energy consumption or minimum efficiency level 

permitted for each lamp-ballast combination but will not prescribe the means by which that level is 

to be achieved. The efficiencies are specified in ratios relating the output of a product to its energy 

use. The standards levels. vary among lamp-ballast combinations, depending on the design 

characteristics of each class. The standards levels are based on test procedures developed by DOE, 

which it intends, on a continuing basis, to modify to accommodate new product designs. 

2.12.2 Quantitative Description 

Performance standards were quantified by assuming that all ballasts would comply with the 

standards as proposed. That is, all manufacturers would meet the deadlines for the 2005 efficiency 

levels, and, after existing stocks of nonregulated products are depleted, only products meeting the 

R-21 

2.11.2 Quantitative Description 

The estimated impacts ofthe ASHRAE/IES 90.1-1989 code and the revised 90.1-1999 code, 

including partial state adoption and compliance, were already included in the base case. Analysis 

byPNNL and LBNL estimated the impacts of the 90.1-1999 code from 2005 to 2020. The number 

of additional electronic ballasts sold instead of magnetic ballasts due to partial adoption and 

compliance of the new code version was projected. The percentage for each year was relatively 

steady, so we assumed that the impacts through 2030 would be similar. 

This alternative assumed faster adoption and more aggressive enforcement, i.e. 100 percent 

adoption and full compliance beginning in 2005. Therefore it represented an upper bound of 

potential impacts of ASHRAE/IES 90.1-1999 on the ballast market. Using the PNNL model, we 

calculated that full adoption! compliance resulted in sales of electronic ballasts about twice those with 

partial adoption/compliance. 

The 2027 base case had an implied 4 percent conversion rate, while the PNNLlLBNL 

analysis with full compliance showed a 7 percent conversion rate. We assumed that the alternative 

case causes a net conversion rate of 3 percent (7 percent minus 4 percent). 

The forecast results showed energy savings of 0.15 Quads (0.16 EJ). The net present value 

(in 1997 dollars), discounted at 7 percent real, was 0.18 billion. 

2.12 Performance Standards 

2.12.1 Discussion 

The only alternative that fully complies with the Act is the setting of energy-efficiency or 

performance standards. This alternative is being used in the proposed regulation. 

The standards will establish the maximum energy consumption or minimum efficiency level 

permitted for each lamp-ballast combination but will not prescribe the means by which that level is 

to be achieved. The efficiencies are specified in ratios relating the output of a product to its energy 

use. The standards levels. vary among lamp-ballast combinations, depending on the design 

characteristics of each class. The standards levels are based on test procedures developed by DOE, 

which it intends, on a continuing basis, to modify to accommodate new product designs. 

2.12.2 Quantitative Description 

Performance standards were quantified by assuming that all ballasts would comply with the 

standards as proposed. That is, all manufacturers would meet the deadlines for the 2005 efficiency 

levels, and, after existing stocks of nonregulated products are depleted, only products meeting the 

R-21 
Table R.3 Energy Savings and Net Present Value to Society of Standards for Fluorescent

Ballasts Purchased from 2005-2030

(1997 Billion Dollars, Discounted to 1997 at 7 percent Real)

V l,leetronic Stnnda'ifs...................... ........

For Units Sold from 2005 to 2030

Discounted at 7% to 9997 (in billion 1997

SCENARIO

Seen 7A

Deer201S

Scen 7B

Decr2027

Scen 7C

Constant

Total Quads Saved 1.09 2.23 4.84

Total Quads Saved w/HVAC* 1.16 2.36 5.15

Total Exajoules Saved 1.15 2.35 5.11

Total Exajoules Saved w/

HVAC* 1.22 2.49 5.43

Total Benefit 1.85 3.42 7.18

Total Equipment Cost 0.45 0.83 1.76

Net Present Value 1.40 2.59 5.42

*For energy savings only; Total Benefit and Net Present Value do not include

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

Table R.3 Energy Savings and Net Present Value to Society of Standards for Fluorescent 

Ballasts Purchased from 2005-2030 

(1997 Billion Dollars, Discounted to 1997 at 7 percent Real) 

For Units Sold from 2005 to 2030 

R-23 

Table R.3 Energy Savings and Net Present Value to Society of Standards for Fluorescent 

Ballasts Purchased from 2005-2030 

(1997 Billion Dollars, Discounted to 1997 at 7 percent Real) 

For Units Sold from 2005 to 2030 

R-23 
REFERENCE

U.S. Department of Energy, Technical Support Document: Energy EfficiencyStandardsfor

Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

REFERENCE 

1. U.S. Department of Energy, Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Standards for 

Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts 

R-24 

REFERENCE 

1. U.S. Department of Energy, Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Standards for 

Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts 

R-24