### APPENDIX C . CASH FLOW IMPACTS 

## APPENDIX C. CASH FLOW IMPACTS

C-l 

## APPENDIX C. CASH FLOW IMPACTS

C-lTable 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 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
3.3Table 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 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 18.1Table 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 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 ProfitBefore 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 ProfitBefore 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
3.0Table 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 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-5Table 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 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 ProductConversion Expense (CC) Product Conversion Expense (EJec) One Time**Char~es Re~tructuring**  Cost (Plant Closure) Asset Wfite 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 ProductConversion Expense (CC) Product Conversion Expense (EJec) One Time**Char~es Re~tructuring**  Cost (Plant Closure) Asset Wfite 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
4.3Table 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 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 17.1Table 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 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
3.0Table 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 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-9Table C.5.A Base Case Industry Cash flow--Existing Dynamics , 5% Shipment Scenario (1998 - 2012) F luomscenC amp 'Hallntv 'Electronic Ballas t 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 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 3.3Table 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 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 CashFlows from Opemtions Ordinary Capital Expenditures Conversion Gipital Exp. (CC) Conversion Capita'l**E~p.** (Elec) CashUsed In Investment Net CashFlow Terminal Value Present Value Factor Discounted Cash Flow IndostryValue (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 CashFlows from Opemtions Ordinary Capital Expenditures Conversion Gipital Exp. (CC) Conversion Capita'l**E~p.** (Elec) CashUsed In Investment Net CashFlow Terminal Value Present Value Factor Discounted Cash Flow IndostryValue (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 18.1Table 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 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 CashFlow 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 CashFlow 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
3.3Table 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 Before Tax 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 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-13Table C.7.A Base Case Industry Cash flow--Existing Dynamics , 3% Shipment Scenario ( 1998 - 2012) 1 Iaurestrn op Ral)a)s(s E(ectrnnic Ball ast 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 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
4.3Table 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 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 17.1Table 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 0.11 0 0.11(1 11.00 0 .1 10 (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 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) CashUsed In Investment Net Cash Flow Tenninal Value Present Value Factor Discounted CashFlow 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) CashUsed In Investment Net Cash Flow Tenninal Value Present Value Factor Discounted CashFlow 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
3.3Table 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 Before Tax 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 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-17Table 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 2 00 ((.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 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
7.5Table 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 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) CashUsed In fnvebtment Net CashFlow 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) CashUsed In fnvebtment Net CashFlow 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 36.9Table C-10-A: Standard Case Industry Cash Flow--Manufacturer Submittal, 5% Shipment Scenario, Includes "Unaffected" Electronic Ballasts (1998 - 2012) 0uo?¢see1ajjtiil.101 sis,l;letrouicD atlsstetU( 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-Overhea ad) 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 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
7.2Table 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 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 (NetPresent 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 (NetPresent 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 

## APPENDIX D. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FOR FLUORESCENT LAMP BALLASTS D.l SUMMARY The fluorescent ballast environmental analysis uses a variant ofthe 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 ofthe environmental analysis are in a format similarto 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 ofall new federal rules be properlyquantified 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 ofS02 are subject to caps imposedby clean air legislation, physical emissions ofthis pollutantwill be only minimally affected bypossible appliance standards. It 

## appears from trial simulation that reporting ofchanges 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 currentpolicy. Forexample, the emissions characteristics ofan electricity generatingplant in the environmental analysis are the same as those used in AE099, but the fuel mix used for generation and the construction program for newplants may change slightly as a result ofreduced 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 ofthe energy reductions from standards and results are extrapolated.

lForfurther explanation about NEMS, please refer to the U.S. Department ofEnergy, Energy Information Administration. 

### National Energy Model System: An Overview 1998. DOE/EIA-0581

### (98), February 

### 1998. 2EIA approves use ofthe name 

### NEMS to describe only an AEO version ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofthe environmental analysis are in a format similarto 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 ofall new federal rules be properlyquantified 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 ofS02 are subject to caps imposedby clean air legislation, physical emissions ofthis pollutantwill be only minimally affected bypossible appliance standards. It 

## appears from trial simulation that reporting ofchanges 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 currentpolicy. Forexample, the emissions characteristics ofan electricity generatingplant in the environmental analysis are the same as those used in AE099, but the fuel mix used for generation and the construction program for newplants may change slightly as a result ofreduced 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 ofthe energy reductions from standards and results are extrapolated.

lForfurther explanation about NEMS, please refer to the U.S. Department ofEnergy, Energy Information Administration. 

### National Energy Model System: An Overview 1998. DOE/EIA-0581

### (98), February 

### 1998. 2EIA approves use ofthe name 

### NEMS to describe only an AEO version ofthe 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 

## D.4 METHODS Carbonemissions are trackedinNEMS-BRSbya detailed carbon modulethatprovides good results because it covers all sectors ofthe 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 ofwhich emits less carbon than coal combustion. Secondly, lowered electricity demand tends to slow down construction of power generationcapacity, thereby slowingthe improvementin energyconversion efficiencyand emissions rates thattypicallyresultfrom deployment ofnew generatingtechnologies. NOx

## results are based on forecasts ofcompliance with existing legislation and have proven stable and reasonable. The two airborne pollutantemissions thathavebeenreported in pastanalyses, NOx 

## and S02' are reported byNEMS-BRS. The Clean AirActAmendments of 1990 set an S02 emissions cap on all power generation. The attainment ofthis target is flexible among generators, however, and is enforced by applying market forces through the use ofemissions allowances and tradable permits. S02 trading makes it likely thatphysical emissions effects will be virtually zero because emissions will always be at ornear 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. Becausethe effects consideredhere are too small to deliverreasonable estimates, we do notconsider this possibility. Because the size ofthe energy reductions from standards are too small to produce stable results in NEMS-BRS, it has been necessary to estimate results in the range ofthe 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 peakyear ofthe 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 ofthe extrapolation for NOx 

## emissions rates. ill 

## this case, marginal rates for NOx 

## emissions are shown for each year. Note that the marginal emissions rates incorporateboth effects ofthe standards: the emissions savedbythe reductionin total generation and the slightchange in the emissions characteristics ofthe wholepowersectorthatresult from the slight change in dispatch and capacityexpansionplan. The net effectonthe 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 ofstatisticalnoise is clear. With small decreases in demand, the emissionsrate is quite variable. The dashed plots (years 2003 to 2010) show the earlier years ofthe imposed standard, in which the demand reductions are smallest. In most cases, these curves are so close to flat that regression ofthe points out ofthe noisyrange gives a curve very close to the simple average D-2 

## D.4 METHODS Carbonemissions are trackedinNEMS-BRSbya detailed carbon modulethatprovides good results because it covers all sectors ofthe 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 ofwhich emits less carbon than coal combustion. Secondly, lowered electricity demand tends to slow down construction of power generationcapacity, thereby slowingthe improvementin energyconversion efficiencyand emissions rates thattypicallyresultfrom deployment ofnew generatingtechnologies. NOx

## results are based on forecasts ofcompliance with existing legislation and have proven stable and reasonable. The two airborne pollutantemissions thathavebeenreported in pastanalyses, NOx 

## and S02' are reported byNEMS-BRS. The Clean AirActAmendments of 1990 set an S02 emissions cap on all power generation. The attainment ofthis target is flexible among generators, however, and is enforced by applying market forces through the use ofemissions allowances and tradable permits. S02 trading makes it likely thatphysical emissions effects will be virtually zero because emissions will always be at ornear 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. Becausethe effects consideredhere are too small to deliverreasonable estimates, we do notconsider this possibility. Because the size ofthe energy reductions from standards are too small to produce stable results in NEMS-BRS, it has been necessary to estimate results in the range ofthe 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 peakyear ofthe 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 ofthe extrapolation for NOx 

## emissions rates. ill 

## this case, marginal rates for NOx 

## emissions are shown for each year. Note that the marginal emissions rates incorporateboth effects ofthe standards: the emissions savedbythe reductionin total generation and the slightchange in the emissions characteristics ofthe wholepowersectorthatresult from the slight change in dispatch and capacityexpansionplan. The net effectonthe 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 ofstatisticalnoise is clear. With small decreases in demand, the emissionsrate is quite variable. The dashed plots (years 2003 to 2010) show the earlier years ofthe imposed standard, in which the demand reductions are smallest. In most cases, these curves are so close to flat that regression ofthe points out ofthe noisyrange 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 ofvalues. Therefore, the constantemission rates when the decrease in demand is larger are assumed to hold in the range ofthe small reductions for the various standards, and the implied marginal emission rates are usedto estimate emissions reductions. The marginal emission rates are derived by averaging the marginal rates ofthe 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-BRSrun. Although energy savings from the proposed appliance standards continue through 2030, the effects ofthese 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 emissionreductionsrange up to 2.3 Mtin 2020 andthe NOx 

## emissions reductions up to 5.7 kt in 2015.3.4

3million metric tons (Mt) 4thousand metric tons (kt) 

## D-3 ofvalues. Therefore, the constantemission rates when the decrease in demand is larger are assumed to hold in the range ofthe small reductions for the various standards, and the implied marginal emission rates are usedto estimate emissions reductions. The marginal emission rates are derived by averaging the marginal rates ofthe 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-BRSrun. Although energy savings from the proposed appliance standards continue through 2030, the effects ofthese 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 emissionreductionsrange up to 2.3 Mtin 2020 andthe 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 ;< 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 

## 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 Level5a

### ~ 

# Iii jCarbon (MIla)**~** 588.9 612.7 652.9 704.2 744.3\ 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 ofAE099: Electric Generators 2Comparable to Table A8 ofAE099: Emissions 3All 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 Level5a

### ~ 

# Iii jCarbon (MIla)**~** 588.9 612.7 652.9 704.2 744.3\ 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 ofAE099: Electric Generators 2Comparable to Table A8 ofAE099: Emissions 3All 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 

## 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)

### ~ 588.9 612.4 652.3 703.2

### 743.1~ Carbon (Mt/a)

### ~ 0.0 -0.5 -0.9 -1.4 -1.51**I~.** ,:**~** .. 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, equivalentresults forthe high andloweconomic growthcases for standards level 2b are reported ih Table D-4. The outcome ofthe 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, equivalentresults forthe high andloweconomic growthcases for standards level 2b are reported ih Table D-4. The outcome ofthe 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 J y AEO99 Reference
- High Economic Growth Difference from AEO99 Reference ,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 

## 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 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 0';': ... 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 

## 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 ofa fixture in the OEM market) manufactured as of April 1, 2005, sold by manufacturers as ofJuly 1, 2005, or incorporated into luminaires by luminaire manufacturers as ofApril 1 , 2006. The exception is ballasts for the replacement market; replacement ballasts manufactured as ofJune 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 ofthese 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 ofthis appendix. There has been a change in the analysis ofHO 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 oftheir 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 ofthem (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 oftheir 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 ofa fixture in the OEM market) manufactured as of April 1, 2005, sold by manufacturers as ofJuly 1, 2005, or incorporated into luminaires by luminaire manufacturers as ofApril 1 , 2006. The exception is ballasts for the replacement market; replacement ballasts manufactured as ofJune 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 ofthese 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 ofthis appendix. There has been a change in the analysis ofHO 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 oftheir 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 ofthem (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 oftheir 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 

## remain constant at 1million 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 ofthe 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 ballasttrial standard level. The NES model assumes that a standard takes effect in January 1st 

## ofthe start year; we did not adjust the results to account for the April 1start date since the difference would be small. There was a delay period of5 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 ofmagnetic ballast shipments and to become 100 percent T8 electronic ballasts under the standard. The replacement market was assumed to comprise 30 percent ofmagnetic 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 ofthe 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 ofApril 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 ofanalyzing 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 ofthis 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-userprice increased from about $20.20 for the standard magnetic ballast to about $31.95 for the energy efficient magnetic E-2 remain constant at 1million 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 ofthe 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 ballasttrial standard level. The NES model assumes that a standard takes effect in January 1st 

## ofthe start year; we did not adjust the results to account for the April 1start date since the difference would be small. There was a delay period of5 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 ofmagnetic ballast shipments and to become 100 percent T8 electronic ballasts under the standard. The replacement market was assumed to comprise 30 percent ofmagnetic 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 ofthe 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 ofApril 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 ofanalyzing 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 ofthis 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-userprice 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 ballastshipments 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 

## 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 of54 kWh. The shipments ofthese 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 ofresults 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 ofthis total estimated consumption. Table E.1 Energy Savings and Net Present Value to Society ofStandards 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 of54 kWh. The shipments ofthese 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 ofresults 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 ofthis total estimated consumption. Table E.1 Energy Savings and Net Present Value to Society ofStandards 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 HVAC 

## 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 

## 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 HVAC 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 HVAC 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. 

## E.3 NET NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT 

## Net national employment impacts ii-om ballast standards were defmed as netjobs created or eliminated in the general economy as a consequence ofreduced spending by commercial and industrial sector businesses on electricity, increased spending on the purchase price ofballasts and reduced spending on new power plants by the utility industry (along with the indirect effects ofthese three factors). Figure E.1 shows the estimated net national employment impact ofthree different electronic ballast standards scenarios that are described in the NES results section (E.2). These results came from our use ofan input/output model ofthe U.S. economy to estimate the effects ofstandards on different major sectors ofthe U.S. economy most relevant to buildings and their net impact onjobs. The impacts ofnew 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 ofnot 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 netjobs created or eliminated in the general economy as a consequence ofreduced spending by commercial and industrial sector businesses on electricity, increased spending on the purchase price ofballasts and reduced spending on new power plants by the utility industry (along with the indirect effects ofthese three factors). Figure E.1 shows the estimated net national employment impact ofthree different electronic ballast standards scenarios that are described in the NES results section (E.2). These results came from our use ofan input/output model ofthe U.S. economy to estimate the effects ofstandards on different major sectors ofthe U.S. economy most relevant to buildings and their net impact onjobs. The impacts ofnew 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 ofnot 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-5Net 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 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-6Input 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, ;

In O N- W O) O N 0)I0 (0 N- W 0) O N M fl In O N- O O) O O O 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 N N 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**~fi**

It) 

## "" .... 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**~fi**

It) 

## "" .... 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 E.4 UTILITY IMPACT 

## Results for trial standard level 7 are presented in Tables E.5 through E.7 for each ofthe three cases, a, b, and c. Although energy savings from the proposed ballast standards continue through 2030, the effects ofthese 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 ofthe ballast end use, and the fact that gas generation, in general, is used to serve this peak However, effects ofstandards 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 ofenergy that the National Energy Savings (NES) model predicts will be saved by each standard, from 0.5% to 1.9% oftotal commercial electricity sales in the peak savings year reported. Total U.S. generation decreases relative to the AE099 baseline in each standards case, fromjust under 0.6% oftotal 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, byjust under 0.5% in the final year ofthe maximum savings case.

iCapacityfactor, aratio ofgeneration to installed capacity, is an indicator oftherobustness ofthe forecast. Theimplied 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 ofthe three cases, a, b, and c. Although energy savings from the proposed ballast standards continue through 2030, the effects ofthese 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 ofthe ballast end use, and the fact that gas generation, in general, is used to serve this peak However, effects ofstandards 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 ofenergy that the National Energy Savings (NES) model predicts will be saved by each standard, from 0.5% to 1.9% oftotal commercial electricity sales in the peak savings year reported. Total U.S. generation decreases relative to the AE099 baseline in each standards case, fromjust under 0.6% oftotal 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, byjust under 0.5% in the final year ofthe maximum savings case.

iCapacityfactor, aratio ofgeneration to installed capacity, is an indicator oftherobustness ofthe forecast. Theimplied 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 Total (TWh) 3 729 4 002 4 272 4,552 4,803 Total (TWh) 0.0 -0.7 -4.1 -6.3 -6.4 11 :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 

## Table E.5 Standard Scenario 7a Forecast 

# r .................... ......:..

-.: ..............

--=·:..

..........:..

... """'- .....................:.: .....:..

.;.;..-.:

............................................:-:.:.. .:-:..

..........................:.. .............

x.x

.... -..x..-..

.........

_............. "';..

................

:.. ... -.:.................... _............ """' ....... x..-..-..-..

.........

_.......

-.. ................................. 1-.."wx.. ....................... _:..

.................................................. -.. ......................... -.. ........................ -.»:..

. ».. ...........................................................................:.. .................................. _ ..:.:..

.............................................................:.. ................................................;.;.: ............................... _ .............. 1 

## mEMS-NAECA Results: Standards Level**~** 

## Difference from AE099 Reference**~** ICommercial-SectorEnergy CO(lsumption 

# l Commercial-SectorEnergy Cousumption 

# I !E1ectricity Sales (TWb) 

# 11,081 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\draft99\chap7002_dcm.wpd 

## E-9 January 4, 2000 

## Table E.5 Standard Scenario 7a Forecast 

# r .................... ......:..

-.: ..............

--=·:..

..........:..

... """'- .....................:.: .....:..

.;.;..-.:

............................................:-:.:.. .:-:..

..........................:.. .............

x.x

.... -..x..-..

.........

_............. "';..

................

:.. ... -.:.................... _............ """' ....... x..-..-..-..

.........

_.......

-.. ................................. 1-.."wx.. ....................... _:..

.................................................. -.. ......................... -.. ........................ -.»:..

. ».. ...........................................................................:.. .................................. _ ..:.:..

.............................................................:.. ................................................;.;.: ............................... _ .............. 1 

## mEMS-NAECA Results: Standards Level**~** 

## Difference from AE099 Reference**~** ICommercial-SectorEnergy CO(lsumption 

# l Commercial-SectorEnergy Cousumption 

# I !E1ectricity Sales (TWb) 

# 11,081 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\draft99\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\:

^ 6VIV cvi^ 2020 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 ` LUUU 4w ;: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 

## Table E.6 Standard Scenario 7b Forecast !NEMS-NAECA 

## Results: Standards Level 1 Difference from AE099 Reference**~** 

### ICommercial-SectorEnergy Consumption

## ~i Commercial-SectorEnergy 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-SectorEnergy Consumption

## ~i Commercial-SectorEnergy 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 

## 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-SectorEnergy COf./sumption**~:** Commercial-SectorEnergy 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-SectorEnergy COf./sumption**~:** Commercial-SectorEnergy 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 through2030, 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 

## The results shown here do not include a late change for HO ballasts (described earlier in this appendix). The impact ofnot 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 ofthese savings are reported through 2020 because this is the time horizon ofNEMSBRS. Total carbon and NOx 

## emissions for each ofthe 3 cases ofstandard 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'",,,,··;0 20

# 1**~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

IComoarable to Table AI7 ofAE099: Electric Generators 2('nmnofoh1<, tn Tohlp. AR nf AFOQQ' Fmiooinno 3All 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 ofnot 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 ofthese savings are reported through 2020 because this is the time horizon ofNEMSBRS. Total carbon and NOx 

## emissions for each ofthe 3 cases ofstandard 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'",,,,··;0 20

# 1**~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

IComoarable to Table AI7 ofAE099: Electric Generators 2('nmnofoh1<, tn Tohlp. AR nf AFOQQ' Fmiooinno 3All 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. 

## 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 ofnot 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 ofnot 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 

## REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Products Covering: Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts



## U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office ofBuilding 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 ofBuilding 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 

## REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS
1. 

## INTRODUCTION Part B ofTitle 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 ConservationAct (NAECA) (P.L. 100-12),bytheNational 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 "coveredproducts") are: refrigerators,refrigerator-ft'eezers and freezers; dishwashers; clothesdryers; water heaters; central air conditioners and central air conditioning heat pumps; furnaces; direct heatingequipment; television sets; kitchenranges and ovens; clotheswashers; room air conditioners; pool heaters; fluorescent lamp ballasts; and any other consumerproduct classified by the Secretary ofEnergy [Section 322]. To date, the Secretary has not so classified any additional products. For 12 covered products, the Actprescribes 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, ofa covered product [Section 325 (1) 

## (1)]. The Actrequired 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 productis the subject ofthe 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 economicallyjustified [Section 325 (1) (2) (A)]. Section 325 (1) (2) (B) 

## (i) provides that before DOE deternlines whether a standard is economicallyjustified, it must first solicit comments on a proposed standard. After reviewing comments on the proposal, DOE must then determine that the benefits ofthe standard exceed its burdens, based, to the greatest extent practicable, on a weighing ofthe following seven factors:

R-1 

## REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS
1. 

## INTRODUCTION Part B ofTitle 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 ConservationAct (NAECA) (P.L. 100-12),bytheNational 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 "coveredproducts") are: refrigerators,refrigerator-ft'eezers and freezers; dishwashers; clothesdryers; water heaters; central air conditioners and central air conditioning heat pumps; furnaces; direct heatingequipment; television sets; kitchenranges and ovens; clotheswashers; room air conditioners; pool heaters; fluorescent lamp ballasts; and any other consumerproduct classified by the Secretary ofEnergy [Section 322]. To date, the Secretary has not so classified any additional products. For 12 covered products, the Actprescribes 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, ofa covered product [Section 325 (1) 

## (1)]. The Actrequired 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 productis the subject ofthe 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 economicallyjustified [Section 325 (1) (2) (A)]. Section 325 (1) (2) (B) 

## (i) provides that before DOE deternlines whether a standard is economicallyjustified, it must first solicit comments on a proposed standard. After reviewing comments on the proposal, DOE must then determine that the benefits ofthe standard exceed its burdens, based, to the greatest extent practicable, on a weighing ofthe 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 (1) The economic impact ofthe standard on the manufacturers and on the consumers ofthe 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) Thetotal projected amount ofenergy savings likelyto result directlyfrom the imposition ofthe standard; (4) Any lessening ofthe utility or the performance ofthe covered products likely to result from the imposition ofthe standard; (5) The impact of any lessening of competition, determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the imposition ofthe 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 maypetition the Departmentto conduct a rulemaking to amend a Federal energy conservation standard for any coveredproduct [Section 325 (k) 

## (1)]. The Department must grant such a petition if it determines that an amended standard will result in significant conservation ofenergy, 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 alternativestotheregulationthat could achieve substantiallythe sameregulatory goal, as well as a description ofthe costs and benefits (quantified, to the extent feasible) ofthe 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 withinthe boundaries ofthe lawis a no-standard alternative. However, inpreparingthis Regulatory Impact Analysis, the list ofalternatives has been expanded to include alternatives that would require new enabling legislation or statutory amendments.



## R-2 (1) The economic impact ofthe standard on the manufacturers and on the consumers ofthe 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) Thetotal projected amount ofenergy savings likelyto result directlyfrom the imposition ofthe standard; (4) Any lessening ofthe utility or the performance ofthe covered products likely to result from the imposition ofthe standard; (5) The impact of any lessening of competition, determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the imposition ofthe 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 maypetition the Departmentto conduct a rulemaking to amend a Federal energy conservation standard for any coveredproduct [Section 325 (k) 

## (1)]. The Department must grant such a petition if it determines that an amended standard will result in significant conservation ofenergy, 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 alternativestotheregulationthat could achieve substantiallythe sameregulatory goal, as well as a description ofthe costs and benefits (quantified, to the extent feasible) ofthe 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 withinthe boundaries ofthe lawis a no-standard alternative. However, inpreparingthis Regulatory Impact Analysis, the list ofalternatives 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 This Regulatory Impact Analysis is concerned with the projected economic impacts ofthe 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 affectthe success ofthe standards in achieving the legislated goals ofenergy conservation and reduced demand for energy. The analysis briefly presents the results of the Technical Support Document (TSDY and explains howtheseresults wereused to determine the relative impact ofthe 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 examinedin this analysis ranged from the no-action alternative orthe "base case" against which the benefits ofother 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, netpresentvalue, and other impacts that differ among the alternatives. A summary ofthis comparative analysis is presented in the following section. A detailed discussion and quantitative description ofeach alternativeis presented intheremaining sections ofthis chapter. 

## 2.1 Comparative Analysis ofthe Alternatives To compare each alternative quantitatively to the proposed conservation standards in terms ofenergy savings and the netpresentvalue (or cost savings), it was necessary to quantify the effect ofeach alternative on the purchase anduse ofenergy-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 ofthe 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 affectthe success ofthe standards in achieving the legislated goals ofenergy conservation and reduced demand for energy. The analysis briefly presents the results of the Technical Support Document (TSDY and explains howtheseresults wereused to determine the relative impact ofthe 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 examinedin this analysis ranged from the no-action alternative orthe "base case" against which the benefits ofother 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, netpresentvalue, and other impacts that differ among the alternatives. A summary ofthis comparative analysis is presented in the following section. A detailed discussion and quantitative description ofeach alternativeis presented intheremaining sections ofthis chapter. 

## 2.1 Comparative Analysis ofthe Alternatives To compare each alternative quantitatively to the proposed conservation standards in terms ofenergy savings and the netpresentvalue (or cost savings), it was necessary to quantify the effect ofeach alternative on the purchase anduse ofenergy-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 Consum ption



## R-4 

# .. percentages ofdifferent ballast types in fixtures;



# .. percentages ofballasts convelied to different ballast types under standards;



# .. years ofstandards implementation; and



# .. social discount rate. The price and energy consumption inputs to the forecasting model are shown in Table R.I. Onlythoseparametersthatwere neededto specifythe alternatives were changed from the base case. Otherwise, all aspects of the base case remained constant throughout the analysis to pernlit a quantitative comparison ofthe 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. Theresults from the forecasting model are summarized in the first two columns ofTableR.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 assessedreadily. 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 ofmeasures ofeach program were: R-4 

## Unit Energy Savings kWh/a

52 62 92 116 

## 122 49 108 

# .. percentages ofdifferent ballast types in fixtures;



# .. percentages ofballasts convelied to different ballast types under standards;



# .. years ofstandards implementation; and



# .. social discount rate. The price and energy consumption inputs to the forecasting model are shown in Table R.I. Onlythoseparametersthatwere neededto specifythe alternatives were changed from the base case. Otherwise, all aspects of the base case remained constant throughout the analysis to pernlit a quantitative comparison ofthe 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. Theresults from the forecasting model are summarized in the first two columns ofTableR.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 assessedreadily. 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 ofmeasures ofeach 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. 

# .. Commercial andIndustrial Energy Savings (Quads, exajoules

## = 1018

## joule). Cumulative energy use from the base case projection minus the alternative case projection. Cumulativefrom 2003-2030 or2005-2030. Electricity consumptionreportedasprimary energy.

.. NetPresentValue. Value offuture savings from ballastsboughtin the period2003-2030 or 2005-2030. Calculated as the presentvalue ofthe equipmentandenergy expenditures in the base case minus the present value ofexpenditures in the alternative case. Future fuel and equipment expenditures discountedto 1997 using a 7 percentreal discount rate. Electricity cost savings associated with any ballasts purchased by 2030 and occurring in years after 2030, as well as the costs ofreplacement 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 ofeach alternative that are pertinent to the regulatory analysis, including:

.. equity impacts (or effects on the well-being ofthe nation);

.. whether legislative authority exists for implementing the alternative; " major barriers to implementation and enforcement (other than legislative); " impact ofthe alternative on competition; and

.. compliance and reporting requirements ofeach alternative. These factors for each alternative were compared to the proposed standards. None ofthe alternatives showedenergy oreconomic savings comparableto the proposedprogram. Theproposed approach appeared to be less favorable than some ofthe other program alternatives in competition andreporting/compHance requirements. (See TableR.2, ExpectedImpacts ofProgramAlternatives) Those program alternatives (voluntary targets, enhanced labeling/consumereducation, 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 ofthe proposed approach compared to what the alternatives could achieve in this area.

R-5 

# .. Commercial andIndustrial Energy Savings (Quads, exajoules

## = 1018

## joule). Cumulative energy use from the base case projection minus the alternative case projection. Cumulativefrom 2003-2030 or2005-2030. Electricity consumptionreportedasprimary energy.

.. NetPresentValue. Value offuture savings from ballastsboughtin the period2003-2030 or 2005-2030. Calculated as the presentvalue ofthe equipmentandenergy expenditures in the base case minus the present value ofexpenditures in the alternative case. Future fuel and equipment expenditures discountedto 1997 using a 7 percentreal discount rate. Electricity cost savings associated with any ballasts purchased by 2030 and occurring in years after 2030, as well as the costs ofreplacement 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 ofeach alternative that are pertinent to the regulatory analysis, including:

.. equity impacts (or effects on the well-being ofthe nation);

.. whether legislative authority exists for implementing the alternative; " major barriers to implementation and enforcement (other than legislative); " impact ofthe alternative on competition; and

.. compliance and reporting requirements ofeach alternative. These factors for each alternative were compared to the proposed standards. None ofthe alternatives showedenergy oreconomic savings comparableto the proposedprogram. Theproposed approach appeared to be less favorable than some ofthe other program alternatives in competition andreporting/compHance requirements. (See TableR.2, ExpectedImpacts ofProgramAlternatives) Those program alternatives (voluntary targets, enhanced labeling/consumereducation, 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 ofthe 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). 

## 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 ofhigher energy costs, the continuation of other Federal and private sector energy conservation activities, and state adoption ofbuilding 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, andthe Energy Policy Act of 

## 1992 (EPAct) voluntary luminaire efficacy rating program. 

## 2.2.1 Energy Prices In

## recent years, the prices ofnatural gas and oil have been deregulated. Projected energy prices to the year 2020 for the commercial and industrial sectors were developed by the Energy InformationAgency in the AnnualEnergy Outlook 

## 1999 (AEO 

## 99). Prices afterthe 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. Theresults inTabIe R.2 showenergy savings andNPV fortheDecreasingShipmentsto 2027 base case. The savings are in source Quads, with source Exajoules in parentheses anditalics. These are the savings in lighting electricity use; savings including net HVAC interactions are about 6 percent higher (see Appendix B). For most ofthe 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 ofhigher energy costs, the continuation of other Federal and private sector energy conservation activities, and state adoption ofbuilding 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, andthe Energy Policy Act of 

## 1992 (EPAct) voluntary luminaire efficacy rating program. 

## 2.2.1 Energy Prices In

## recent years, the prices ofnatural gas and oil have been deregulated. Projected energy prices to the year 2020 for the commercial and industrial sectors were developed by the Energy InformationAgency in the AnnualEnergy Outlook 

## 1999 (AEO 

## 99). Prices afterthe 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. Theresults inTabIe R.2 showenergy savings andNPV fortheDecreasingShipmentsto 2027 base case. The savings are in source Quads, with source Exajoules in parentheses anditalics. These are the savings in lighting electricity use; savings including net HVAC interactions are about 6 percent higher (see Appendix B). For most ofthe 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 y Vo u t er n None No participation will None None ry En g l 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 Table R.2 Expected Impacts ofProgram 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 ofpurchase 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 ofProgram 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 ofpurchase 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-7Compliance 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 

### Building Codes
Performance Standards Key: None = 

### 0 ornot significant EJ =10 18 

### Joule Quad = 

### 10 15 

### Btu ofenergy 

### 0.15 (0.16)
2.23 (2.35) Compliance 0.18 None Yes verification necessary 2.59 None Yes None Notes: 

## * Economic well-being ofnation as a whole. 

## ** Yes, ifno standard isjustified 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 ornot significant EJ =10 18 

### Joule Quad = 

### 10 15 

### Btu ofenergy 

### 0.15 (0.16)
2.23 (2.35) Compliance 0.18 None Yes verification necessary 2.59 None Yes None Notes: 

## * Economic well-being ofnation as a whole. 

## ** Yes, ifno standard isjustified 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 

## 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 informationprogram is beinghandledbyDOE. In

## theEnergyPolicy Actof 1992 (EPAct, P.L. 102-486), Congress also stimulatedthe fom1ation ofa voluntaryluminaire program to provide information on the efficacy ofthe fluorescent luminaire system. The luminaire efficacy rating (LER) is greatly improved with the use ofan electronic ballast. Under the labeling program, consumer awareness ofthe 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 Lightsprogram), 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 andon promotingthe use oflife-cyc1e costing as the primaryfactor in selecting a ballast for purchase. There are several drawbacks to relying wholly onthe education and labelingprogram above to achieve the desired results:

.. Consumer education and labeling programs are directed only at the demand for consumerproducts; theywill notguarantee the appropriate supply-sideresponsesby manufacturers;

.. In many cases, fluorescent lampballasts are installedbybuilders, and minimum first cost is an overriding consideration;

.. Buildingtenants who paythe energy bills do not often make the decisions onballast efficiency;

.. Energy efficiency is only one factor in consumers' purchase decisions;

.. There is a long lag before the effect ofsuch educational activities is manifest in the marketplace. As a means ofachieving the level ofenergy 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 informationprogram is beinghandledbyDOE. In

## theEnergyPolicy Actof 1992 (EPAct, P.L. 102-486), Congress also stimulatedthe fom1ation ofa voluntaryluminaire program to provide information on the efficacy ofthe fluorescent luminaire system. The luminaire efficacy rating (LER) is greatly improved with the use ofan electronic ballast. Under the labeling program, consumer awareness ofthe 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 Lightsprogram), 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 andon promotingthe use oflife-cyc1e costing as the primaryfactor in selecting a ballast for purchase. There are several drawbacks to relying wholly onthe education and labelingprogram above to achieve the desired results:

.. Consumer education and labeling programs are directed only at the demand for consumerproducts; theywill notguarantee the appropriate supply-sideresponsesby manufacturers;

.. In many cases, fluorescent lampballasts are installedbybuilders, and minimum first cost is an overriding consideration;

.. Buildingtenants who paythe energy bills do not often make the decisions onballast efficiency;

.. Energy efficiency is only one factor in consumers' purchase decisions;

.. There is a long lag before the effect ofsuch educational activities is manifest in the marketplace. As a means ofachieving the level ofenergy 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 

## 2.2.3 Existing Mandatory Standards Before the passage oftheNational Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987 (NAECA), several states establishedprogramsthat setminimum efficiencylevels for certain consumerproducts. 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.90.1 1 

## code. These programs have changed the distribution patterns for ballasts which has impacts at the national leveL 

## 2.2.4 Base Case Description Thebase case includedthe following assumptions aboutfactors likelyto increase commercial and industrial lighting energy efficiency: " Commercial and industrial electricityprices were projectedto 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)ballaststhatpredominatethe market, itretainedtheNES model's assumption that ERS ballasts were those proposed as the standard (rather than EIS ballasts). Eight-footand eight-foothigh output systemsused electronicT 12 ballasts. TheNES model doesnotcalculate fluorescent lightingenergyconsumption. 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 ofHeatingRefrigerating and AirConditioningEngineers. IES=I1luminating Engineering Society (ofNorth America). 

## R-I0 

## 2.2.3 Existing Mandatory Standards Before the passage oftheNational Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987 (NAECA), several states establishedprogramsthat setminimum efficiencylevels for certain consumerproducts. 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.90.1 1 

## code. These programs have changed the distribution patterns for ballasts which has impacts at the national leveL 

## 2.2.4 Base Case Description Thebase case includedthe following assumptions aboutfactors likelyto increase commercial and industrial lighting energy efficiency: " Commercial and industrial electricityprices were projectedto 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)ballaststhatpredominatethe market, itretainedtheNES model's assumption that ERS ballasts were those proposed as the standard (rather than EIS ballasts). Eight-footand eight-foothigh output systemsused electronicT 12 ballasts. TheNES model doesnotcalculate fluorescent lightingenergyconsumption. 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 ofHeatingRefrigerating and AirConditioningEngineers. IES=I1luminating Engineering Society (ofNorth 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 

## description ofthe 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 ofsuch 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 consumerproducts. 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 of50 percent ofthe increased cost ofmore energy efficient ballasts was evaluated. This program might be more easily administered than a rebate program because it couldbe carried outthrough 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 andtax creditprograms isthat arebate can be obtained quicklywhereas atax creditis delayed until income taxes are filed or a tax refund is provided by the IRS. To simulatethis impact, DOEhas assumedthat only7percentofconsumerswouldpurchase more energy-efficient products as a result ofthe tax credit program. This percentage reflected the sameproportion ofconsumerresponse toutility 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 ofnational energyefficiency expenditures and extrapolated the results using EIA data on national energy-efficiency spending. We found thatfor the peakrebate years of 1993
- 1995, the averagerebate was equivalent to the full incremental cost (1 00 percent) ofan electronic ballast, and thatrebates were received for a quantity ofelectronic ballasts representing about one-fourth the number ofmagnetic ballasts that would have been purchased without the rebate. We make the assumption that for halfofthis cost reduction, the consumerresponse wouldbe abouthalfthatitwas for theDSMrebates, or 12 percent. The 1994refrigerator RIA assumed that 60 percentofconsumers wouldtake advantage ofthe credit vs. 100 percent for consumerrebates, since there is a time delay for reimbursement ofexpenditures with atax credit. We assume that a similarimpactwould occur for ballasts, with a net 7percent (12

R-ll 

## description ofthe 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 ofsuch 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 consumerproducts. 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 of50 percent ofthe increased cost ofmore energy efficient ballasts was evaluated. This program might be more easily administered than a rebate program because it couldbe carried outthrough 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 andtax creditprograms isthat arebate can be obtained quicklywhereas atax creditis delayed until income taxes are filed or a tax refund is provided by the IRS. To simulatethis impact, DOEhas assumedthat only7percentofconsumerswouldpurchase more energy-efficient products as a result ofthe tax credit program. This percentage reflected the sameproportion ofconsumerresponse toutility 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 ofnational energyefficiency expenditures and extrapolated the results using EIA data on national energy-efficiency spending. We found thatfor the peakrebate years of 1993
- 1995, the averagerebate was equivalent to the full incremental cost (1 00 percent) ofan electronic ballast, and thatrebates were received for a quantity ofelectronic ballasts representing about one-fourth the number ofmagnetic ballasts that would have been purchased without the rebate. We make the assumption that for halfofthis cost reduction, the consumerresponse wouldbe abouthalfthatitwas for theDSMrebates, or 12 percent. The 1994refrigerator RIA assumed that 60 percentofconsumers wouldtake advantage ofthe credit vs. 100 percent for consumerrebates, since there is a time delay for reimbursement ofexpenditures with atax credit. We assume that a similarimpactwould occur for ballasts, with a net 7percent (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 

## 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 percentreal, was 0.31 billion. 

## 2.4 Tax Credits to Manufacturers 2.4.1 Discussion DOE examined the possibility ofproviding tax credits to manufacturers. This approach would allow manufacturers to recoup some ofthe costs of manufacturing more energy-efficient consumerproducts. In combination with tax incentives orrebates for consumers, manufacturertax credits could correct some ofthe market imperfections resulting from focusing only on incentives to consumers. However, thetiming ofa dual program for manufacturers and consumers wouldhave 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 ofa manufacturertax creditprogram couldbe very high. A tax creditprogram 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 achievedbytheprogram; more stringentrequirements mightresult inreducedparticipation and, thus, also limit energy savings. Therefore, although the tax credit program would have the potential for achieving energy savings, the manyissues associatedwith optimizingthe benefitswouldneedto be analyzedcarefully. Some ofthis analysis hasbeenperfonnedbyDOE and indicatesthatthe costofachieving significant energy savings through a tax credit program would be very high. 

## 2.4.2 Quantitative Description Offeringtax incentivesto consumerproductmanufacturers 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 ofenergy-efficientconsumerproductrequires investment in some newtools and machinery. The manufacturer tax credit considered by DOE provided a 20 percent credit for

2Conversion rate refers to the percentage ofmagnetic ballast shipments that would be magnetic in the base case and were insteadelectronic in the alternative case. The conversion rate was an annual average for the period andwas 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 percentreal, was 0.31 billion. 

## 2.4 Tax Credits to Manufacturers 2.4.1 Discussion DOE examined the possibility ofproviding tax credits to manufacturers. This approach would allow manufacturers to recoup some ofthe costs of manufacturing more energy-efficient consumerproducts. In combination with tax incentives orrebates for consumers, manufacturertax credits could correct some ofthe market imperfections resulting from focusing only on incentives to consumers. However, thetiming ofa dual program for manufacturers and consumers wouldhave 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 ofa manufacturertax creditprogram couldbe very high. A tax creditprogram 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 achievedbytheprogram; more stringentrequirements mightresult inreducedparticipation and, thus, also limit energy savings. Therefore, although the tax credit program would have the potential for achieving energy savings, the manyissues associatedwith optimizingthe benefitswouldneedto be analyzedcarefully. Some ofthis analysis hasbeenperfonnedbyDOE and indicatesthatthe costofachieving significant energy savings through a tax credit program would be very high. 

## 2.4.2 Quantitative Description Offeringtax incentivesto consumerproductmanufacturers 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 ofenergy-efficientconsumerproductrequires investment in some newtools and machinery. The manufacturer tax credit considered by DOE provided a 20 percent credit for

2Conversion rate refers to the percentage ofmagnetic ballast shipments that would be magnetic in the base case and were insteadelectronic in the alternative case. The conversion rate was an annual average for the period andwas 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 investment in tools and machinery required to produce energy-efficient ballasts. The credit would not apply to investments in other forms oftools and machinery, nor would it apply to other forms ofinvestment such as acquisition of subsidiaries, financial instruments, i.e., stock, loans, or new construction ofplants. Because the tax credit only appliedto the portion ofinvestment going toward production of energy-efficient consumer products and not toward investment in replacement equipment, an enforcementmechanismwouldbe neededto preventabuse. Enforcementwouldprobablybe divided between DOE and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). DOE would have to stipulate specific categories ofinvestment subject to the credit. IRS would have principal responsibility for review ofclaims for the credit. Investigation ofalleged violations would probably requirejoint action by DOE and IRS. The cost ofthe enforcement program was not investigated, but it was thought to be high; the program would probably not be cost effective. The effect ofthe investmenttax creditwasto lowerthe cost ofdesign 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 overthe 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 3600hours); this value was $0.20. A manufacturertax credit of20percentofthesevalues wouldbe $0.04. Since not all ofthis manufacturerbenefitwouldbe passed onto 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 Providingrebates to consumers who purchase energy-efficientballasts would be difficult to implement. As discussedunder 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 ofgovernment-mandated rebates would entail complex interference in the marketplace; decisions wouldneedto be made on which products should qualify, amount ofrebate, time period covered, etc. The rebate concept could be coupled with a tariff, much like the proposed "gas-guzzlertax" for automobiles; consumers who purchased inefficientunits would be charged a federally imposed tax. It

## would be a costly, unwieldy, and cumbersome program to implement. However, itmightbe
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 oftools and machinery, nor would it apply to other forms ofinvestment such as acquisition of subsidiaries, financial instruments, i.e., stock, loans, or new construction ofplants. Because the tax credit only appliedto the portion ofinvestment going toward production of energy-efficient consumer products and not toward investment in replacement equipment, an enforcementmechanismwouldbe neededto preventabuse. Enforcementwouldprobablybe divided between DOE and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). DOE would have to stipulate specific categories ofinvestment subject to the credit. IRS would have principal responsibility for review ofclaims for the credit. Investigation ofalleged violations would probably requirejoint action by DOE and IRS. The cost ofthe enforcement program was not investigated, but it was thought to be high; the program would probably not be cost effective. The effect ofthe investmenttax creditwasto lowerthe cost ofdesign 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 overthe 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 3600hours); this value was $0.20. A manufacturertax credit of20percentofthesevalues wouldbe $0.04. Since not all ofthis manufacturerbenefitwouldbe passed onto 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 Providingrebates to consumers who purchase energy-efficientballasts would be difficult to implement. As discussedunder 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 ofgovernment-mandated rebates would entail complex interference in the marketplace; decisions wouldneedto be made on which products should qualify, amount ofrebate, time period covered, etc. The rebate concept could be coupled with a tariff, much like the proposed "gas-guzzlertax" for automobiles; consumers who purchased inefficientunits would be charged a federally imposed tax. It

## would be a costly, unwieldy, and cumbersome program to implement. However, itmightbe
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 

## more effective than the no-action alternative. Aswith tax credits, the rebate alternative would affect onlythe 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 oftheincreased cost of electronic ballasts. The 50percent costreduction was chosenunder 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 of0.36 Quads (0.38 EJ) for the consumerrebate program alternative. The netpresent 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 amendingthe Act with the National Energy ConservationPolicyAct, P.L.95- 619 (NECPA), Congress specificallychangedthe legislationto 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 ofthe 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. Aswith tax credits, the rebate alternative would affect onlythe 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 oftheincreased cost of electronic ballasts. The 50percent costreduction was chosenunder 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 of0.36 Quads (0.38 EJ) for the consumerrebate program alternative. The netpresent 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 amendingthe Act with the National Energy ConservationPolicyAct, P.L.95- 619 (NECPA), Congress specificallychangedthe legislationto 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 ofthe 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 

## energy-efficiency levels ofthe 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 ifthe goals were not met was assumed to achieve the energyefficiencies of the performance standardswith a 5-year delay. Thus, the effects ofa voluntary program were bounded by the assumptions ofa 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. Sincethese wouldbe voluntarytargets, we assumed thatthe 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 netpresentvalue (in 1997 dollars), discounted at 7 percentreal, 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 ofprograms such as the EPA Energy Star Buildings/Green Lights program, NEMA's Energy Cost Savings Council, DOE's Federal Energy ManagementProgram, andthe EPActvoluntary luminaireprogram. These efforts would encourage the use ofexisting efficient technologies, primarily the electronic ballast. The Environmental Protection Agency's Green Lights program, now encompassed by the EnergyStarBuildingsprogram, has providedhigh-profile incentives and comprehensiveinformation 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, chieffinancial officers, specifiers includingbuilding 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 ofthe Luminaire Efficacy Rating (LER) as part ofmanufacturer literature (catalogs and product specification sheets). This is more effective than labeling, as commercial and industrial consumers typically select products from literature rather than offthe shelf. Fluorescent luminaires are recommended to be rated with both magnetic T12 lamp ballast systems and electronic T8 systems; the LER is significantlyhigher when R-15 energy-efficiency levels ofthe 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 ifthe goals were not met was assumed to achieve the energyefficiencies of the performance standardswith a 5-year delay. Thus, the effects ofa voluntary program were bounded by the assumptions ofa 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. Sincethese wouldbe voluntarytargets, we assumed thatthe 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 netpresentvalue (in 1997 dollars), discounted at 7 percentreal, 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 ofprograms such as the EPA Energy Star Buildings/Green Lights program, NEMA's Energy Cost Savings Council, DOE's Federal Energy ManagementProgram, andthe EPActvoluntary luminaireprogram. These efforts would encourage the use ofexisting efficient technologies, primarily the electronic ballast. The Environmental Protection Agency's Green Lights program, now encompassed by the EnergyStarBuildingsprogram, has providedhigh-profile incentives and comprehensiveinformation 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, chieffinancial officers, specifiers includingbuilding 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 ofthe Luminaire Efficacy Rating (LER) as part ofmanufacturer literature (catalogs and product specification sheets). This is more effective than labeling, as commercial and industrial consumers typically select products from literature rather than offthe shelf. Fluorescent luminaires are recommended to be rated with both magnetic T12 lamp ballast systems and electronic T8 systems; the LER is significantlyhigher 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. using the electronic system, giving consumers a clear signal ofthe relatively higher efficacy ofthis system type. The impacts ofthe existingEPA, NEMA, and EPActprograms were assumedto 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 ofthe 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 ofconsumers reached bythe 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 ofanalysis, as being able to reach an average of 3 percent per year ofthe purchasers of fluorescent ballasts not already influenced bythe programs at their existing levels. These purchasers would be encouraged to use life-cycle cost techniques for selecting products. Sources ofinformation that would enable consumers to make life-cycle cost decisions would be identified. Ingeneral, anyreasonable expansion ofthese consumer informationprograms would likely reach a relatively small percentage ofthe 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 ishighlydependent on the purchaser's abilityto comprehendthe 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 thatthose reached will respondpositivelybypurchasingthe most energy-efficientballasts (in terms oflife-cyc1e costs) for their particular needs. Thus, the energy savings identified by the NES modelwould often be overestimates ofthe 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 consumereducation alternative. Thenetpresentvalue (in 1997 dollars), discounted at7percentreal, 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 existingEPA, NEMA, and EPActprograms were assumedto 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 ofthe 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 ofconsumers reached bythe 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 ofanalysis, as being able to reach an average of 3 percent per year ofthe purchasers of fluorescent ballasts not already influenced bythe programs at their existing levels. These purchasers would be encouraged to use life-cycle cost techniques for selecting products. Sources ofinformation that would enable consumers to make life-cycle cost decisions would be identified. Ingeneral, anyreasonable expansion ofthese consumer informationprograms would likely reach a relatively small percentage ofthe 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 ishighlydependent on the purchaser's abilityto comprehendthe 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 thatthose reached will respondpositivelybypurchasingthe most energy-efficientballasts (in terms oflife-cyc1e costs) for their particular needs. Thus, the energy savings identified by the NES modelwould often be overestimates ofthe 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 consumereducation alternative. Thenetpresentvalue (in 1997 dollars), discounted at7percentreal, 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 

## 2.8 Enhanced Consumer Education and Labeling Programs
- Advanced Technologies This alternative assumedthatthe same enhanced education and labelingprograms 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 ofconsumers using the advanced controls in this alternative was small because the controlstechnologies are relativelynew. While dimmingballasts are reliable, they still comprise a tiny percentage ofthe 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 ofbuildings than they did with this alternative. 

## 2.8.2 Quantitative Description LBNL'sLighting SystemsResearch Group estimatedthe potential for daylighting(dimming ballasts) and other controlstobe 5 - 10 percentusing available technology overten years4. Controls had a 40 percent energysavingspotential and couldbeusedin 15 percent ofexisting floorspace. We calculated a conversion rate of0.6 percent per year (40 percent 

# * 15 percent divided by 10 years). Accordingto LBNL, the current incremental price for dimmingvs. non-dimming electronic ballasts of$25 was expected to fall to $5 by 2004 or earlier. PNNL5 

## estimated that the additional cost ofa photocontroller including labor was about $100, divided by 50 ballaststhat it could control 

## = $2 per ballast. We therefore assumed an additional cost per electronic ballast of$5 

# + $2 

## = $7. Notethatadditional costs for skylights andarchitectural features in newbuildingswere notincluded. 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 of0.6 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 assumedthatthe same enhanced education and labelingprograms 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 ofconsumers using the advanced controls in this alternative was small because the controlstechnologies are relativelynew. While dimmingballasts are reliable, they still comprise a tiny percentage ofthe 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 ofbuildings than they did with this alternative. 

## 2.8.2 Quantitative Description LBNL'sLighting SystemsResearch Group estimatedthe potential for daylighting(dimming ballasts) and other controlstobe 5 - 10 percentusing available technology overten years4. Controls had a 40 percent energysavingspotential and couldbeusedin 15 percent ofexisting floorspace. We calculated a conversion rate of0.6 percent per year (40 percent 

# * 15 percent divided by 10 years). Accordingto LBNL, the current incremental price for dimmingvs. non-dimming electronic ballasts of$25 was expected to fall to $5 by 2004 or earlier. PNNL5 

## estimated that the additional cost ofa photocontroller including labor was about $100, divided by 50 ballaststhat it could control 

## = $2 per ballast. We therefore assumed an additional cost per electronic ballast of$5 

# + $2 

## = $7. Notethatadditional costs for skylights andarchitectural features in newbuildingswere notincluded. 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 of0.6 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 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 convertingto dimmingballasts (0.6percentconversionrate) would still convertto 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 consumereducation alternative. The netpresehtvalue (in 1997 dollars), discounted at7percentreal, was 0.13 billion. 2.9 Government Purchases Inthis alternative, all Federal, State, and local governmentballast purchases were electronic ballasts. FEMP's existingProcurementGuidelinesthatencouragethe selectionofelectronicballasts, with their anticipatedpartial compliancerates, 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 ofall fluorescentballastpurchases; municipal and state floor space includespublic school and institutional buildings. "Market pull" impacts would most likely occur through the effects ofmanufacturers 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 ofballast 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 ofthe total floor space. The

6EIAIDOE. 

## 1998. A LookatCommercialBuildings in 

## 1995: Characteristics, Energy Consumption, andEnergy 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 convertingto dimmingballasts (0.6percentconversionrate) would still convertto 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 consumereducation alternative. The netpresehtvalue (in 1997 dollars), discounted at7percentreal, was 0.13 billion. 2.9 Government Purchases Inthis alternative, all Federal, State, and local governmentballast purchases were electronic ballasts. FEMP's existingProcurementGuidelinesthatencouragethe selectionofelectronicballasts, with their anticipatedpartial compliancerates, 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 ofall fluorescentballastpurchases; municipal and state floor space includespublic school and institutional buildings. "Market pull" impacts would most likely occur through the effects ofmanufacturers 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 ofballast 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 ofthe total floor space. The

6EIAIDOE. 

## 1998. A LookatCommercialBuildings in 

## 1995: Characteristics, Energy Consumption, andEnergy 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 percentage offederal ballast sales was estimatedto be about 1to 2 percent ofthe total ballast sales7• 

## We assumed that federal purchases were 2 percent and that half(1 percent) were already in thebase case. This left 19 percentto be influenced bythis alternative. We estimatedthat 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 governmentpurchases alternative. The net present value (in 1997 dollars), discounted at 7percent 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 ofthe 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 effectivelyusedin buildings. Theywouldbe easierto 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 of5 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 estimatedto be about 1to 2 percent ofthe total ballast sales7• 

## We assumed that federal purchases were 2 percent and that half(1 percent) were already in thebase case. This left 19 percentto be influenced bythis alternative. We estimatedthat 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 governmentpurchases alternative. The net present value (in 1997 dollars), discounted at 7percent 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 ofthe 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 effectivelyusedin buildings. Theywouldbe easierto 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 of5 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 In the NES model, we increased the kWh savings by 40 percent and increased the incrementalballast costby $7 (these are the same assumptions made in section 2.8). The conversion rate was 1.6 percent, with a delay period offive years. The forecast results showed energy savings of0.04 Quads (0.05 EJ) for the lightingresearch 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 ofcommercial 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 ofwhich 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 whetherto designate ittherequired code. The upcomingrevision, ASHRAE/IES 90.1-1999, is based onan assumptionthat electronicballasts arethe state-of-the-artavailable fluorescenttechnology, 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 ofthe 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 inplace for abuilding energycode. The Departmenthas providedtechnical 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 ofcode compliance is not directlyrelatedto code enforcement. California studies showing code enforcement at 70 percentto 80 percent in the buildings surveyed also found that the level ofcompliance actually exceeded the code. 9


### 9"Quality Metrics Impact Assessment," prepared for (DOE) Building Standards and Guidelines Programby Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, 1995. 

## R-20 In the NES model, we increased the kWh savings by 40 percent and increased the incrementalballast costby $7 (these are the same assumptions made in section 2.8). The conversion rate was 1.6 percent, with a delay period offive years. The forecast results showed energy savings of0.04 Quads (0.05 EJ) for the lightingresearch 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 ofcommercial 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 ofwhich 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 whetherto designate ittherequired code. The upcomingrevision, ASHRAE/IES 90.1-1999, is based onan assumptionthat electronicballasts arethe state-of-the-artavailable fluorescenttechnology, 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 ofthe 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 inplace for abuilding energycode. The Departmenthas providedtechnical 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 ofcode compliance is not directlyrelatedto code enforcement. California studies showing code enforcement at 70 percentto 80 percent in the buildings surveyed also found that the level ofcompliance actually exceeded the code. 9


### 9"Quality Metrics Impact Assessment," prepared for (DOE) Building Standards and Guidelines Programby 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 

## 2.11.2 Quantitative Description The estimatedimpacts oftheASHRAE/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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofASHRAE/IES 90.1-1999 on the ballast market. Using the PNNL model, we calculatedthatfull adoption!complianceresultedin sales ofelectronicballasts abouttwice thosewith 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 of3 percent (7 percent minus 4 percent). The forecast results showed energy savings of0.15 Quads (0.16 EJ). The netpresentvalue (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 ofenergy-efficiency or performance standards. This alternative is being used in the proposed regulation. The standards will establish the maximum energy consumption orminimum efficiencylevel permitted for each lamp-ballast combinationbut will notprescribe the means bywhich that level is to be achieved. The efficiencies are specified in ratios relatingthe output ofa productto its energy use. The standards levels.vary among lamp-ballast combinations, depending on the design characteristics ofeach class. The standards levels are based on testprocedures developed byDOE, which it intends, on a continuing basis, to modify to accommodate new product designs. 

## 2.12.2 Quantitative Description Performance standards were quantified by assumingthat 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 ofnonregulated products are depleted, only products meeting the R-21 

## 2.11.2 Quantitative Description The estimatedimpacts oftheASHRAE/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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofASHRAE/IES 90.1-1999 on the ballast market. Using the PNNL model, we calculatedthatfull adoption!complianceresultedin sales ofelectronicballasts abouttwice thosewith 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 of3 percent (7 percent minus 4 percent). The forecast results showed energy savings of0.15 Quads (0.16 EJ). The netpresentvalue (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 ofenergy-efficiency or performance standards. This alternative is being used in the proposed regulation. The standards will establish the maximum energy consumption orminimum efficiencylevel permitted for each lamp-ballast combinationbut will notprescribe the means bywhich that level is to be achieved. The efficiencies are specified in ratios relatingthe output ofa productto its energy use. The standards levels.vary among lamp-ballast combinations, depending on the design characteristics ofeach class. The standards levels are based on testprocedures developed byDOE, which it intends, on a continuing basis, to modify to accommodate new product designs. 

## 2.12.2 Quantitative Description Performance standards were quantified by assumingthat 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 ofnonregulated 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)

l,leetronic Stnnda'ifs 

# V ...................... ........

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 

## 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 

# REFERENCE 1. U.S. Department ofEnergy, TechnicalSupportDocument: EnergyEfficiencyStandards for Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts

R-24 

# REFERENCE 1. U.S. Department ofEnergy, TechnicalSupportDocument: EnergyEfficiencyStandards for Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts

R-24