[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 80 (Tuesday, April 27, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22031-22043]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-9714]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 431

[Docket No. EE-DET-03-001]
RIN 1904-AA86


Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products and Certain 
Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Proposed Determination Concerning 
the Potential for Energy Conservation Standards for High-Intensity 
Discharge (HID) Lamps

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of 
Energy.

ACTION: Proposed determination.

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

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA or the Act), as 
amended, requires the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to issue a final 
determination by June 30, 2010, as to whether energy conservation 
standards for HID lamps are warranted. Pursuant to court order, this 
final determination must be made by June 30, 2010. This document 
informs interested parties of the analysis underlying this proposal, 
which examines the potential energy savings and whether a future energy 
conservation standard for this equipment would be technologically 
feasible and economically justified. In this document, DOE also 
announces the availability of a preliminary technical support document 
(TSD), which provides additional analysis in support of the 
determination. The preliminary TSD is available from the Office of 
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's Web site at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/high_intensity_lamps.html.

DATES: Written comments on this document and the preliminary TSD are 
welcome and must be submitted no later than May 27, 2010. For detailed 
instructions, see section IV ``Public Participation.''

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may submit comments, identified by docket 
number EE-DET-03-001 and/or Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 1904-
AA86, by any of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the instructions for submitting comments.
    2. E-mail: [email protected]. Include docket number EE-
DET-03-001 and/or RIN 1904-AA86 in the subject line of the message.
    3. Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building 
Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J, Technical Support Document for 
High-Intensity Discharge (HID) Lamps, docket number EE-DET-03-001 and/
or RIN 1904-AA86, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-
0121. Please submit one signed paper original.
    4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Building Technologies Program, 6th Floor, 950 L'Enfant Plaza, 
SW., Washington, DC 20024. Please submit one signed paper original.
    For additional instruction on submitting comments, see section IV, 
``Public Participation.''
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents, the 
preliminary TSD, or comments received, go to the U.S. Department of 
Energy, Resource Room of the Building Technologies Program, Sixth 
Floor, 950 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC

[[Page 22032]]

20024, (202) 586-2945, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, except Federal holidays. Please call Ms. Brenda Edwards at the 
above telephone number for additional information about visiting the 
Resource Room. You may also obtain copies of certain documents in this 
proceeding from the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's 
Web site at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/high_intensity_lamps.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Linda Graves, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building 
Technologies, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-1851. E-mail: [email protected].
    Ms. Jennifer Tiedeman, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the 
General Counsel, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-6111. E-mail: 
[email protected].
    For further information on how to submit or review public comments, 
contact Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-2J, 
1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone 
(202) 586-2945. E-mail: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
I. Summary of the Proposed Determination
    A. Legal Authority
    B. Background
    1. Definitions
    2. 2003 Draft Report
    3. 2004 Draft Report
II. Discussion of the Analysis of High-Intensity Discharge Lamps
    A. Purpose and Content
    B. Methodology
    1. Market and Technology Assessment
    2. Engineering Analysis
    3. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis
    4. National Energy Savings Analysis
    5. National Consumer Impacts Analysis
    C. Analysis Results
    1. Engineering Analysis
    2. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
    3. National Energy Savings and Consumer Impacts
    D. Discussion
    1. Technological Feasibility
    2. Significance of Energy Savings
    3. Economic Justification
III. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
    B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
    D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
    E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
    F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
    G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act of 1999
    I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
    J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act of 2001
    K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
    L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
IV. Public Participation
    A. Submission of Comments
    B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comments
V. Approval of the Office of the Assistant Secretary

I. Summary of the Proposed Determination

    EPCA requires DOE to issue a final determination whether energy 
conservation standards for HID lamps would be technologically feasible, 
economically justified, and would result in significant energy savings. 
DOE has tentatively determined that such standards are technologically 
feasible, economically justified, and would result in significant 
energy savings. Thus, DOE proposes to issue a positive determination. 
In its analysis for this proposed determination, DOE evaluated 
potential standards for HID that would lead to a migration from less 
efficient probe-start metal halide (MH) lamps to more efficient pulse-
start MH lamps and high-pressure sodium (HPS) lamps. Both pulse-start 
MH and HPS lamps are existing HID technologies that are technically 
feasible. DOE's analysis determined whether a potential standard that 
sets a level that eliminates inefficient probe-start MH lamps would be 
economically justified and would result in significant energy savings.
    DOE has tentatively determined that standards for HID lamps would 
be expected to be economically justified from the perspective of an 
individual consumer. According to DOE's analysis, there is at least one 
set of standard levels for HID lamps which could be set that would 
reduce the life-cycle cost (LCC) of ownership for the typical consumer; 
that is, the increase in equipment cost resulting from a standard would 
be more than offset by energy cost savings over the life of the system.
    Standards would also be cost-effective from a national perspective. 
The national net present value (NPV) from standards could be as much as 
$15.0 billion in 2009$ for products purchased from 2017 to 2046, 
assuming an annual real discount rate of 3 percent. This forecast 
considers only the direct financial costs and benefits of standards to 
consumers, specifically the increased equipment costs of HID lamps and 
the associated energy cost savings. In its proposed determination 
analysis, DOE did not monetize or otherwise characterize any other 
potential costs and benefits of standards such as manufacturer impacts 
or power plant emission reductions. If the final determination is 
positive, then such additional impacts would be examined in a future 
analysis of the economic justification of particular standard levels in 
the context of a standards rulemaking that would set specific energy 
conservation requirements.
    DOE's analysis also indicates that standards would result in 
significant cumulative energy savings over the analysis period (2017 to 
2046)--at least 2.8 quads. This is equivalent to the annual electricity 
consumption of approximately 14 million U.S. homes.
    Further documentation supporting the analyses described in this 
notice is contained in a separate preliminary TSD, available from the 
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's Web site at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/high_intensity_lamps.html.

A. Legal Authority

    The National Energy Conservation Policy Act of 1978 amended EPCA to 
add a part C to title III of EPCA \1\ establishing an energy 
conservation program for certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311-
6317) The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT), Public Law 102-486, 106 
Stat. 2776 also amended EPCA, and included amendments that expanded 
title III to include HID lamps. Specifically, EPACT amended section 346 
of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6317) to provide in paragraph (a) that the Secretary 
of Energy (Secretary) must prescribe testing requirements and energy 
conservation standards for those HID lamps for which the Secretary 
determines that energy conservation standards ``would be 
technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result 
in significant energy savings.'' (42 U.S.C. 6317(a)(1))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For editorial reasons, Part C, Certain Industrial Equipment, 
was redesignated as Part A-1 in the United States Code.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under EPCA, if DOE makes a positive determination, then it must 
proceed to establish testing requirements for those HID lamps to which 
the determination applies. (42 U.S.C. 6317(a)(1)) Subsequently, DOE 
will conduct a rulemaking to establish appropriate energy conservation 
standards. During the standards rulemaking, DOE would decide whether, 
and at what level(s), to

[[Page 22033]]

promulgate energy conservation standards. This decision would be based 
on an in-depth consideration, with public participation, of the 
technological feasibility, economic justification, and energy savings 
of potential standard levels in the context of the criteria and 
procedures for prescribing new or amended standards established by 
section 325(o) and (p). (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(p).)

B. Background

    DOE conducted previous analyses estimating the likely range of 
energy savings and economic benefits that would result from energy 
conservation standards for HID lamps, and prepared reports describing 
its analyses. DOE published these draft reports in June 2003 and 
December 2004, and made them available for public comment on the Office 
of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's Web site at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/high_intensity_lamps.html. The reports made no recommendation concerning 
the determination that DOE should make.
    After the 2003 report, DOE received comments. The National 
Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) encouraged DOE to extend 
coverage to HID lamps even if no energy conservation standard were set. 
(NEMA, No. 6 at pp. 1-2) \2\ Again after the 2004 report, NEMA made a 
similar comment. NEMA also emphasized that ``it is incumbent on DOE to 
state clearly in a forthcoming determination that HID lamps are 
`covered products' and thus Federal law preempts State regulation of 
all HID lamps.'' (NEMA, No. 15 at p. 1.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A notation in the form ``NEMA, No. 6 at pp. 1-2'' identifies 
a written comment (1) made by NEMA; (2) recorded in document number 
6 that is filed in the docket of the HID lamp energy conservation 
standards rulemaking EE-DET-03-001 and maintained in the Resource 
Room of the Building Technologies Program; and (3) which appears on 
pages 1-2 of document number 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2002, DOE began the analysis in preparation for a proposed 
determination. DOE conducted initial analyses and shared its initial 
findings regarding efficiency improvement in HID lamps in the June 2003 
draft report. Subsequently, DOE received additional data and 
information provided by NEMA. More recently, NEMA provided HID lamp 
shipments by lamp type for 2003 to 2008, and shipments by wattage 
grouping (i.e., low, medium, and high) for 2008 that was used in the 
analysis for today's proposed determination.
1. Definitions
    DOE reviewed the relevant portions of the Energy Independence 
Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007), and 10 CFR part 431 for applicable 
existing definitions for use in conducting a determination for energy 
conservation standards for HID lamps. EISA 2007 amended EPCA, in part 
by adding key terms that are applicable to the HID determination, 
including ``high intensity discharge lamp,'' ``mercury vapor lamp,'' 
and ``metal halide lamp.'' (42 U.S.C. 6291) These terms are defined as 
follows:
    ``High intensity discharge lamp'' means an electric-discharge lamp 
in which--
    (1) The light-producing arc is stabilized by the arc tube wall 
temperature; and
    (2) The arc tube wall loading is in excess of 3 watts (W)/
centimeters squared (cm\2\), including such lamps that are mercury 
vapor, metal halide, and high-pressure sodium lamps. (42 U.S.C. 
6291(46)(A).)
    ``Mercury vapor lamp'' means a high intensity discharge lamp in 
which the major portion of the light is produced by radiation from 
mercury typically operating at a partial vapor pressure in excess of 
100,000 pascals (Pa) (approximately 1 standard atmosphere). It includes 
clear, phosphor-coated, and self-ballasted screw-base lamps. (42 U.S.C. 
6291(47)(A).)
    ``Metal halide lamp'' means a high-intensity discharge lamp in 
which the major portion of the light is produced by radiation of metal 
halides and their product of dissociation, possibly in combination with 
metallic vapors. (42 U.S.C. 6291(63).)
    Although current statutory definitions pertaining to HID lamps are 
relatively comprehensive, DOE believes that an additional definition 
will be necessary should DOE begin a test procedure rulemaking for HID 
lamps. Therefore, in the future, DOE will propose inserting a 
definition for ``high pressure sodium lamp'' into 10 CFR 431.452, 
``Definitions concerning high-intensity discharge lamps.''
    Although low-pressure sodium (LPS) lamps are often classified as 
HID lamps in catalogues, they do not meet the definition of an HID lamp 
pursuant to EPCA, as amended. The arc tube wall loading for LPS lamps 
is lower than the statutorily defined 3 W/cm\2\ threshold; therefore, 
LPS lamps are not HID lamps for purposes of today's proposed 
determination.
2. 2003 Draft Report
    DOE received comments on the June 2003 draft report from Allegheny 
Power; the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE); 
the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans); Delta Power 
Supply (Delta); EEI; NEMA; the Pennsylvania Department of 
Transportation (PennDOT); and Ms. Lucinda Seigel. Unlike today's 
proposed determination, DOE's previous reports focused primarily on MV 
lamps rather than all HID lamp technologies. The following is a 
discussion of general comments received in response to the 2003 draft 
report, and a limited review of specific technical comments.
    Comments responding to the 2003 Draft Report were generally 
supportive of a positive determination, and indicated that substantial 
benefits could be obtained from a standard that eliminated less 
efficient MV lamps. Delta stated that it wanted its comment to be 
considered an ``emphatic YES'' to an HID lamp standard. (Delta, No. 9 
at p. 2) Many interested parties were in favor of restrictions on MV 
lamps. Caltrans commented that a possible rule eliminating MV would not 
affect it because it had stopped installing MV products and replaced 
most MV fixtures with HPS. (Caltrans, No. 8 at p. 1) ACEEE commented on 
the 2003 draft report that ``ACEEE agrees that it makes sense to 
establish a minimum efficacy standard that eliminates mercury vapor 
lamps for many, if not all, applications.'' (ACEEE, No. 11 at p. 1) 
NEMA commented that MV lamps will have been in the marketplace for over 
80 years, and energy efficient replacements in the form of HPS and MH 
lamps have been generally available for 40 years.
    DOE also received specific technical comments regarding possible 
lamp efficacy (i.e., a measure of the conversion of power into visible 
light which is the technical term for lamp efficiency in the lighting 
industry and which is expressed in units of lumens/W). ACEEE referenced 
the minimum lamp efficacy of 60 lumens/W permitted in exterior lighting 
by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning 
Engineers/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999. ACEEE further recommended that DOE 
set minimum efficacy requirements that would eliminate probe-start MH 
lamps greater than 150 W. (ACEEE, No. 11 at p. 2)
    DOE received many comments regarding alternative, non-HID 
technologies, including induction and fluorescent. Non-HID technologies 
are achieving market penetration in lighting applications traditionally 
dominated by HID; however, a detailed evaluation of these non-HID 
technologies falls outside of the scope of today's proposed 
determination. DOE will more fully

[[Page 22034]]

consider other non-HID sources as part of a full standards rulemaking.
    A comment was also received regarding the potential effect of 
standards on small businesses. Caltrans stated that small businesses 
usually are not manufacturers of lamps and ballasts and believed that 
the potential impact on small businesses would be minimal. (Caltrans, 
No. 8 at p. 1) In its technology and market assessments, DOE found that 
the majority of HID lamps are manufactured by a limited number of large 
companies. However, if DOE makes a positive determination, it will 
evaluate the potential effects of energy conservation standards on 
small businesses in subsequent HID lamp rulemakings.
3. 2004 Draft Report
    DOE received additional comments on the December 2004 draft report 
from ACEEE, Benya Lighting Design (Benya), and NEMA. These comments are 
discussed in detail in the ``Methodology'' section of this notice.

II. Discussion of the Analysis of High-Intensity Discharge Lamps

A. Purpose and Content

    DOE performed an analysis of the feasibility of achieving 
significant energy savings as a result of energy conservation standards 
for HID lamps. DOE presents the results of this analysis in a 
preliminary TSD for this proposed determination. In subsequent analyses 
for the standards preliminary analysis, NOPR, and final rule, DOE will 
perform the analyses required by EPCA. These analyses will involve more 
precise and detailed information that DOE will develop during the 
standards rulemaking process, and will detail the effects of proposed 
energy conservation standards for HID lamps.

B. Methodology

    To address EPCA requirements that DOE determine whether energy 
conservation standards for HID lamps would be technologically feasible 
and economically justified, and result in significant energy savings 
(42 U.S.C. 6317(b)(1)), DOE's performed five component analyses: (1) A 
market and technology assessment to understand better where and how HID 
lamps are used; (2) an engineering analysis to estimate the 
relationship between product costs and energy use; (3) an LCC analysis 
to estimate the costs and benefits to users from increased efficacy in 
HID lamps; (4) a national energy savings analysis to estimate the 
potential energy savings on a national scale; and (5) a national 
consumer impacts analysis to estimate potential economic costs and 
benefits that would result from improving energy efficacy in the 
considered HID lamps. The following is a brief description of each 
analysis.
1. Market and Technology Assessment
    DOE conducted research into the market for considered HID lamps, 
including national annual shipments, the current range of lamp-and-
ballast system efficacies, lamp applications and utilization, market 
structure, and distribution channels. It used information from trade 
associations that support industrial sectors and reviewed literature in 
technical journals. At DOE's request, NEMA provided data on lamp 
shipments of HID lamps, subcategorized by HPS, MV, and MH lamp data 
from its member manufacturers, for the five-year period from 2003 to 
2008. NEMA had provided data for 1990 to 2002 to DOE in previous 
efforts related to today's proposed determination. Based on its market 
research, DOE found that HID lamps are typically used in commercial, 
industrial, and municipal applications with differing electricity 
tariffs. DOE estimates that, on average, HID lamps are used in 
applications (e.g., municipal (exterior) and industrial) that typically 
operate 12 hours per day or more.
    Dimming of HID lamps is not common. DOE examined NEMA's Lighting 
Systems Division Document LSD 14-2002 Guidelines on the Application of 
Dimming High Intensity Discharge Lamps to evaluate typical practices 
for HID dimming. LSD 14-2002 notes that that dimming ballasts are 
relatively new (having only been commercially available since the 
1990s); that HID lamps should not be dimmed below 50 percent of the 
rated lamp wattage; that color, life and efficacy are affected by 
dimming; and that few standards exist for dimming HID systems requiring 
that the system (lamp and ballast) be tested in the field to determine 
if the performance of the lamp and ballast working together is 
acceptable. Given these barriers to the dimming of HID lamps in typical 
applications, DOE assumed that the HID lamps are operating at full 
power for the purpose of the analysis supporting this proposed 
determination.
    Several comments in response to the 2004 draft report addressed 
elements of the HID lamp market and how standards promulgated by DOE 
might impact the market. Benya commented that standards that 
effectively banned MV lamps could be warranted and beneficial. (Benya, 
No. 14 at p. 1) ACEEE commented that DOE should focus on replacing 
probe-start MH with pulse-start MH, in addition to possibly introducing 
standards for MV lamps. (ACEEE, No. 16 at p. 1.)
    Since these comments were received, new legislation was enacted in 
California that prevents MV ballasts from being manufactured or 
imported pursuant to 10 CFR 431.286. See CAL. CODE REGS. Title 20, 
Sec.  1605.3(n)(2) (2010). Consequently the analysis for this proposed 
determination assumes that any MV lamp shipments will service existing 
MV ballasts only, and that MV lamp shipments will decline as a result.
    Regulations currently in effect in six States (Arizona, California, 
New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Washington) limit the use of probe-
start MH technologies by banning fixtures in the wattage range of 150-
500 from having probe-start ballasts. DOE's analysis for the proposed 
determination uses information regarding the impact of the State 
regulations and considers market trends in both MV and probe-start MH 
technologies.
    A key factor in the relative performance of different HID lamp 
technologies is the lamp lifetime. Manufacturers publish the life 
rating for HID lamps, known as B50 (i.e., the point at which 50 percent 
of an operating population of lamps is still operating). DOE received 
information regarding lamp and ballast lifetimes in comments received 
in response to the 2003 draft report. DOE received comments that MV and 
HPS lamps were typically relamped (i.e., replaced) every 4 years, and 
MH lamps typically every 2 years. (Caltrans, No. 8 at p. 2; Allegheny, 
No. 12 at p. 1) Allegheny further stated that the lamp life is 
generally the rated lamp life by the manufacturer. Typical life of HID 
lamps varies with lamp type and wattage, and ranges from 8,000 to 
greater than 24,000 hours, according to the manufacturer catalog data 
surveyed and included in the preliminary TSD. To determine annual 
maintenance costs, DOE uses median rated lamp lifetime as the basis for 
relamping schedules.
    HID lamps typically cannot operate without a ballast that is 
specifically designed for a corresponding lamp technology. The vast 
majority of ballasts for HID lamps are of the electromagnetic 
(magnetic) type. The industry-accepted life of magnetic ballasts is 
50,000 hours, and is widely cited in ballast catalogs and by utility 
programs. After the 2003 report, Allegheny stated that MV ballast 
lifetimes are 12 years or greater. (Allegheny, No. 12 at p. 1) The life 
of the light fixture (also known as a luminaire) varies but generally 
lasts as long as the ballast.

[[Page 22035]]

    Another factor that can affect the energy consumption of an HID 
lighting system is the energy consumption of the ballast. DOE analyzed 
the system (lamp and ballast) power since particular lamp technologies 
are usually associated with a technology-specific ballast design. DOE 
received comments related to system input power in response to the 
technical reports preceding today's proposed determination. ACEEE 
commented that an energy analysis should use the system wattage for the 
input power. (ACEEE, No. 11 at p. 3) In response, DOE selected a 
representative ballast to pair with the lamp, and used the system input 
power to determine energy usage for the proposed determination. DOE 
evaluated manufacturer data on ballast performance for multiple HID 
ballast designs including constant-wattage autotransformer, constant-
wattage isolated, high-reactance autotransformer, and magnetically-
regulated electronic ballasts. Based on its evaluation, DOE determined 
that the variation in ballast input power across ballast designs for a 
given lamp wattage is relatively small compared to the energy use 
difference between different HID lighting system technologies. For 
example, for 175 W probe-start ballasts, the minimum surveyed input 
power was 200 W, the maximum surveyed input power was 226 W, and the 
median input power was 208 W. There is only a 13 percent range in input 
power from the minimum to the maximum input powers surveyed. DOE 
calculated median input wattage across applicable ballast designs to 
calculate the system energy consumption and concluded that ballast 
energy consumption variation should be less than a 7-percent effect. 
This variation is small compared to the relative magnitude of energy 
savings calculated in DOE's analysis. By comparison, the most efficient 
HID substitute for the baseline 175 watt probe start MH lamp is a 100 
watt HPS lamp that uses more than 40 percent less power.
    For this proposed determination, DOE analyzed a range of lamp 
capacities. At least two conventions exist for characterizing HID lamp 
capacity: Input power and light output. DOE categorized representative 
HID lamps based on the light output (measured in mean lumens) of the 
analyzed baseline lamp types since, as lamps get more efficient, the 
input power should decrease as the user service (i.e., light output) 
stays the same or increases. The analyzed equipment classes correspond 
with medium-wattage HID lamps (defined as between 150 and 500 watts), 
which was the primary wattage range considered in the 2004 draft 
report. However, because DOE considers lumen output instead of wattage 
as a more appropriate measure of lamp utility from a consumer 
perspective, it uses lumen output as the basis for categorization in 
today's proposed determination as shown in table II.1 in section C.1 of 
this notice which provides the engineering analysis results.
 2. Engineering Analysis
    In the engineering analysis, DOE identified representative baseline 
HID lighting systems and energy-efficient substitutes within each lumen 
output category. Both the baseline system and the efficiency 
substitutes have different power ratings, with the power rating 
decreasing with the increased efficacy of the substitute. The 
engineering analysis outputs of cost and power consumption are critical 
inputs to subsequent financial cost-benefit calculations for individual 
consumers performed in the LCC and the national impacts analysis. DOE 
developed end-user prices, including a contractor mark-up rate and 
average national sales tax, for analyzed lamp, lamp-and-ballast, and 
luminaire designs.
    DOE did not include MV lamps in the engineering analysis for 
today's proposed determination. DOE forecasts that MV lamp shipments 
will decline to zero by the effective date of a potential HID lamps 
standard, assumed as 2017 because of the ban on MV ballast manufactured 
after January 1, 2008, codified in EPCA as amended. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(ee).) Consequently, DOE did not analyze MV baseline lamps in its 
LCC analysis because MV fixtures are no longer a viable purchase 
option. However, DOE did consider the existing MV in existing HID 
installed base when it performed its national energy savings/national 
consumer benefits analysis. This installed base of MV systems will age 
and be replaced with other HID technologies over time.
    DOE examined other currently available commercial equipment for 
replacing the least efficacious (baseline) HID sources--MV and probe-
start MH. ACEEE commented on the 2003 draft report, noting that a 
potential standard should address replacing probe-start MH lamps with 
pulse-start MH lamps. (ACEEE, No. 11 at p. 2.) Substitutes include 
either HPS or pulse-start MH as typical options when replacing either 
MV or probe-start MH technologies. HPS lamps are among the most 
efficient electric light sources, and are a viable substitute in 
applications where energy efficiency and/or lower first cost is 
considered more important than color quality. Pulse-start MH is the 
most efficient broad spectrum (``white light'') HID technology, and has 
a higher first cost than MV and HPS. DOE received related comments 
during the Metal Halide Lamp Fixture (DOE Docket No. EERE-2009-BT-STD-
0018/RIN 1904-AC00) public meeting on January 26, 2010. During this 
meeting, Philips noted that after California enacted a provision 
regarding ballast efficiency that affects probe-start MH lamp ballasts, 
the manufacturer saw sales shift from probe-start MH to both pulse-
start MH and HPS. (Philips, RIN1904-AC00 Public Meeting Transcript, No. 
1.2.005, at pp. 85 and 164) Philips noted that when California 
implemented standards that eliminated probe-start MH technologies, the 
manufacturer saw a majority of its sales for probe-start MH lamps shift 
in equal portions to pulse-start MH and HPS lamps, respectively. 
Therefore, DOE used both HPS and pulse-start MH as substitute options 
to the baseline probe-start MH technologies.
    DOE assumes in the analysis supporting today's proposed 
determination that changes in lamp technology will lead to changes in 
the entire lamp system. DOE therefore used a systems approach in 
analyzing the representative equipment types because both lamps and 
ballasts determine a system's energy use and light output. Accordingly, 
the analysis paired lamps with corresponding ballasts to develop 
representative lamp-and-ballast systems, in order to estimate the 
actual energy usage and light output of operating lamps.
    In the engineering analysis for today's proposed determination, DOE 
only considered magnetic ballasts because they are the most common 
ballast for HID lighting systems. DOE estimates that magnetic ballasts 
constitute over 90 percent of HID ballasts currently sold and an even 
higher percentage of the installed HID ballast stock. Electronic 
ballasts entered the market at the end of the 1990s, and still occupy 
less than a 10 percent market share because of a variety of technical 
and operational barriers that are discussed in some detail in the 
preliminary TSD.
3. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis
    DOE conducted an initial LCC analysis to estimate the net financial 
benefit to users from the increased efficacy of HID lamps. The LCC 
analysis compared the additional initial cost of a more efficacious 
lamp and related fixture to the discounted value of electricity savings 
over the life of the fixture ballast. DOE's LCC analysis used

[[Page 22036]]

the following inputs: Estimated average annual operating hours and lamp 
lifetimes; estimated average prices for lamps and fixtures; 
representative maintenance costs; electricity prices paid by users of 
HID lamps; and the discount rate. In commenting on previous draft 
reports, PennDOT noted that tariffs vary by region even within the same 
State. (PennDOT, No. 5 at p. 1.) While DOE agrees that there is 
regional variation of tariffs, for the purpose of today's proposed 
determination, DOE uses national average electricity prices for 2009 
from the Energy Information Administration's (EIA) Annual Energy 
Outlook 2009 (AEO 2009) for commercial and industrial applications to 
calculate impacts for the average HID lamp user. The LCC analysis does 
not include MV lamps, since MV ballasts can no longer be imported or 
manufactured; DOE assumed that when MV ballasts failed consumers would 
have to switch to another HID technology.
    The LCC analysis not only evaluated the replacement of the HID 
lamp, but also those cases where the whole system would need to be 
replaced. Given the specificity of HID lamp-and-ballast combinations, 
DOE assumed that replacement of baseline HID systems with energy-
efficient substitutes would, at a minimum, require a new lamp-and-
ballast system. In some cases, the physical and operational 
characteristics of the replacement lamp-and-ballast system may also 
require replacement of the entire fixture. Consequently, DOE treated 
lamp-and-ballast and fixture replacement as economic issues in the LCC 
analysis, which considers the installed cost of the lamp, lamp-and-
ballast system, and fixture. In analyzing the lighting system, the 
ballast has the longer lifetime and therefore represents the lifetime 
of the system (which may have the lamp replaced several times before 
the ballast is replaced). DOE therefore set the LCC analysis period 
equal to the lifetime of the fixture ballast in years, i.e., 50,000 
hours divided by the annual operating hours. This approach is 
consistent with the LCC methodology that DOE used in the 2003 draft 
report.
    DOE assigned annual operating hours to representative equipment 
based on two operating scenarios. Exterior lighting applications were 
assumed for the commercial operating scenario, where HID lamps with 
poorer color quality (e.g., HPS) are a viable substitute (e.g., street 
and parking lot lighting). Interior lighting applications were assumed 
for the industrial operating scenario, where ``white light'' 
substitutes with higher color quality (e.g., pulse-start MH) are 
assumed as mandatory.
    DOE obtained information on hours of operation for the different 
scenarios from industry publications that provide guidance for 
installers and lighting engineers. From these sources DOE estimated 
4,200 hours per year of operation for exterior applications and 5,840 
hours per year for interior applications. A more detailed discussion of 
the data sources and the derivation of these estimates are provided in 
the preliminary TSD.
    In the LCC analysis, DOE also includes maintenance costs in the 
estimation of the LCC of HID lighting systems. DOE examined a range of 
publicly available information sources and estimated an average annual 
maintenance cost of $225 per relamping for exterior applications. DOE 
could not find comparable data for representative interior maintenance 
costs but because of the increased accessibility and better working 
conditions for interior installations, DOE divided the exterior 
relamping costs by three to estimate the interior relamping costs. 
Therefore, for today's proposed determination DOE used $225 for each 
exterior relamping and $74 for each interior relamping. DOE requests 
comment on these representative maintenance costs.
    For the LCC analysis, DOE estimated average commercial and 
industrial electricity prices using the 2017 to 2030 forecasts from 
EIA's AEO 2009. After the 2003 Report, DOE received two comments 
regarding the price of electricity. ACEEE recommended using a later 
version of the AEO in the final rule. (ACEEE, No. 11 at 3.) PennDOT 
stated that energy tariffs vary across the State between the range of 
$0.035/kWh to $0.15/kWh. PennDOT felt that the 2003 rates between 
$0.09/kWh to $0.11/kWh may not return a valid result when compared to 
actual costs. (PennDOT, No. 5 at p. 1.) While DOE agrees that there may 
be substantial variability in tariffs, for today's proposed 
determination DOE believes that using the average price of electricity 
is sufficient to characterize the overall economic justification of a 
potential standard. DOE is therefore using the average price per end 
use sector (i.e., commercial or industrial) over the course of the 
analysis period. DOE requests comment as to whether in the full 
rulemaking analysis, DOE's analysis should include the minimum, mean, 
and the maximum energy tariffs for the relevant end use sectors.
    In the LCC analysis, the discount rate determines the relative 
value of future energy savings compared to increases in first costs 
that may arise from a potential energy conservation standard. DOE 
received comments from ACEEE regarding the discount rates used in the 
2003 report. ACEEE felt that the 8-percent rate was reasonable and the 
15-percent rate was much too high. (ACEEE, No. 11 at p. 2.) For 
commercial and industrial consumers, DOE estimates the cost of capital 
for commercial and industrial companies by examining both debt and 
equity capital, and develops an appropriately weighted average of the 
cost to the company of equity and debt financing. The resulting average 
discounted industrial and commercial discount rates used in the LCC 
analysis are 7.6 percent and 7.0 percent, respectively.
    In the 2003 report, DOE used retail catalog pricing for HID lamp 
and fixture prices. In response, NEMA commented that retail price 
catalogs are not a good source of actual cost information and 
recommended hiring an energy service company to solicit bids on prices. 
(NEMA, No. 6 at p. 4.) DOE considered this comment, but while DOE 
agrees that there may be inaccuracies in list prices, DOE believes that 
there may also be distortions in bid prices that would create data that 
is unrepresentative of future costs. Currently the country is 
experiencing a deep recession where bid prices are likely to be 
substantially deflated compared to the case of average economic 
conditions. This is likely to distort any bid price data that would be 
solicited by DOE. DOE therefore believes at this time that catalogue 
price data is as representative as bid price data for the purposes of 
today's proposed determination.
    DOE estimated the base purchase price of representative HID lamps, 
ballasts, and fixtures using prices available on both the W.W. 
Grainger, Inc. and Goodmart Web sites. These online retailer price 
catalogues were selected because they offer a wide range of products 
(i.e., lamps, ballasts, and fixtures) for multiple types of HID lamps 
and wattages. The municipal procurement contracts also exist for HID 
lamps and can provide price data, but do not contain price data for 
other components of the lamp system needed for the analysis. DOE also 
evaluated State procurement contracts for fixtures but found then to be 
highly variable. DOE therefore used the prices developed from the 
Grainger and Goodmart Web sites as an information source that is 
publicly available (requiring no special log in to access the data) and 
which offers product information that could be applied to the full 
range of HID lighting system technologies and components. The 
preliminary TSD lists the price data that

[[Page 22037]]

DOE obtained from all sources, including RS-Means, State procurement 
contracts, Grainger, and Goodmart. HID prices vary by region, 
manufacturer, quantity, type, and quality (and that end users may pay 
different prices), and therefore DOE attempted to select price data for 
different lighting system options that were directly comparable. DOE 
invites comment on its selection and analysis of the available HID 
lighting system price data.
    DOE added a contractor mark-up to the fixture cost to reflect the 
actual installed prices in the LCC. ACEEE commented that DOE should 
assume a 13-percent contractor mark-up rate. (ACEEE, No. 11 at p. 2.) 
DOE compared this markup with data from other lighting rules, agreed 
with the ACEEE comment, and used a mark-up of 13 percent in the 
proposed determination. DOE also added an average national sales tax of 
7 percent to the installed cost.
    Depending on when different parts of an HID lighting system are 
replaced, the costs of switching to improved efficacy lamps can vary. 
DOE therefore requested comment in the 2003 draft report regarding when 
a standard might prompt: (1) A lamp replacement; (2) replacement of 
both the lamp and the ballast; or (3) replacement of the entire HID 
lighting fixture. Allegheny commented that for all but roadway fixtures 
that are customer-owned and under Allegheny's contract maintenance, 
Allegheny would replace the fixture outright if the lamp were no longer 
available. (Allegheny, No. 12 at pp. 2-3.) DOE also asked interested 
parties ``to provide their estimates of the percentage of the market 
that will choose each replacement option.'' Allegheny surveyed fixture 
and lamp suppliers and found that 80 percent would replace the fixture, 
and the remaining 20 percent would either replace the lamp or lamp-and-
ballast. (Allegheny, No. 12 at pp. 2-3.) Allegheny's comments are 
supported by ACEEE's comments that ``evidence supports full luminaire 
replacement of some metal halide systems over more time-consuming lamp/
ballast replacements.'' (ACEEE, No. 11 at p. 3.) Today's proposed 
determination includes lamp-and-ballast and fixture replacement costs 
when determining the LCC for HID lamps.
4. National Energy Savings Analysis
    To estimate national energy savings for HID lamps sold from 2017 
through 2046, DOE calculated the estimated energy usage of analyzed 
lamp-and-ballast systems in a base case (absent a standard) and a 
standards case. DOE calculated the installed base of HID lamps using 
historical lamp shipments data provided by NEMA. Projected shipments 
were based on the lamp lifetimes, system energy use, and operating 
scenarios developed for the LCC analysis, as well as estimated market 
and substitution trends in the base case and standards case.
    To estimate potential energy savings from the proposed energy 
conservation standard, DOE used an accounting model that calculated 
total end-use electricity savings in each year of a 30-year forecast. 
The model featured an equipment-retirement function to calculate the 
number of units sold in a given year, or vintage, which would still be 
in operation in future years. For example, some of the HID lamps sold 
in 2030 will operate through 2035.
    DOE calculated primary energy (i.e., energy used by the power 
plant) savings associated with end-use electricity savings using data 
from EIA's AEO 2009. These data provided an average multiplier for 
relating end-use electricity to primary energy use for each year from 
2017 to 2030. DOE extrapolated the trend in these years to derive 
factors for 2031 to 2046.
5. National Consumer Impacts Analysis
    DOE estimated the national economic effect on end users in terms of 
the NPV of cumulative benefits from 2017 to 2046. It considered the 
effects under the same range of scenarios as it did for estimating 
national energy savings. It used the new equipment costs and energy 
savings for each energy efficiency level that it applied in the LCC 
analysis. To simplify the analysis, DOE estimated the value of energy 
savings using the average AEO 2009 forecast electricity price from 2017 
to 2030. DOE discounted future costs and benefits by using 3 percent 
and 7 percent discount rate, according to the ``Guidelines and Discount 
Rates for Benefit Analysis of Federal Programs,'' issued by the Office 
of Management and Budget in 1992 (Circular No. A-94, Revised).

C. Analysis Results

1. Engineering Analysis
    As described above, DOE conducted separate analyses examining 10 
representative HID lamp types, as presented in Table II.1.

                                     Table II.1--Representative Lamp Options
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Energy          Energy
                                                    Approximate                      efficient       efficient
           Category               Sub-category     light output     Baseline W     option 1, PMH   option 2, HPS
                                                   mean lumens *                       ** W              W
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medium wattage (150-500)......  Probe-Start MH             8,800             175             150             100
                                 baseline.
                                                          13,700             250             175             150
                                                          23,500             360             320             250
                                                          25,200             400             320             250
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Mean lumens provided from manufacturers' catalogs.
** PMH = pulse-start metal halide.

    In the engineering analysis, for a lamp to be considered a suitable 
option, its replacement had to produce at least 90 percent of the mean 
lumen output of the baseline system and draw less power than the 
baseline lamp-and-ballast system. Power was determined by the lamp-and-
ballast input, based in part on the representative ballast type chosen 
for each option.
2. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
    Table II.2 to Table II.5 present the results for medium wattage 
probe-start MH lamps and higher-efficiency substitute HID lamps in a 
lamp-only replacement scenario. In this scenario, a failed baseline 
lamp is replaced either with an identical baseline lamp, or with a 
substitute lamp-and-ballast system. These analyses were based on 
representative, incremental lamp and fixture prices as well as 
maintenance costs. A full rulemaking would yield more detailed results 
than the

[[Page 22038]]

representative analyses conducted. Generally, the LCC of a high-
efficiency lamp and ballast replacement is higher than the LCC of an 
inefficient lamp-only replacement.

                                    Table II.2--175 W Probe-Start MH Baseline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Industrial/interior             Commercial/exterior
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Baseline 175 W   Substitute 1   Baseline 175 W   Substitute 2
                                                       MH $         150 W PMH $        MH $         100 W HPS $
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ballast Price...................................  ..............          190.22  ..............          234.10
Lamp Price......................................           49.58           64.09           49.58           49.23
Total First Cost................................           49.58          254.31           49.58          283.33
Incremental First Cost..........................  ..............          204.73  ..............          233.75
Annual Operating Cost...........................          149.23          141.02          297.28          263.26
Annual Operating Cost Differential..............  ..............            8.21  ..............           34.02
Life-Cycle Cost (7% Discount Rate)..............          808.83        1,056.34        1,947.52        2,059.27
LCC Savings.....................................  ..............         -247.51  ..............         -111.75
Payback Period (years)..........................  ..............           24.94  ..............            6.87
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                    Table II.3--250 W Probe-Start MH Baseline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Industrial/interior             Commercial/exterior
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Baseline 250 W   Substitute 1   Baseline 250 W   Substitute 2
                                                       MH $         175 W PMH $        MH $         150 W HPS $
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ballast Price...................................  ..............          195.54  ..............          260.18
Lamp Price......................................           53.08           68.76           53.08           60.91
Total First Cost................................           53.08          264.30           53.08          321.09
Incremental First Cost..........................  ..............          211.22  ..............          268.01
Annual Operating Cost...........................          178.85          149.59          330.11          288.18
Annual Operating Cost Differential..............  ..............           29.26  ..............           41.93
Life-Cycle Cost (7% Discount Rate)..............          853.30          994.23        1,983.51        2,126.51
LCC Savings.....................................  ..............         -140.93  ..............         -143.00
Payback Period (years)..........................  ..............            7.22  ..............            6.39
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                    Table II.4--360 W Probe-Start MH Baseline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Industrial/interior             Commercial/exterior
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Baseline 360 W   Substitute 1   Baseline 360 W   Substitute 2
                                                       MH $         320 W PMH $        MH $         250 W HPS $
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ballast Price...................................  ..............          226.43  ..............          211.52
Lamp Price......................................           56.92           90.54           56.92           79.64
Total First Cost................................           56.92          316.97           56.92          291.16
Incremental First Cost..........................  ..............          260.05  ..............          234.24
Annual Operating Cost...........................          217.75          205.97          373.22          331.69
Annual Operating Cost Differential..............  ..............           11.78  ..............           41.53
Life-Cycle Cost (7% Discount Rate)..............          788.24        1,083.54        1,919.94        2,146.17
LCC Savings.....................................  ..............         -295.30  ..............         -226.23
Payback Period (years)..........................  ..............           22.08  ..............            5.64
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                    Table II.5--400 W Probe-Start MH Baseline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Industrial/interior             Commercial/exterior
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Baseline 400 W   Substitute 1   Baseline 400 W   Substitute 2
                                                       MH $         320 W PMH $        MH $         250 W HPS $
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ballast Price...................................  ..............          226.43  ..............          211.52
Lamp Price......................................           58.08           90.54           58.08           79.64
Total First Cost................................           58.08          316.97           58.08          291.16
Incremental First Cost..........................  ..............          258.89  ..............          233.08
Annual Operating Cost...........................          237.74          205.97          395.37          331.69
Annual Operating Cost Differential..............  ..............           31.77  ..............           63.68
Life-Cycle Cost (7% Discount Rate)..............          810.40        1,083.54        1,937.06        2,146.17
LCC Savings.....................................  ..............         -273.14  ..............         -209.11

[[Page 22039]]

 
Payback Period (years)..........................  ..............            8.15  ..............            3.66
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table II.6 to Table II.69 present the results for medium wattage 
probe-start MH lamps and higher-efficiency substitute HID lamps in a 
new construction or fixture replacement scenario. In this scenario, a 
consumer selects either a baseline or substitute fixture and lamp. In 
the exterior lighting cases, the HPS substitutes have a lower LCC. 
These analyses were based on representative and incremental lamp and 
fixture prices as well as maintenance costs. A full rulemaking would 
yield more detailed results than the representative analyses conducted.

                                    Table II.6--175 W Probe-Start MH Baseline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Industrial/interior             Commercial/exterior
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Baseline 175 W   Substitute 1   Baseline 175 W   Substitute 2
                                                       MH $         150 W PMH $        MH $         100 W HPS $
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fixture Price (incl. ballast)...................          260.51          310.10          356.51          376.34
Lamp Price......................................           49.58           64.09           49.58           49.23
Total First Cost................................          310.09          374.19          406.09          425.57
Incremental First Cost..........................  ..............           64.10  ..............           19.73
Annual Operating Cost...........................          149.23          141.02          297.28          263.26
Annual Operating Cost Differential..............  ..............            8.21  ..............           34.02
Life-Cycle Cost (7% Discount Rate)..............        1,069.34        1,176.22        2,304.03        2,201.51
LCC Savings.....................................  ..............         -106.89  ..............          102.52
Payback Period (years)..........................  ..............            7.81  ..............            0.58
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                    Table II.7--250 W Probe-Start MH Baseline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Industrial/interior             Commercial/exterior
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Baseline 250 W   Substitute 1   Baseline 250 W   Substitute 2
                                                       MH $         175 W PMH $        MH $         150 W HPS $
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fixture Price (incl. ballast)...................          297.77          325.63          393.77          382.01
Lamp Price......................................           53.08           68.76           53.08           60.91
Total First Cost................................          350.85          394.39          446.85          442.92
Incremental First Cost..........................  ..............           43.54  ..............           -3.93
Annual Operating Cost...........................          178.85          149.59          330.11          288.18
Annual Operating Cost Differential..............  ..............           29.26  ..............           41.93
Life-Cycle Cost (7% Discount Rate)..............        1,151.07        1,124.32        2,377.28        2,248.34
LCC Savings.....................................  ..............           26.75  ..............          128.94
 
Payback Period (years)..........................  ..............            1.49  ..............           -0.09
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                    Table II.8--360 W Probe-Start MH Baseline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Industrial/interior             Commercial/exterior
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Baseline 360 W   Substitute 1   Baseline 360 W   Substitute 2
                                                       MH $         320 W PMH $        MH $         250 W HPS $
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fixture Price (incl. ballast)...................          352.43          415.69          448.43          393.34
Lamp Price......................................           56.92           90.54           56.92           79.64
Total First Cost................................          409.35          506.23          505.35          472.98
Incremental First Cost..........................  ..............           96.88  ..............          -32.37
Annual Operating Cost...........................          217.75          205.97          373.22          331.69
Annual Operating Cost Differential..............  ..............           11.78  ..............           41.53
Life-Cycle Cost (7% Discount Rate)..............        1,140.67        1,272.81        2,368.37        2,328.00
LCC Savings.....................................  ..............         -132.14  ..............           40.37
Payback Period (years)..........................  ..............            8.22  ..............           -0.78
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 22040]]


                                    Table II.9--400 W Probe-Start MH Baseline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Industrial/interior             Commercial/exterior
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Baseline 400 W   Substitute 1   Baseline 400 W   Substitute 2
                                                       MH $         320 W PMH $        MH $         250 W HPS $
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fixture Price (incl. ballast)...................          372.31          415.69          468.31          393.34
Lamp Price......................................           58.08           90.54           58.08           79.64
Total First Cost................................          430.39          506.23          526.39          472.98
Incremental First Cost..........................  ..............           75.84  ..............          -53.41
Annual Operating Cost...........................          237.74          205.97          395.37          331.69
Annual Operating Cost Differential..............  ..............           31.77  ..............           63.68
Life-Cycle Cost (7% Discount Rate)..............        1,182.71        1,272.81        2,405.37        2,328.00
LCC Savings.....................................  ..............          -90.10  ..............           77.37
Payback Period (years)..........................  ..............            2.39  ..............           -0.84
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. National Energy Savings and Consumer Impacts
    DOE estimated national energy savings and consumer effects of 
energy conservation standards for the considered HID lamps using its 
own engineering analysis data. DOE assumed that energy conservation 
standards would take effect in 2017, and estimated cumulative energy 
savings and NPV impacts relative to a base case and a standards case.
    The results using DOE's analysis of design options indicate 
cumulative energy savings for medium-wattage HID lamps of 2.8 quads and 
a corresponding NPV of $15.0 billion (2009$) at a 3 percent discount 
rate and $3.5 billion at a 7 percent discount rate over a 30-year 
analysis period (2017-2046).
    In estimating the NPV, DOE estimated the fraction of replacements 
that would use the different technologies and would be either a lamp-
only or a total fixture replacement. While some replacements would have 
negative LCC, on a national scale these are outweighed by those lamp 
and fixture replacements that have positive economic impacts on 
consumers.

D. Discussion

1. Technological Feasibility
    Section 346(a)(1) of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6317(a)(1)) mandates that DOE 
determine whether energy conservation standards for HID lamps would be 
``technologically feasible.'' DOE proposes to determine that energy 
conservation standards for HID lamps would be technologically feasible 
because they can be satisfied with HID lighting systems that are 
currently available on the market.
2. Significance of Energy Savings
    Section 346(a)(1) of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6317(a)(1)) mandates that DOE 
determine whether energy conservation standards for HID lamps would 
result in ``significant energy savings.'' Today's proposed 
determination estimates that a standard for HID lamps would result in 
energy savings of at least 2.8 quads over a 30-year analysis period 
(2017-2046). Although the term ``significant'' is not defined in the 
Act, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in Natural 
Resources Defense Council v. Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 1373 (DC Cir. 
1985), indicated that Congress intended ``significant'' energy savings 
in a manner consistent with section 325 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(3)(B)) to be savings that were not ``genuinely trivial.'' DOE 
published two other determinations in 2006 (Small Electric Motors, 71 
FR 38799, 38806 (July 10, 2006)) and 2009 (Non-Class A External Power 
Supplies, 74 FR 56928, 56929 (November 3, 2009)) for other equipment 
and products that had significant savings. DOE's determination for 
small electric motors estimated energy savings of 0.61 to 0.78 quads 
over a 20-year period and therefore met the threshold for 
``significant.'' In the small electric motors determination, DOE used 
analysis for room air conditioners as a precedent, finding that savings 
of 0.36 to 0.96 quads over a 30-year period met the requirement for a 
standard. 62 FR 50122, 50142 (September 24, 1997). DOE's analysis in 
the determination for Non-Class A External Power Supplies resulted in 
0.14 quads of energy over 30 years (2013-2042), and DOE deemed those 
energy savings as ``significant.'' In the 2009 final rule for energy 
conservation standards for refrigerated bottled or canned beverage 
vending machines, DOE estimated that 0.159 quads would be saved over 30 
years (2012-2042). 74 FR 44914, 44915 (August 31, 2009). DOE believes 
that the estimated energy savings of 2.8 quads over 30 years for the 
considered HID lamps are not ``genuinely trivial,'' and DOE proposes to 
determine that potential energy conservation standards for HID lamps 
would result in significant energy savings.
3. Economic Justification
    Section 346(b)(1) of EPCA requires that energy conservation 
standards for HID lamps be economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 
6317(b)(1)) Using the methods and data described in section II.B, DOE 
conducted a LCC analysis to estimate the net benefits to users from 
increased efficiency in the considered HID lamps. DOE then aggregated 
the results from the LCC analysis to estimate national energy savings 
and national economic impacts. DOE estimated that the net present value 
of the consumer costs and benefits from a potential standard are $15.0 
billion and $3.5 billion at three percent and seven percent discount 
rates respectively. Thus, DOE proposes to determine that potential 
energy conservation standards for HID lamps are economically justified.

III. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

    This proposed determination is not subject to review under 
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' 58 FR 
51735 (October 4, 1993).

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by 
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996) 
requires preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis for 
any rule that, by law, must be proposed for public comment, unless the 
agency certifies that the proposed rule, if promulgated, will not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. A regulatory flexibility analysis examines the impact of the 
rule on small entities and considers alternative ways of reducing 
negative effects. Also,

[[Page 22041]]

as required by E.O. 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in 
Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE published 
procedures and policies on February 19, 2003 to ensure that the 
potential impact of its rules on small entities are properly considered 
during the DOE rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990 (February 19, 2003). DOE 
made its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General 
Counsel's Web site at http://www.gc.doe.gov.
    DOE reviewed today's proposed determination under the provisions of 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the policies and procedures 
published on February 19, 2003.
    Today's proposed determination, if adopted, would set no standards; 
it would only positively determine that future standards may be 
warranted and should be explored in an energy conservation standards 
rulemaking. Economic impacts on small entities would be considered in 
the context of such a rulemaking. On the basis of the foregoing, DOE 
certifies that the proposed determination, if adopted, would have no 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis for 
this proposed determination. DOE will transmit this certification and 
supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy 
of the Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This proposed determination, which proposes to determine that the 
development of energy conservation standards for HID lamps is 
warranted, would impose no new information or record keeping 
requirements. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
clearance is not required under the Paperwork Reduction Act. (44 U.S.C. 
3501 et seq.)

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

    In this notice, DOE proposes to positively determine that future 
standards may be warranted and that environmental impacts should be 
explored in an energy conservation standards rulemaking. DOE has 
determined that review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 
1969 (NEPA), Pub. L. 91-190, codified at 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. is not 
required at this time. NEPA review can only be initiated ``as soon as 
environmental impacts can be meaningfully evaluated'' (10 CFR 
1021.213(b)). Because this proposed determination would only determine 
that future standards may be warranted, but would not propose to set 
any standard, DOE has determined that there are no environmental 
impacts to be evaluated at this time. Accordingly, neither an 
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is 
required.

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    E.O. 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999), imposes 
certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies 
or regulations that preempt State law or that have Federalism 
implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the 
constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would 
limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to assess carefully 
the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires 
agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely 
input by State and local officials in developing regulatory policies 
that have Federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE published a 
statement of policy describing the intergovernmental consultation 
process that it will follow in developing such regulations. 65 FR 13735 
(March 14, 2000). DOE has examined today's proposed determination and 
concludes that it would not preempt State law or have substantial 
direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the Federal 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government. EPCA governs 
and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to energy 
conservation for the equipment that is the subject of today's proposed 
determination. States can petition DOE for exemption from such 
preemption to the extent permitted, and based on criteria, set forth in 
EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297) No further action is required by E.O. 13132.

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

    With respect to the review of existing regulations and the 
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 12988, ``Civil 
Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996), imposes on Federal 
agencies the duty to: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) 
write regulations to minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal 
standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) 
promote simplification and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 
specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable 
effort to ensure that the regulation specifies the following: (1) The 
preemptive effect, if any; (2) any effect on existing Federal law or 
regulation; (3) a clear legal standard for affected conduct while 
promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) the retroactive 
effect, if any; (5) definitions of key terms; and (6) other important 
issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines 
issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of E.O. 12988 requires 
Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable 
standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether these 
standards are met, or whether it is unreasonable to meet one or more of 
them. DOE completed the required review and determined that, to the 
extent permitted by law, this proposed determination meets the relevant 
standards of E.O. 12988.

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. 
L. 104-4, codified at 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) requires each Federal 
agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, 
local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. For regulatory 
actions likely to result in a rule that may cause expenditures by 
State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the 
private sector of $100 million or more in any 1 year (adjusted annually 
for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to 
publish a written statement that estimates the resulting costs, 
benefits, and other effects on the national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a) 
and (b)) UMRA requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process 
to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal 
governments on a proposed ``significant intergovernmental mandate.'' 
UMRA also requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for 
timely input to small governments that may be potentially affected 
before establishing any requirement that might significantly or 
uniquely affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of 
policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 
FR 12820 (March 18, 1997). (This policy is also available at http://www.gc.doe.gov). Today's proposed determination contains neither an 
intergovernmental mandate nor a mandate that may result in the 
expenditure of $100 million or more in any year, so these UMRA 
requirements do not apply.

[[Page 22042]]

H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act 
of 1999

    Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a 
Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family 
well-being. This proposed determination would not have any impact on 
the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, 
DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family 
Policymaking Assessment.

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

    Pursuant to E.O. 12630, ``Governmental Actions and Interference 
with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,'' 53 FR 8859 (March 
15, 1988), DOE determined that this proposed determination would not 
result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth 
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act 
of 2001

    The Treasury and General Government Appropriation Act of 2001 (44 
U.S.C. 3516, note) requires agencies to review most disseminations of 
information they make to the public under guidelines established by 
each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. The OMB's 
guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (February 22, 2002), and DOE's 
guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has 
reviewed today's proposed determination under the OMB and DOE 
guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable 
policies in those guidelines.

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

    E.O. 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly 
Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 
2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB a 
Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy action. 
A ``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an agency 
that promulgates a final rule or is expected to lead to promulgation of 
a final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under 
E.O. 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a 
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of 
energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a 
significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, 
the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on 
energy supply, distribution, or use if the proposal is implemented, and 
of reasonable alternatives to the proposed action and their expected 
benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
    DOE has concluded that today's action proposing to determine that 
development of energy conservation standards for HID lamps may be 
warranted would not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy. This action is also not a significant 
regulatory action for purposes of E.O. 12866, or any successor order. 
Therefore, this proposed determination is not a significant energy 
action. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects 
for this proposed determination.

L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review

    On December 16, 2004, OMB, in consultation with the Office of 
Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), issued its Final Information 
Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (the Bulletin). 70 FR 2664 (January 
14, 2005). The Bulletin establishes that certain scientific information 
shall be peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is 
disseminated by the Federal government, including influential 
scientific information related to agency regulatory actions. The 
purpose of the Bulletin is to enhance the quality and credibility of 
the Government's scientific information. Under the Bulletin, the energy 
conservation standards rulemaking analyses are ``influential scientific 
information.'' The Bulletin defines ``influential scientific 
information'' as ``scientific information the agency reasonably can 
determine will have, or does have, a clear and substantial impact on 
important public policies or private sector decisions.'' 70 FR 2667 
(January 14, 2005).
    In response to OMB's Bulletin, DOE conducted formal in-progress 
peer reviews of the energy conservation standards development process 
and analyses, and has prepared a Peer Review Report pertaining to the 
energy conservation standards rulemaking analyses. The ``Energy 
Conservation Standards Rulemaking Peer Review Report,'' dated February 
2007, has been disseminated and is available at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/peer_review.html.

IV. Public Participation

A. Submission of Comments

    DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this 
notice of proposed determination no later than the date provided at the 
beginning of this notice. After the close of the comment period, DOE 
will review the comments received and determine, by June 30, 2010, 
whether energy conservation standards for HID lamps are warranted.
    Comments, data, and information submitted to DOE's e-mail address 
for this proposed determination should be provided in WordPerfect, 
Microsoft Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file format. Submissions should 
avoid the use of special characters or any form of encryption, and 
wherever possible comments should include the electronic signature of 
the author. No telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
    According to 10 CFR Part 1004.11, any person submitting information 
that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from 
public disclosure should submit two copies: One copy of the document 
should have all the information believed to be confidential deleted. 
DOE will make its own determination as to the confidential status of 
the information and treat it according to its determination.
    Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat 
submitted information as confidential include (1) a description of the 
items; (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as 
confidential within the industry; (3) whether the information is 
generally known or available from public sources; (4) whether the 
information has previously been made available to others without 
obligations concerning its confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the 
competitive injury to the submitting persons which would result from 
public disclosure; (6) a date after which such information might no 
longer be considered confidential; and (7) why disclosure of the 
information would be contrary to the public interest.

B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comments

    Comments are welcome on all aspects of this proposed determination. 
DOE is particularly interested in receiving comment from interested 
parties on the following issues as they relate to HID lamps:
     Applications not included in the proposed determination 
analysis;
     Definition of high-pressure sodium lamps;
     Equipment (including lamp, ballast, and fixture) 
lifetimes;
     Possible negative effects on small businesses;
     Present-year shipments estimates;
     Present-year efficiency distributions;
     Market-growth forecasts;

[[Page 22043]]

     Usage profiles;
     Technology options for increasing efficiency;
     Costs related to increasing efficiency;
     Equipment cost;
     Maintenance costs;
     Unit energy consumption calculations and values; and
     Alternative sources, databases, and methodologies for the 
analyses and inputs used in this proposed determination.

V. Approval of the Office of the Assistant Secretary

    The Assistant Secretary of DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy has approved publication of this proposed 
determination.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business 
information, Energy conservation, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 22, 2010.
Cathy Zoi,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 2010-9714 Filed 4-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P