[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 126 (Monday, July 1, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31232-31244]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-14004]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[EERE-2017-BT-STD-0016]
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Metal Halide Lamp Fixtures
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Request for information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') is attempting to
determine whether to amend the current energy conservation standards
for metal halide lamp fixtures. Under the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act, as amended, DOE must review these standards at least
once every six years and publish either a proposal to amend these
standards or a notice of determination that the existing standards do
not need amending. DOE is soliciting the public for information to help
determine whether the current standards require amending under the
applicable statutory criteria. DOE welcomes written comments from the
public on any subject within the scope of this document, including
topics not specifically raised.
DATES: Written comments and information are requested and will be
accepted on or before August 15, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested
persons may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2017-BT-
STD-0016, by any of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
2. Email: [email protected]. Include the docket number
EERE-2017-BT-STD-0016 in the subject line of the message.
3. Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc
(CD), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.
4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards
Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950
L'Enfant Plaza SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202)
287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case
it is not necessary to include printed copies.
No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the
rulemaking process, see section III of this document.
Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials,
is available for review at http://www.regulations.gov. All documents in
the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. However,
some documents listed in the index, such as those containing
information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly
available.
The docket web page can be found at http://www.regulations.gov. The
docket web page contains instructions on how to access all documents,
including public comments, in the docket. See section III for
information on how to submit comments through http://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Lucy deButts, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 287-1604. Email: [email protected].
Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121.
Telephone: (202) 586-8145. Email: [email protected].
For further information on how to submit a comment, review other
public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting,
contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202)
287-1445 or by email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. Authority and Background
B. Rulemaking Process
II. Request for Information and Comments
A. Equipment Covered by This Rulemaking
B. Market and Technology Assessment
1. Product/Equipment Classes
2. Technology Assessment
C. Screening Analysis
D. Engineering Analysis
1. Baselines
2. Efficiency Levels and Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
3. Manufacturer Production Costs and Manufacturing Selling Price
E. Markups Analysis
F. Energy Use Analysis
G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Analysis
H. Shipments
I. National Impact Analysis
J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
K. Other Energy Conservation Standards Topics
1. Market Failures
2. Market-Based Approaches to Energy Conservation Standards
III. Submission of Comments
I. Introduction
A. Authority and Background
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as amended
(``EPCA''),\1\ among other things, authorizes DOE to regulate the
energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and industrial
equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-6317) Title III, Part B \2\ of EPCA
established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other
Than Automobiles. These products include metal halide lamp fixtures
(``MHLFs''), the subject of this request for information (``RFI'').\3\
(42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(19)) EPCA prescribed energy conservation standards
(``ECS'') for
[[Page 31233]]
these products. (42 U.S.C. 6295(hh)(1)), and directed DOE to conduct
two cycles of rulemakings to determine whether to amend these
standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(hh)(2)-(3))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018,
Public Law 115-270 (October 23, 2018).
\2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part B was redesignated as Part A.
\3\ Although MHLFs (which are industrial lighting equipment) are
treated as covered products under EPCA, as a matter of
administrative convenience and to minimize confusion among
interested parties, DOE adopted its MHLF provisions into subpart S
of 10 CFR part 431 (the portion of DOE's regulations dealing with
commercial and industrial equipment) because businesses, rather than
individuals, purchase them. 74 FR 12058, 12062 (March 23, 2009). For
the purpose of this notice, DOE refers to MHLFs generally as
``equipment.'' When the notice refers to specific provisions in Part
A of EPCA, the term ``product'' is used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under EPCA, DOE's energy conservation program consists essentially
of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy
conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement
procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA specifically include
definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293),
labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation standards (42
U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to require information and reports from
manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered products
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42
U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c)) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal
preemption in limited instances for particular State laws or
regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions set
forth under 42 U.S.C. 6297(d).
DOE completed the first of these rulemaking cycles in 2014 by
adopting amended performance standards for MHLFs manufactured on or
after February 10, 2017 (``2014 MHLF ECS final rule''). 79 FR 7746
(February 10, 2014). The current energy conservation standards are
located in title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (``CFR'') part
431. See 10 CFR 431.326 (detailing the applicable energy conservation
standards for different classes of MHLFs). The currently applicable DOE
test procedures for MHLFs appear at 10 CFR 431.324. Under 42 U.S.C.
6295(hh)(3)(A), the agency must conduct a second review of its energy
conservation standards for MHLFs and publish a final rule to determine
whether to amend those standards. This document initiates that second
review.
B. Rulemaking Process
DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or
amended standards for covered products. EPCA requires that any new or
amended energy conservation standard be designed to achieve the maximum
improvement in energy or water efficiency that is technologically
feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) To
determine whether a standard is economically justified, EPCA requires
that DOE determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its
burdens by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the
following seven factors:
(1) The economic impact of the standard on the manufacturers and
consumers of the affected products;
(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average
life of the product compared to any increases in the initial cost, or
maintenance expenses;
(3) The total projected amount of energy and water (if applicable)
savings likely to result directly from the standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the products
likely to result from the standard;
(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the
standard;
(6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and
(7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) considers
relevant.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))
DOE fulfills these and other applicable requirements by conducting
a series of analyses throughout the rulemaking process. Table I.1 shows
the individual analyses that are performed to satisfy each of the
requirements within EPCA.
Table I.1--EPCA Requirements and Corresponding DOE Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPCA requirement Corresponding DOE analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technological Feasibility............... Market and Technology
Assessment.
Screening Analysis.
Engineering Analysis.
Economic Justification:
1. Economic impact on manufacturers Manufacturer Impact
and consumers. Analysis.
Life-Cycle Cost and
Payback Period Analysis.
Life-Cycle Cost
Subgroup Analysis.
Shipments Analysis.
2. Lifetime operating cost savings Markups for Product
compared to increased cost for the Price Determination.
product.
Energy and Water Use
Determination.
Life-Cycle Cost and
Payback Period Analysis.
3. Total projected energy savings... Shipments Analysis.
National Impact
Analysis.
4. Impact on utility or performance. Screening Analysis.
Engineering Analysis.
5. Impact of any lessening of Manufacturer Impact
competition. Analysis.
6. Need for national energy and Shipments Analysis.
water conservation.
National Impact
Analysis.
7. Other factors the Secretary Employment Impact
considers relevant. Analysis.
Utility Impact
Analysis.
Emissions Analysis.
Monetization of
Emission Reductions Benefits.
Regulatory Impact
Analysis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As detailed throughout this RFI, DOE is publishing this document
seeking input and data from interested parties to aid in the
development of the technical analyses on which DOE will ultimately rely
to determine whether (and if so, how) to amend the standards for MHLFs.
II. Request for Information and Comments
In the following sections, DOE has identified a variety of issues
on which it seeks input to aid in the development of the technical and
economic analyses regarding whether to amend its standards for MHLFs.
Additionally, DOE welcomes comments on other issues relevant to the
conduct of this rulemaking that may not specifically be
[[Page 31234]]
identified in this document. In particular, DOE notes that under
Executive Order 13771, executive branch agencies such as DOE are
directed to manage the costs associated with the imposition of
expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations. See 82 FR
9339 (February 3, 2017) Consistent with that Executive Order, DOE
encourages the public to provide input on measures DOE could take to
lower the cost of its energy conservation standards rulemakings,
recordkeeping and reporting requirements, and compliance and
certification requirements applicable to MHLFs while remaining
consistent with the requirements of EPCA.
Issue II.1: DOE seeks comment on whether there have been sufficient
technological or market changes since the most recent standards update
that may justify a new rulemaking to consider more stringent standards.
Specifically, DOE seeks data and information that could enable the
agency to determine whether DOE should propose a ``no new standard''
determination because a more stringent standard: 1. Would not result in
a significant savings of energy; 2. is not technologically feasible; 3.
is not economically justified; or 4. any combination of the foregoing.
Issue II.2: DOE recently published an RFI on the emerging smart
technology appliance and equipment market. 83 FR 46886 (September 17,
2018). In that RFI, DOE sought information to better understand market
trends and issues in the emerging market for appliances and commercial
equipment that incorporate smart technology. DOE's intent in issuing
the RFI was to ensure that DOE did not inadvertently impede such
innovation in fulfilling its statutory obligations in setting
efficiency standards for covered products and equipment. DOE seeks
comments, data and information on the issues presented in the RFI as
they may be applicable to MHLFs.
A. Equipment Covered by This Rulemaking
This RFI addresses equipment meeting the MHLF definition, as
codified in 10 CFR 431.322. An MHLF is defined as a light fixture for
general lighting application designed to be operated with a metal
halide lamp and a ballast for a metal halide lamp. 42 U.S.C. 6291(64);
10 CFR 431.322. DOE has also defined several terms related to MHLF in
10 CFR 431.322.
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Public Law 110-
140 (December 19, 2007) (``EISA 2007''), established energy
conservation standards for MHLFs with ballasts designed to operate
lamps with rated wattages between 150 watts (``W'') and 500 W and
excluded three types of fixtures within the covered wattage range from
energy conservation standards: (1) MHLFs with regulated-lag ballasts;
(2) MHLFs that use electronic ballasts and operate at 480 volts; and
(3) MHLFs that are rated only for 150 watt lamps, are rated for use in
wet locations as specified by the National Fire Protection Association
(``NFPA'') in NFPA 70, ``National Electrical Code 2002 Edition,'' \4\
and contain a ballast that is rated to operate at ambient air
temperatures above 50 [deg]C as specified by Underwriters Laboratory
(``UL'') in UL 1029, ``Standard for Safety High-Intensity-Discharge
Lamp Ballasts.'' (42 U.S.C. 6295(hh)(1)) In the 2014 MHLF ECS final
rule, DOE also promulgated standards for the group of MHLFs with
ballasts designed to operate lamps rated 50 W-150 W and 501 W-1,000 W.
DOE also promulgated standards for one type of previously excluded
fixture: A 150 W MHLF rated for use in wet locations \4\ and containing
a ballast that is rated to operate at ambient air temperatures greater
than 50 [deg]C--i.e., those fixtures that fall under 42 U.S.C.
6295(hh)(1)(B)(iii). DOE continued to exclude from standards MHLFs with
regulated-lag ballasts and 480 V electronic ballasts. In addition, due
to a lack of applicable test method for high-frequency electronic
(``HFE'') ballasts, in the 2014 MHLF ECS final rule, DOE did not
establish standards for MHLFs with HFE ballasts. 79 FR 7754-7756
(February 10, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ DOE notes that although the exclusion in 42 U.S.C.
6295(hh)(1)(B)(iii)(II) identifies those fixtures that are rated for
use in wet locations as specified by the National Electrical Code
2002 section 410.4(A), the National Fire Protection Agency
(``NFPA'') is responsible for authoring the National Electrical
Code, which is identified as NFPA 70. Accordingly, DOE's use of NFPA
70 under the MHLF-related provision in 10 CFR 431.326(b)(3)(iii) is
identical to the statutory exclusion set out by Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although current standards for MHLFs require them to contain a
ballast that meets or exceeds a minimum ballast efficiency, the entity
responsible for certifying compliance with the applicable standard is
the MHLF manufacturer or importer. The MHLF manufacturer may opt to use
a third-party to certify on its behalf, such as the ballast
manufacturer. However, the MHLF manufacturer or importer is ultimately
responsible for certifying compliance to DOE. See generally 42 U.S.C.
6291(10)-(12) and 10 CFR 429.12.
Issue A.1: DOE seeks input on whether definitions related to MHLFs
in 10 CFR 431.322 require any revisions--and if so, how those
definitions should be revised. DOE also seeks input on whether
additional definitions are necessary for DOE to clarify or otherwise
implement its regulatory requirements related to MHLFs.
B. Market and Technology Assessment
The market and technology assessment that DOE routinely conducts
when analyzing the impacts of a potential new or amended energy
conservation standard provides information about the MHLF industry that
will be used in DOE's analysis throughout the rulemaking process. DOE
uses qualitative and quantitative information to characterize the
structure of the industry and market. DOE identifies manufacturers,
estimates market shares and trends, addresses regulatory and non-
regulatory initiatives intended to improve energy efficiency or reduce
energy consumption, and explores the potential for efficiency
improvements in the design and manufacturing of MHLFs. DOE also reviews
product literature, industry publications, and company websites.
Additionally, DOE considers conducting interviews with manufacturers to
improve its assessment of the market and available technologies for
MHLFs.
1. Product/Equipment Classes
When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE
may divide covered products into product classes by the type of energy
used, or by capacity or other performance-related features that justify
a different standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) In making a determination
whether capacity or another performance-related feature justifies a
different standard, DOE must consider such factors as the utility of
the feature to the consumer and other factors DOE deems appropriate.
Id.
For MHLFs, the current energy conservation standards specified in
10 CFR 431.326 are based on 24 equipment classes that were analyzed in
the 2014 MHLF ECS final rule according to the following performance-
related features that provide utility to the customer: Input voltage,
rated lamp wattage, and designation for indoor versus outdoor
applications. Table II.1 lists the 24 MHLF equipment classes from the
2014 MHLF ECS final rule.
[[Page 31235]]
Table II.1--MHLF Equipment Classes From the 2014 MHLF ECS Final Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designed to be operated with lamps of the
following rated lamp wattage Indoor/outdoor Input voltage type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>=50 W and <=100 W....................... Indoor.......................... Tested at 480 V.
>=50 W and <=100 W....................... Indoor.......................... All others.
>=50 W and <=100 W....................... Outdoor......................... Tested at 480 V.
>=50 W and <=100 W....................... Outdoor......................... All others.
>100 W and <150 W \*\.................... Indoor.......................... Tested at 480 V.
>100 W and <150 W \*\.................... Indoor.......................... All others.
>100 W and <150 W \*\.................... Outdoor......................... Tested at 480 V.
>100 W and <150 W \*\.................... Outdoor......................... All others.
>=150 W \**\ and <=250 W................. Indoor.......................... Tested at 480 V.
>=150 W \**\ and <=250 W................. Indoor.......................... All others.
>=150 W \**\ and <=250 W................. Outdoor......................... Tested at 480 V.
>=150 W \**\ and <=250 W................. Outdoor......................... All others.
>250 W and <=500 W....................... Indoor.......................... Tested at 480 V.
>250 W and <=500 W....................... Indoor.......................... All others.
>250 W and <=500 W....................... Outdoor......................... Tested at 480 V.
>250 W and <=500 W....................... Outdoor......................... All others.
>500 W and <=1,000 W..................... Indoor.......................... Tested at 480 V.
>500 W and <=1,000 W..................... Indoor.......................... All others.
>500 W and <=1,000 W..................... Outdoor......................... Tested at 480 V.
>500 W and <=1,000 W..................... Outdoor......................... All others.
>1,000 W and <=2,000 W................... Indoor.......................... Tested at 480 V.
>1,000 W and <=2,000 W................... Indoor.......................... All others.
>1,000 W and <=2,000 W................... Outdoor......................... Tested at 480 V.
>1,000 W and <=2,000 W................... Outdoor......................... All others.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Includes 150 W MHLFs exempted by EISA 2007, which are MHLFs rated only for 150 W lamps; rated for use in wet
locations, as specified by the NFPA 70-2002, section 410.4(A); and containing a ballast that is rated to
operate at ambient air temperatures above 50 [deg]C, as specified by UL 1029-2007.
** Excludes 150 W MHLFs exempted by EISA 2007, which are MHLFs rated only for 150 W lamps; rated for use in wet
locations, as specified by the NFPA 70-2002, section 410.4(A); and containing a ballast that is rated to
operate at ambient air temperatures above 50 [deg]C, as specified by UL 1029-2007.
DOE notes that since Table II.1 represents all equipment classes in
the 2014 MHLF ECS final rule, it also includes a number of individual
classes for which standards were not set. For example, DOE did not
adopt standards in the 2014 MHLF ECS final rule for MHLFs designed to
be operated with lamps rated greater than 1,000 W and less than or
equal to 2,000 W but they are included as one of the many different
MHLF equipment classes that DOE is currently considering within the
context of this RFI. Consequently, the table of standards presented in
Table I.1 in the 2014 MHLF ECS final rule does not include MHLFs that
operate those lamps. 79 FR 7747-7748 (February 10, 2014). See also id.
at 79 FR 7832-7836 (detailing DOE's reasoning under the ``Conclusions''
of the preamble discussion). Furthermore, because DOE adopted the same
standards for indoor and outdoor equipment classes that are tested at
the same input voltage and that operate lamps of the same wattage, DOE
omitted the indoor/outdoor distinction when codifying the table of
standards into 10 CFR 431.326(c). DOE previously analyzed indoor and
outdoor fixtures separately as part of its prior rulemaking because
these two types of fixtures offer different performance-related
features. When electronic ballasts are used in outdoor applications,
they require additional transient protection because of the potential
for voltage surges in outdoor locations. Indoor fixtures with
electronic ballasts also have an added feature to provide 120 V
auxiliary power functionality for use in the event of a power outage.
Based on these different features, DOE established separate equipment
classes for indoor and outdoor fixtures, 79 FR 7763-7764 (February 10,
2014), but adopted the same minimum energy conservation standards for
these classes. (See section II.D for more information).
Issue B.1: DOE requests feedback on the 24 MHLF equipment classes
from the 2014 MHLF ECS final rule and whether changes to these
individual equipment classes and their descriptions should be made or
whether certain classes should be merged or separated (e.g., indoor and
outdoor, wattage ranges). DOE further requests feedback on whether
combining certain classes could impact utility by eliminating any
performance-related features or impact the stringency of the current
energy conservation standard for this equipment. Specifically, DOE
requests comment on whether the features associated with indoor and/or
outdoor fixtures (e.g., thermal management, transient protection,
auxiliary power functionality) remain in the market today.
DOE is also aware that new configurations and features could be
available for MHLFs that may not have been available at the time of the
last energy conservation standards analysis. Based on DOE's review of
the market, DOE found metal halide dimming ballasts available from
multiple manufacturers that could be used in MHLFs. DOE has identified
both step-level dimming and continuous dimming metal halide systems
that are dimmable down to 50 percent of rated power.
Issue B.2: DOE seeks information regarding any new equipment
classes it should consider for inclusion in its analysis. Specifically,
DOE requests information on any performance-related features (e.g.,
dimmability, etc.) that may provide unique customer utility and data
detailing the corresponding impacts on energy use that would justify
separate equipment classes (i.e., explanation for why the presence of
these performance-related features would increase energy consumption).
In describing which MHLFs are included in each equipment class, DOE
incorporates by reference the 2002 version of NFPA 70 and the 2007
version of UL 1029 in DOE's regulations. NFPA 70 is a national safety
standard for electrical design, installation, and inspection, and is
also known as the 2002 National Electrical
[[Page 31236]]
Code. UL 1029 is a safety standard specific to high intensity discharge
(``HID'') lamp ballasts; a metal halide lamp ballast is a type of HID
lamp ballast. Both NFPA 70 and UL 1029 are used to describe the
applicable equipment class for MHLFs that EISA 2007 excluded from the
statutory standards enacted by Congress but that were later included as
part of the 2014 MHLF ECS final rule (see section II.A). DOE has found
that a 2017 version of NFPA 70 (NFPA 70-2017) ``NFPA 70 National
Electrical Code 2017 Edition'' \5\ and a 2014 version of UL 1029 (UL
1029-2014) ``Standard for Safety High-Intensity-Discharge Lamp
Ballasts'' \6\ are now available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Approved August 24, 2016.
\6\ Approved December 6, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue B.3: DOE requests comment on whether incorporating by
reference the updated industry standards NFPA 70-2017 and UL 1029-2014
will impact the MHLFs included in each equipment class in DOE's
regulations.
2. Technology Assessment
In analyzing the feasibility of potential new or amended energy
conservation standards, DOE uses information about existing and past
technology options and prototype designs to help identify technologies
that manufacturers could use to meet and/or exceed a given set of
energy conservation standards under consideration. In consultation with
interested parties, DOE intends to develop a list of technologies to
consider in its analysis. That analysis will likely include a number of
the technology options DOE previously considered during its most recent
rulemaking for MHLFs. A complete list of those prior options appears in
Table II.2 of this RFI.
Table II.2--Previously Considered Technology Options From the 2014 MHLF ECS Final Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ballast type Design option Description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Magnetic..................... Improved Core Steel. Use a higher grade of
electrical steel, including
grain-oriented silicon
steel, to lower core losses.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copper Wiring. Use copper wiring in place of
aluminum wiring to lower
resistive losses.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increased Stack Height. Add steel laminations to
lower core losses.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increased Conductor Cross Section. Increase conductor cross
section to lower winding
losses.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Ballast. Replace magnetic ballasts
with electronic ballasts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amorphous Steel. Create the core of the
inductor from laminated
sheets of amorphous steel
insulated from each other.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic................... Improved Components..... Magnetics............... Use grain-oriented or
amorphous electrical steel
to reduce core losses.
Use optimized-gauge copper or
litz wire to reduce winding
losses.
Add steel laminations to
lower core losses.
Increase conductor cross
section to lower winding
losses.
Diodes.................. Use diodes with lower losses.
Capacitors.............. Use capacitors with a lower
effective series resistance
and output capacitance.
Transistors............. Use transistors with lower
drain-to-source resistance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improved Circuit Design. Integrated Circuits..... Substitute discrete
components with an
integrated circuit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amorphous Steel. Create the core of the
inductor from laminated
sheets of amorphous steel
insulated from each other.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue B.4: DOE seeks information on the technologies listed in
Table II.2 of this RFI regarding their applicability to the current
market and how these technologies may impact the efficiency of MHLFs as
measured according to the DOE test procedure. DOE also seeks
information on how these technologies may have changed since they were
considered in the 2014 MHLF ECS final rule analysis. Specifically, DOE
seeks information on the range of efficiencies or performance
characteristics that are currently available for each technology
option.
Issue B.5: DOE seeks comment on other technology options that it
should consider for inclusion in its analysis and if these technologies
may impact equipment features or customer utility.
C. Screening Analysis
The purpose of the screening analysis is to evaluate the
technologies that improve equipment efficiency to determine which
technologies will be eliminated from further consideration and which
will be considered in the engineering analysis.
DOE determines whether to eliminate certain technology options from
further consideration based on the following criteria:
(1) Technological feasibility. Technologies that are not
incorporated in commercial products or in working prototypes will not
be considered further.
(2) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If it is
determined that mass production of a technology in commercial products
and reliable installation and servicing of the technology could not be
achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the
time of the effective date of the standard, then that technology will
not be considered further.
(3) Impacts on product utility or product availability. If a
technology is determined to have significant adverse impact on the
utility of the product to significant subgroups of consumers, or
[[Page 31237]]
result in the unavailability of any covered equipment type with
performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes,
capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as equipment
generally available in the United States at the time, it will not be
considered further.
(4) Adverse impacts on health or safety. If it is determined that a
technology will have significant adverse impacts on health or safety,
it will not be considered further.
10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, 4(a)(4) and 5(b).
Technology options identified in the technology assessment are
evaluated against these criteria using DOE's analyses and inputs from
interested parties (e.g., manufacturers, trade organizations, and
energy efficiency advocates). Technologies that pass through the
screening analysis are referred to as ``design options'' in the
engineering analysis. Technology options that fail to meet one or more
of the four criteria are eliminated from consideration.
Table II.3 summarizes the screened-out technology option, and the
applicable screening criteria, from the 2014 MHLF ECS final rule.
Table II.3--Screened-Out Technology Options From the 2014 MHLF ECS Final Rule
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPCA criteria (X = basis for screening out)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Screened technology option Practicability to
Technological manufacture, install, Adverse impact on Adverse impacts on
feasibility and service product utility health and safety
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amorphous Steel................................. X X X
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue C.1: DOE requests feedback on what impact, if any, the four
screening criteria described in this section would have on each of the
technology options listed in Table II.2 of this RFI with respect to
MHLFs. Similarly, DOE seeks information regarding how these same
criteria would affect any other technology options not already
identified in this document with respect to their potential use in
MHLFs.
Issue C.2: With respect to the screened-out technology option
listed in Table II.3 of this RFI, DOE seeks information on whether this
option would, based on current and projected assessments, remain
screened out under the four screening criteria described in this
section. With respect to this technology option, what steps, if any,
could be (or have already been) taken to facilitate the introduction of
the option as a means to improve the energy performance of MHLFs and
the potential to impact customer utility of the MHLFs.
D. Engineering Analysis
The engineering analysis estimates the cost-efficiency relationship
of equipment at different levels of increased energy efficiency
(efficiency levels). This relationship serves as the basis for the
cost-benefit calculations for customers, manufacturers, and the Nation.
In determining the cost-efficiency relationship, DOE estimates the
increase in manufacturer production cost (``MPC'') associated with
increasing the efficiency of equipment above the baseline, up to the
maximum technologically feasible (``max-tech'') efficiency level for
each equipment class.
DOE historically has used the following three methodologies to
generate incremental manufacturing costs and establish efficiency
levels (``ELs'') for analysis: (1) The design-option approach, which
provides the incremental costs of adding to a baseline model design
options that will improve its efficiency; (2) the efficiency-level
approach, which provides the relative costs of achieving increases in
energy efficiency levels, without regard to the particular design
options used to achieve such increases; and (3) the cost-assessment (or
reverse engineering) approach, which provides ``bottom-up''
manufacturing cost assessments for achieving various levels of
increased efficiency, based on detailed cost data for parts and
material, labor, shipping/packaging, and investment for models that
operate at particular efficiency levels.
1. Baselines
For each established equipment class, DOE selects a baseline model
as a reference point against which any changes resulting from energy
conservation standards can be measured. The baseline model in each
equipment class represents the characteristics of common or typical
equipment in that class. Typically, a baseline model is one that meets
the current minimum energy conservation standard and provides basic
customer utility.
Consistent with this analytical approach, DOE tentatively plans to
consider the current minimum energy conservation standards (which were
required for compliance starting on February 10, 2017) to establish the
baseline model for each equipment class. The current standards for each
equipment class are based on ballast efficiency. The current standards
for MHLFs are found in 10 CFR 431.326.
Issue D.1: DOE requests feedback on whether using the current
energy conservation standards for MHLFs provide an appropriate baseline
efficiency level for DOE to use in evaluating whether to amend the
current energy conservation standards for any of the equipment classes
regulated by DOE. DOE requests data and suggestions to select the
baseline models in order to better evaluate amending energy
conservation standards for this equipment. In particular, DOE requests
comment on the most common wattages and features of MHLFs sold today.
Issue D.2: DOE requests feedback on the appropriate baseline models
for any newly analyzed equipment classes for which standards are not
currently in place or for the contemplated combined equipment classes,
as discussed in II.B.1 of this document.
2. Efficiency Levels and Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
For the 2014 MHLF ECS final rule, DOE did not analyze all 24 MHLF
equipment classes. Rather, DOE focused on 12 equipment classes and then
scaled the ELs from representative equipment classes to those equipment
classes it did not analyze directly (see the end of this section for
more detail on the scaling factor). DOE did not directly analyze the
equipment classes containing only fixtures tested at 480 V because
their low shipment volume (as indicated by manufacturer interviews)
would not make them representative of the MHLF market. See 79 FR 7767
(February 10, 2014) and chapter 5 of the final rule technical support
document (``TSD'') for that rulemaking.
[[Page 31238]]
In the 2014 MHLF ECS final rule, after identifying more efficient
substitutes for each baseline model, DOE developed ELs. DOE developed
ELs based on: (1) The design options associated with the equipment
class studied, and (2) the max-tech level for that class. In the 2014
MHLF ECS final rule, EL1 represented a moderately higher-efficiency
magnetic ballast, and EL2 represented the max-tech magnetic ballast.
EL3 represented the least efficient commercially available electronic
ballast, and EL4 represented the max-tech level for all ballasts
incorporated into MHLFs. 79 FR 7776 (February 10, 2014). In the 2014
MHLF ECS final rule, DOE adopted the ELs representing the highest
efficiency level available for magnetic ballasts that resulted in a
positive NPV while also maintaining the same ELs for both indoor and
outdoor fixtures.
As part of DOE's analysis, the maximum available efficiency level
is the highest efficiency unit currently available on the market. The
maximum available efficiencies for the 12 analyzed equipment classes
from the 2014 MHLF ECS final rule are included in Table II.4 of this
RFI.
Table II.4--Maximum Efficiency Levels From 2014 MHLF ECS Final Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designed to be operated with Indoor/outdoor.... Input voltage type Maximum efficiency level
lamps of the following rated
lamp wattage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>=50 W and <=100 W.............. Indoor............ All others........ 1/(1 + 0.360 x P[caret](-0.297))
>=50 W and <=100 W.............. Outdoor........... All others........
>100 W and <150 W *............. Indoor............ All others........ 1/(1 + 0.360 x P[caret](-0.297))
>100 W and <150 W *............. Outdoor........... All others........
>=150 W ** and <=250 W.......... Indoor............ All others........ 1/(1 + 0.360 x P[caret](-0.297))
>=150 W ** and <=250 W.......... Outdoor........... All others........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>250 W and <=500 W.............. Indoor............ All others........ 1/(1 + 0.360 x P[caret](-0.297))
>250 W and <=500 W.............. Outdoor........... All others........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>500 W and <=1,000 W............ Indoor............ All others........ >500 W and <=750 >750 W and <=1,000
W: 0.910. W: 0.000104 x P +
0.832
>500 W and <=1,000 W............ Outdoor........... All others........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>1,000 W and <=2,000 W.......... Indoor............ All others........ 0.936
>1,000 W and <=2,000 W.......... Outdoor........... All others........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Includes 150 W MHLFs exempted by EISA 2007, which are MHLFs rated only for 150 W lamps; rated for use in wet
locations, as specified by the NFPA 70-2002, section 410.4(A); and containing a ballast that is rated to
operate at ambient air temperatures above 50 [deg]C, as specified by UL 1029-2007.
** Excludes 150 W MHLFs exempted by EISA 2007, which are MHLFs rated only for 150 W lamps; rated for use in wet
locations, as specified by the NFPA 70-2002, section 410.4(A); and containing a ballast that is rated to
operate at ambient air temperatures above 50 [deg]C, as specified by UL 1029-2007.
DOE defines a max-tech efficiency level to represent the
theoretical maximum possible efficiency if all available design options
are incorporated in the equipment. In many cases, the max-tech
efficiency level is not commercially available because it is not
economically feasible. In the 2014 MHLF ECS final rule, all max-tech
levels analyzed were commercially available. 79 FR 7777 (February 10,
2014). Since the 2014 MHLF ECS final rule, DOE found metal halide
ballasts that indicate ballast efficiency could be up to 0.8 percent
more efficient in the 50 W to 500 W range, up to 3.3 percent more
efficient in the 500 W to 1,000 W range, and up to 1.3 percent more
efficient in the 1,000 W to 2,000 W range than the values indicated in
Table II.4 of this RFI.
Issue D.3: DOE requests shipment data that indicate the breakdown
over the last five years (or longer) between MHLFs with electronic
ballasts and those with magnetic ballasts.
Issue D.4: DOE seeks input on whether the increased maximum
available efficiency levels (discussed in the previous paragraph) are
appropriate and technologically feasible for potential consideration as
possible energy conservation standards for the equipment at issue--and
if not, why not. DOE also requests feedback on whether the maximum
available efficiencies discussed in the previous paragraph are
representative of those for the other MHLF equipment classes not
directly analyzed in the 2014 MHLF ECS final rule. If the range of
possible efficiencies is different for the other equipment classes not
directly analyzed, what alternative approaches should DOE consider
using for those equipment classes and why?
Issue D.5: DOE seeks feedback on what design options would be
incorporated at a max-tech efficiency level, and the efficiencies
associated with those levels. As part of this request, DOE also seeks
information as to whether there are limitations on the use of certain
combinations of design options that would be necessary to achieve the
max-tech efficiency level.
After developing ELs, DOE then scales the ELs from representative
equipment classes to those equipment classes it does not analyze
directly. In the 2014 MHLF ECS final rule, DOE developed a scaling
factor by comparing quad-voltage ballasts over all representative
wattages to their 480 V ballast counterparts using catalog data. DOE
found that the difference in efficiency between ballasts tested at 480
V and ballasts tested at other input voltages varied based on the
wattage of the ballast. DOE concluded a scaling factor of 2.0 percent
(in the form of a subtraction of 2 percent from the representative
equipment class ELs) to be appropriate from 50 W-150 W, a scaling
factor of 1.0 percent to be appropriate from 150 W to 1,000 W, and a
scaling factor of 0.0 percent (i.e., no reduction) to be appropriate
from 1,001 W to 2,000 W. 79 FR 7780-7781 (February 10, 2014).
Issue D.6: DOE requests feedback on how the performance of ballasts
that are tested at 480 V compares to ballasts of the same wattage and
indoor/outdoor classification that are in other equipment classes.
[[Page 31239]]
3. Manufacturer Production Costs and Manufacturing Selling Price
As described at the beginning of this section, the main outputs of
the engineering analysis are cost-efficiency relationships that
describe the estimated increases in manufacturer production cost
associated with higher-efficiency equipment for the analyzed equipment
classes. For the 2014 MHLF ECS final rule, DOE determined the MPC
either through a teardown or retail pricing analysis. DOE generated
ballast and empty fixture (i.e., physical enclosure and optics) MPCs
separately and then combined the prices, as well as any relevant cost
adders based on ballast and fixture type (e.g., electronic or magnetic
ballast, indoor or outdoor fixture), to create an overall MHLF MPC.
Issue D.7: DOE requests feedback on how manufacturers would
incorporate the technology options listed in Table II.2 to increase
energy efficiency in MHLFs beyond the baseline. This includes
information on the sequencing manufacturers would follow when
incorporating the different technologies to incrementally improve MHLF
efficiency. DOE also requests feedback on whether increased energy
efficiency would lead to other design changes that would not occur
otherwise. DOE is interested in information regarding any potential
impact of design options on a manufacturer's ability to incorporate
additional functions or attributes in response to customer demand. DOE
is also interested in the extent to which (if at all) any design
changes may adversely impact the ability of a given MHLF to operate
with currently compatible applications.
Issue D.8: DOE seeks input on the increase in MPC associated with
incorporating each particular design option (e.g., improved core
steel). Specifically, DOE is interested in whether and how the costs
estimated for design options in the 2014 MHLF ECS final rule have
changed since the time of that analysis (see chapter 5 of the 2014 MHLF
ECS TSD). DOE also requests information on the investments necessary to
incorporate specific design options, including, but not limited to,
costs related to new or modified tooling (if any), materials,
engineering and development efforts to implement each design option,
and manufacturing/production impacts.
Issue D.9: DOE requests comment on whether certain design options
may not be applicable to (or incompatible with) certain equipment
classes.
Issue D.10: DOE seeks input on any relevant cost adders necessary
based on ballast and fixture type (e.g., electronic or magnetic
ballast, indoor or outdoor fixture). Specifically, DOE is interested in
whether and how the incremental costs for electronically ballasted
fixtures in the 2014 MHLF ECS final rule have changed since the time of
that analysis.
To account for manufacturers' non-production costs and profit
margin, DOE applies a non-production cost multiplier (the manufacturer
markup) to the MPC. The resulting manufacturer selling price (``MSP'')
is the price at which the manufacturer distributes a unit into
commerce. The 2014 MHLF ECS final rule used separate markups for
ballast manufacturers (1.47) and fixture manufacturers (1.58). DOE also
assumed that fixture manufacturers apply the 1.58 markup to the
ballasts used in their fixtures rather than to only the empty fixtures.
In aggregate, the markup also accounted for the different markets
served by fixture manufacturers. The 1.47 markup for ballast
manufacturers applied only to ballasts sold to fixture original
equipment manufacturers (``OEMs'') directly impacted by this
rulemaking. For the purpose of the life cycle cost (``LCC'') and
national impact analysis (``NIA''), DOE assumed a higher markup of 1.60
for ballasts that are sold to distributors for the replacement market.
See chapter 5 of the 2014 MHLF ECS final rule TSD for more information
regarding manufacturer markups.
Issue D.11: DOE requests feedback on whether its assumptions
regarding manufacturer markups and the values of the markups (1.47 and
1.58) are appropriate for ballast manufacturers and fixture
manufacturers, respectively--with the 1.58 markup applying to fixtures
with and without ballasts). If they are appropriate, why--and if not,
why not? If they are not appropriate, what should they be and why? DOE
also requests the same feedback on the higher markup of 1.60 assumed
for ballasts sold to distributors for the replacement market.
E. Markups Analysis
By applying markups to the MSPs estimated in the engineering
analysis, DOE estimates the amounts customers would pay for baseline
and more-efficient equipment. At each step in the distribution channel,
companies mark up the price of the equipment to cover business costs
and profit margin. Identification of the appropriate markups and the
determination of customer equipment price depend on the type of
distribution channels through which the equipment move from
manufacturer to customer. Table II.5 provides the portion of equipment
passing through different distribution channels, and Table II.6
provides the associated markups used in the 2014 MHLF ECS final rule.
Table II.5--Metal Halide Lamp Fixture Distribution Channels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outdoor Indoor
Channel Markups fixtures (%) fixtures (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A...................................... Wholesaler + Contractor + Sales Tax.... 60 100
B...................................... Contractor + Sales Tax................. 20 0
C...................................... Sales Tax.............................. 20 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II.6--Summary of Fixture Distribution Channel Markups
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wholesaler distribution Utility distribution
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Via wholesaler and contractor Direct to end user
Baseline Incremental ---------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline Incremental Baseline Incremental
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electrical Wholesaler (Distributor)..................... 1.23 1.05 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Utility................................................. N/A N/A 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Contractor or Installer................................. 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 N/A N/A
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 31240]]
Sales Tax............................................... 1.07
1.07
1.07
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall................................................. 1.49 1.27 1.21 1.21 1.07 1.07
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue E.1: DOE requests data on the markups per distribution
channel as well as the portion of equipment sold that pass through each
distribution channel.
F. Energy Use Analysis
As part of the rulemaking process, DOE conducts an energy use
analysis to identify how equipment is used by customers, and thereby
determine the energy savings potential of energy efficiency
improvements. To develop annual energy use estimates, DOE multiplies
annual usage (in hours per year) by the lamp-and-ballast system input
power (in watts). DOE characterizes representative lamp-and-ballast
systems in the engineering analysis, which provide measured input power
ratings.
In the 2014 MHLF ECS final rule, to characterize the country's
average use of fixtures for a typical year, DOE developed annual
operating hour distributions by sector, using data published in the
2010 U.S. Lighting Market Characterization (``LMC''), the Commercial
Building Energy Consumption Survey (``CBECS''), and the Manufacturer
Energy Consumption Survey (``MECS''). 79 FR 7784 (February 10, 2014).
In addition, DOE assumed that MHLFs operate at full output (no
dimming). Table II.7 provides the operating hours from the 2014 MHLF
ECS final rule.
Table II.7--Average Annual Metal Halide Lamp Fixture Operating Hours by
Sector
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average
annual
Sector operating
hours (h/
yr)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial.................................................. 3,615
Industrial.................................................. 6,113
Outdoor Stationary.......................................... 4,399
Sports Lighting (>1,000 W).................................. 350
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue F.1: DOE seeks data indicating whether its assumptions that
MHLFs operate at full output and do not dim are reasonably accurate for
estimating MHLF average annual operating hours.
Issue F.2: DOE seeks feedback on the average annual operating hours
for MHLFs by sector, and whether the values in Table II.7 continue to
be adequate for future potential analyses.
G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Analysis
DOE conducts the LCC and PBP analysis to evaluate the economic
effects of potential energy conservation standards for MHLFs on
individual customers. For any given efficiency level, DOE measures the
PBP and the change in LCC relative to an estimated baseline level. The
LCC is the total customer expense over the life of the equipment,
consisting of purchase, installation, and operating costs (expenses for
energy use, maintenance, and repair). Inputs to the calculation of
total installed cost include the cost of the equipment--which includes
MSPs, distribution channel markups, and sales taxes--and installation
costs. Inputs to the calculation of operating expenses include annual
energy consumption, energy prices and price projections, repair and
maintenance costs, equipment lifetimes, discount rates, and the year
that compliance with new and amended standards is required.
In the 2014 MHLF ECS final rule, DOE defined equipment lifetime as
the age (in hours in operation) when a fixture, ballast, or lamp is
retired from service. 79 FR 7787 (February 10, 2014). Table II.8 to
Table II.10 provide the operating life estimates for fixtures,
ballasts, and lamps from the 2014 MHLF ECS final rule.
Table II.8--Fixture Operating Life
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indoor Outdoor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
20 years............................ 25 years.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II.9--Ballast Operating Life
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Magnetic Electronic
------------------------------------------------------------------------
50,000 hours........................ 40,000 hours.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II.10--Lamp Operating Life
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lamp wattage Rated life (hours)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
70 W.............................................. 12,841
150 W............................................. 13,882
250 W............................................. 16,785
400 W............................................. 20,720
1,000 W........................................... 11,714
1,500 W........................................... 3,375
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue G.1: DOE seeks feedback on whether the metal halide fixture,
ballast, and lamp operating lifetime values in Table II.8, Table II.9,
and Table II.10 are valid for use in additional analyses and if not,
why not? If DOE's operating lifetime values are inadequate, what values
should it use instead and why? Please provide relevant data in support
of whatever alternative values that DOE should use in lieu of its
values listed in these tables.
In the 2014 MHLF ECS final rule, DOE used a combination of RS-Means
\7\ and Sweets \8\ labor rates to estimate the time to install a MHLF,
ballast, or a lamp. Labor rates are the sum of the wage rate, employer-
paid fringe benefits (i.e., vacation pay, employer-paid health, and
welfare costs), and any appropriate training and industry advancement
funds costs. 79 FR 7785 (February 10, 2014). Table II.11 to Table II.13
provide the labor costs from the 2014 MHLF ECS final rule, expressed in
2012$, as well as the labor costs updated to 2018$.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ R.S. Means Company, Inc. 2010 RS Means Electrical Cost Data.
2010.
\8\ Sweets-McGraw Hill Construction. Sweets Electrical Cost
Guide 2013. 2012.
\9\ Labor costs were updated to 2018$ using a ratio of the
median hourly wage for ``49-0000 Installation, Maintenance, and
Repair Occupations'' in May 2018 compared to May 2012. See https://www.bls.gov/oes/tables.htm.
[[Page 31241]]
Table II.11--Metal Halide Lamp Fixture Installation/Replacement Labor Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indoor installation cost Outdoor installation cost
Equipment class ---------------------------------------------------------------
2012$ 2018$ 2012$ 2018$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
70 W............................................ $221.32 $247.03 $395.12 $441.02
150 W........................................... 230.42 257.19 371.94 415.15
250 W........................................... 241.80 269.89 499.63 557.67
400 W........................................... 281.32 314.00 542.80 605.86
1,000 W......................................... 327.15 365.15 625.70 698.39
1,500 W......................................... 384.04 428.65 637.40 711.45
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II.12--Metal Halide Ballast Replacement Labor Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indoor installation cost Outdoor installation cost
Equipment class ---------------------------------------------------------------
2012$ 2018$ 2012$ 2018$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
70 W............................................ $138.58 $154.68 $278.43 $310.77
150 W........................................... 139.65 155.87 279.33 311.78
250 W........................................... 140.99 157.37 280.45 313.03
400 W........................................... 143.00 159.61 282.14 314.92
1,000 W......................................... 151.03 168.57 288.89 322.45
1,500 W......................................... 157.72 176.04 294.51 328.72
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II.13--Metal Halide Lamp Replacement Labor Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indoor installation cost Outdoor installation cost
Equipment class ---------------------------------------------------------------
2012$ 2018$ 2012$ 2018$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
70 W............................................ $90.96 $101.53 $238.41 $266.11
150 W........................................... 91.49 102.12 238.86 266.61
250 W........................................... 92.16 102.87 239.42 267.23
400 W........................................... 93.17 103.99 240.27 268.18
1,000 W......................................... 97.18 108.47 243.64 271.94
1,500 W......................................... 100.53 112.21 246.45 275.08
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue G.2: DOE seeks feedback on the costs associated with
installing a MHLF, replacing a metal halide lamp ballast, and replacing
a metal halide lamp by equipment class as well as location (indoor
versus outdoor).
H. Shipments
DOE develops shipments forecasts of MHLFs to calculate the national
impacts of potential amended energy conservation standards on energy
consumption, net present value (``NPV''), and future manufacturer cash
flows. Using a three-step process, the 2014 MHLF ECS final rule
described DOE's development of the shipments portion of the NIA
spreadsheet, a model that uses historical data as a basis for
projecting future fixture shipments. First, DOE used U.S. Census Bureau
fixture shipment data, National Electrical Manufacturers Association
(``NEMA'') lamp shipment data, and NEMA ballast sales trends to
estimate historical shipments of each fixture type analyzed. Second,
DOE estimated an installed stock for each fixture in 2017 based on the
average service lifetime of each fixture type. Third, DOE developed
annual shipment projections for 2017-2046 by modeling fixture
purchasing events, such as replacement and new construction, and
applying growth rate, replacement rate, and alternative technologies
penetration rate assumptions. 79 FR 7788 (February 10, 2014).
In the 2014 MHLF ECS final rule, DOE modeled two declining shipment
scenarios (known as ``low'' and ``high'' scenarios) that started
declining at different rates post-2015. DOE stated in the 2014 MHLF ECS
final rule that DOE believed that shipments for MHLFs peaked somewhere
between 2010 and 2015, as fixtures with other lighting technologies
began to significantly displace the use of MHLFs. 79 FR 7789 (February
10, 2014). Table II.14 provides the shipment projections from the 2014
MHLF ECS final rule for the years 2017 and 2018.
Table II.14--Projected Shipments From 2014 MHLF ECS Final Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017 2018
Equipment class ---------------------------------------------------------------
Low High Low High
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
70 W............................................ 630,977 645,961 603,506 629,500
150 W........................................... 266,897 273,235 255,277 266,273
250 W........................................... 572,608 581,854 550,906 567,026
400 W........................................... 716,351 727,317 689,759 708,783
1,000 W......................................... 218,347 222,806 208,841 217,836
1,500 W......................................... 11,492 11,765 10,992 11,465
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 31242]]
Issue H.1: DOE seeks shipment data on MHLF and metal halide lamp
ballasts shipped over the last 5-year period, separated by wattage. DOE
also seeks feedback on how the projected shipments in Table II.14
compare to actual shipments of MHLFs in these years.
NEMA periodically releases lamp indices. Although the indices do
not contain ballast data, data related to lamp shipments are directly
related to ballast shipments. Virtually all metal halide ballasts
operate only one lamp; thus, changes in metal halide lamp shipments are
indicative of trends related to metal halide ballast and fixture
shipments. In a recent HID lamp index report, NEMA stated that
shipments for metal halide lamps in the fourth quarter of 2017
decreased by 17.6 percent compared to the same period the previous
year.\10\ NEMA's data point to a continuing decline in metal halide
lamp shipments--with 2016 shipments being roughly less than 60 percent
of those in 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ HID Lamp Indexes Decline in Fourth Quarter 2017 Compared to
Fourth Quarter 2016. See https://www.nema.org/Intelligence/Indices/Pages/HID-Lamp-Indexes-Decline-in-Fourth-Quarter-2017-Compared-to-Fourth-Quarter-2016.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue H.2: DOE seeks data on MHLF shipments, metal halide lamp
ballast shipments, as well as any information relevant to the
relationship between metal halide lamp shipments and ballast or fixture
shipments.
I. National Impact Analysis
The purpose of the NIA is to estimate the aggregate economic
impacts of potential efficiency standards at the national level. The
NIA assesses the NES and the national NPV of total customer costs and
savings that would be expected to result from new or amended standards
at specific efficiency levels.
In the 2014 MHLF ECS final rule, DOE evaluated the impacts of new
and amended standards for MHLFs by comparing ``no new standards''-case
projections with standards-case projections. The no new standards-case
projections characterize energy use and customer costs for each
equipment class in the absence of new or amended energy conservation
standards. DOE compared these projections with projections
characterizing the market for each equipment class if DOE adopted new
or amended standards at specific energy efficiency levels (i.e., the
trial standard levels (``TSLs'') or standards cases) for that class. In
characterizing the no new standards and standards cases, DOE considered
historical shipments, the mix of efficiencies sold in the absence of
amended standards, and how that mix may change over time. 79 FR 7788
(February 10, 2014). In the 2014 MHLF ECS final rule, DOE assumed no
rebound effect for lighting. Id. The rebound effect refers to the
tendency of a customer to respond to the cost savings associated with
more efficient equipment in a manner that leads to marginally greater
equipment usage, thereby diminishing some portion of anticipated
benefits related to improved efficiency.
Issue I.1: DOE seeks comment and information on whether a rebound
rate of 0 percent is appropriate for MHLFs.
As stated earlier, DOE understands that the MHLF market is
declining. For example, fluorescent and light-emitting diode (``LED'')
light fixtures are displacing MHLFs in many applications. DOE
understands that, as a result of an amended energy conservation
standard, customers might opt to purchase LED light fixtures in place
of MHLFs in greater numbers.
Issue I.2: DOE seeks information related to the potential variables
that could cause customers to opt to purchase other technologies (such
as LED or fluorescent light fixtures) instead of MHLFs. DOE
specifically seeks input on the magnitude of the change in efficiency,
first cost, payback, or other variables that could cause customers to
opt for an alternate technology if energy conservation standards for
MHLFs were amended.
J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
The purpose of the manufacturer impact analysis (``MIA'') is to
estimate the financial impact of amended energy conservation standards
on manufacturers of MHLFs, and to evaluate the potential impact of such
standards on direct employment and manufacturing capacity. The MIA
includes both quantitative and qualitative aspects. The quantitative
part of the MIA primarily relies on the Government Regulatory Impact
Model, an industry cash-flow model adapted for the equipment in this
rulemaking, with the key output of industry net present value. The
qualitative part of the MIA addresses the potential impacts of energy
conservation standards on manufacturing capacity and industry
competition, as well as factors such as equipment characteristics,
impacts on particular subgroups of firms, and important market and
equipment trends.
As part of the MIA, DOE intends to analyze impacts of amended
energy conservation standards on subgroups of manufacturers of covered
equipment, including small business manufacturers. DOE uses the Small
Business Administration's (``SBA's'') small business size standards to
determine whether manufacturers qualify as small businesses, which are
listed by the applicable North American Industry Classification System
(``NAICS'') code.\11\ Manufacturing of MHLFs is classified under NAICS
335122, ``Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional Electric Lighting
Fixture Manufacturing,'' and the SBA sets a threshold of 500 employees
or less for a domestic entity to be considered as a small business.
Manufacturing of metal halide ballasts is classified under NAICS
335311, ``Power, Distribution and Specialty Transformer
Manufacturing,'' and the SBA sets a threshold of 750 employees or less
for a domestic entity to be considered as a small business. The
employee threshold includes all employees in a business' parent company
and any other subsidiaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Available online at: http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One aspect of assessing manufacturer burden involves looking at the
cumulative impact of multiple DOE standards and the product-specific
regulatory actions of other Federal agencies that affect the
manufacturers of a covered product or equipment. While any one
regulation may not impose a significant burden on manufacturers, the
combined effects of several existing or impending regulations may have
serious consequences for some manufacturers, groups of manufacturers,
or an entire industry. Assessing the impact of a single regulation may
overlook this cumulative regulatory burden. In addition to energy
conservation standards, other regulations can significantly affect
manufacturers' financial operations. Multiple regulations affecting the
same manufacturer can strain profits and lead companies to abandon
product lines or markets with lower expected future returns than
competing products. For these reasons, DOE conducts an analysis of
cumulative regulatory burden as part of its rulemakings pertaining to
appliance efficiency.
Issue J.1: To the extent feasible, DOE seeks the names and contact
information of any domestic or foreign-based manufacturers that
distribute MHLFs and metal halide ballasts in the United States.
Issue J.2: DOE identified small businesses as a subgroup of
manufacturers that could be disproportionally impacted by amended
energy conservation standards. DOE requests the names and contact
information of small business manufacturers, as defined by the SBA's
[[Page 31243]]
size thresholds, of MHLFs and metal halide ballasts that distribute
equipment in the United States. In addition, DOE requests comment on
any other manufacturer subgroups that could be disproportionally
impacted by amended energy conservation standards. DOE requests
feedback on any potential approaches that could be considered to
address impacts on manufacturers, including small businesses.
Issue J.3: DOE requests information regarding the cumulative
regulatory burden impacts on manufacturers of MHLFs and metal halide
ballasts associated with (1) other DOE standards applying to different
equipment that these manufacturers may also make and (2) product-
specific regulatory actions of other Federal agencies. DOE also
requests comment on its methodology for computing cumulative regulatory
burden and whether there are any flexibilities it can consider that
would reduce this burden while remaining consistent with the
requirements of EPCA.
K. Other Energy Conservation Standards Topics
1. Market Failures
In the field of economics, a market failure is a situation in which
the market outcome does not maximize societal welfare. Such an outcome
would result in unrealized potential welfare. DOE welcomes comment on
any aspect of market failures, especially those in the context of
amended energy conservation standards for MHLFs.
2. Market-Based Approaches to Energy Conservation Standards
As part of its regulatory reform efforts, DOE published a request
for information discussing key issues and requesting feedback on
market-based approaches to energy conservation standards. 82 FR 56181
(November 28, 2017). DOE requests comment on how market-based
approaches to energy conservation standards might impact standards for
these products, and specifically seeks comment on any considerations
with respect to MHLFs.
In addition to the issues identified earlier in this document, DOE
welcomes comment on any other aspect of energy conservation standards
for MHLFs not already addressed by the specific areas identified in
this document.
III. Submission of Comments
DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by August
15, 2019, comments and information on matters addressed in this notice
and on other matters relevant to DOE's consideration of amended energy
conservations standards for MHLFs. After the close of the comment
period, DOE will review the public comments received and may begin
collecting data and conducting the analyses discussed in this RFI.
Submitting comments via http://www.regulations.gov. The http://www.regulations.gov web page requires you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE
Building Technologies Office staff only. Your contact information will
not be publicly viewable except for your first and last names,
organization name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any).
If your comment is not processed properly because of technical
difficulties, DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your
comment.
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you
include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment.
Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not
be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your
comment. Persons viewing comments will see only first and last names,
organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any
documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to http://www.regulations.gov information for which
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as
Confidential Business Information (``CBI'')). Comments submitted
through http://www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments
received through the website will waive any CBI claims for the
information submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the
Confidential Business Information section.
DOE processes submissions made through http://www.regulations.gov
before posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of
being submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being
processed simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to
several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that http://www.regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your
comment.
Submitting comments via email, hand delivery, or mail. Comments and
documents submitted via email, hand delivery, or mail also will be
posted to http://www.regulations.gov. If you do not want your personal
contact information to be publicly viewable, do not include it in your
comment or any accompanying documents. Instead, provide your contact
information on a cover letter. Include your first and last names, email
address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover
letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any
comments.
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data,
documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via mail or hand
delivery, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible. It is not
necessary to submit printed copies. No telefacsimiles (faxes) will be
accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that
are not secured, written in English and free of any defects or viruses.
Documents should not contain special characters or any form of
encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature
of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting
time.
Confidential Business Information. According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any
person submitting information that he or she believes to be
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via
email, postal mail, or hand delivery two well-marked copies: One copy
of the document marked confidential including all the information
believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked ``non-
confidential'' with the information believed to be confidential
deleted. Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if feasible. DOE
will make its own determination about 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 by or available from other sources, (4) whether the
information has previously been made
[[Page 31244]]
available to others without obligation concerning its confidentiality,
(5) an explanation of the competitive injury to the submitting person
which would result from public disclosure, (6) when such information
might lose its confidential character due to the passage of time, and
(7) why disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public
interest.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public
docket, without change and as received, including any personal
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be
exempt from public disclosure).
DOE considers public participation to be a very important part of
the process for developing energy conservation standards. DOE actively
encourages the participation and interaction of the public during the
comment period in each stage of the rulemaking process. Interactions
with and between members of the public provide a balanced discussion of
the issues and assist DOE in the rulemaking process. Anyone who wishes
to be added to the DOE mailing list to receive future notices and
information about this rulemaking or would like to request a public
meeting should contact Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff
at (202) 287-1445 or via email at
[email protected].
Signed in Washington, DC, on June 19, 2019.
Alexander Fitzsimmons,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 2019-14004 Filed 6-28-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P