[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 104 (Tuesday, May 31, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32329-32351]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-11437]
[[Page 32329]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 430
[EERE-2019-BT-STD-0030]
RIN 1904-AE40
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
General Service Fluorescent Lamps
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of proposed determination and request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''),
prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products
and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including general
service fluorescent lamps (``GSFLs''). EPCA also requires the U.S.
Department of Energy (``DOE'') to periodically determine whether more-
stringent, amended standards would be technologically feasible and
economically justified, and would result in significant energy savings.
In this notice of proposed determination (``NOPD''), DOE has initially
determined that amended energy conservation standards for GSFLs do not
need to be amended and requests comment on this proposed determination
and the associated analyses and results.
DATES:
Meeting: DOE will hold a webinar on Monday, July 11, 2022, from
1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. See section VII, ``Public Participation,'' for
webinar registration information, participant instructions, and
information about the capabilities available to webinar participants.
Comments: Written comments and information are requested and will
be accepted on or before August 1, 2022.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov, under docket
number EERE-2019-BT-STD-0030. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments. Alternatively, comments may be submitted by email to:
[email protected]. Include docket number EERE-
2019-BT-STD-0030 in the subject line of the message.
No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this
process, see section VII of this document.
Although DOE has routinely accepted public comment submissions
through a variety of mechanisms, including the Federal eRulemaking
Portal, email, postal mail and hand delivery/courier, the Department
has found it necessary to make temporary modifications to the comment
submission process in light of the ongoing coronavirus 2019 (``COVID-
19'') pandemic. DOE is currently suspending receipt of public comments
via postal mail and hand delivery/courier. If a commenter finds that
this change poses an undue hardship, please contact Appliance Standards
Program staff at (202) 586-1445 to discuss the need for alternative
arrangements. Once the COVID-19 pandemic health emergency is resolved,
DOE anticipates resuming all of its regular options for public comment
submission, including postal mail and hand delivery/courier.
Docket: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public
meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting
documents/materials, is available for review at www.regulations.gov.
All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov
index. However, not all documents listed in the index may be publicly
available, such as information that is exempt from public disclosure.
The docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2019-BT-STD-0030. The docket web page contains
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments,
in the docket. See section VII, ``Public Participation,'' for further
information on how to submit comments through www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dr. Stephanie Johnson, 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) 287-1943. Email: [email protected].
Ms. Celia Sher, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121.
Telephone: (202) 287-6122. Email: [email protected].
For further information on how to submit a comment or review other
public comments and the docket contact the Appliance and Equipment
Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Synopsis of the Proposed Determination
II. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
1. Current Standards
2. History of Standards Rulemakings for GSFLs
C. Deviation from Appendix A
III. General Discussion
A. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage
B. Test Procedure
C. Technological Feasibility
1. General
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
D. Energy Savings
1. Determination of Savings
2. Significance of Savings
E. Cost Effectiveness
F. Further Considerations
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments
A. Overall
B. Market and Technology Assessment
1. Scope of Coverage
2. Technology Options
3. Screening Analysis
a. Screened-Out Technologies
b. Remaining Technologies
4. Product Classes
a. Existing Product Classes
b. Summary
C. Engineering Analysis
1. Efficiency Analysis
a. Representative Product Classes
b. Baseline Lamps
c. More Efficacious Substitutes
d. Efficacy Levels
e. Lamp-and-Ballast Systems
f. Scaling to Other Product Classes
2. Cost Analysis
D. Energy Use Analysis
E. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
F. Shipments Analysis
G. National Energy Savings
1. Product Efficiency Trends
2. National Energy Savings
3. Net Present Value Analysis
V. Analytical Results and Conclusions
A. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers
B. National Impact Analysis
1. Significance of Energy Savings
2. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits
C. Proposed Determination
1. Technological Feasibility
2. Cost Effectiveness
3. Significant Conservation of Energy
4. Further Considerations
5. Summary
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 and 13563
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
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
[[Page 32330]]
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
VII. Public Participation
A. Participation in the Webinar
D. Submission of Comments
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Synopsis of the Proposed Determination
Title III, Part B \1\ of EPCA,\2\ established the Energy
Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. (42
U.S.C. 6291-6309) These products include GSFLs, the subject of this
NOPD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part B was redesignated Part A.
\2\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec.
27, 2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact
Parts A and A-1 of EPCA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE is issuing this NOPD pursuant to the EPCA requirement that not
later than 6 years after issuance of any final rule establishing or
amending a standard, DOE must publish either a notification of
determination that standards for the product do not need to be amended,
or a notice of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'') including new proposed
energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as
appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m))
For this proposed determination, DOE analyzed GSFLs subject to
standards specified in 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (``CFR'')
part 430, subpart A, Sec. 430.2.
DOE first analyzed the technological feasibility of more energy
efficient GSFLs. For those GSFLs for which DOE determined higher
standards to be technologically feasible, DOE estimated energy savings
that would result from potential energy conservation standards by
conducting a national impact analysis (``NIA''). DOE evaluated whether
higher standards would be cost effective by conducting life-cycle cost
(``LCC'') and payback period (``PBP'') analyses, and estimated the net
present value (``NPV'') of the total costs and benefits experienced by
consumers.
Based on the results of the analyses, summarized in section V of
this document, DOE has tentatively determined that current standards
for GSFLs do not need to be amended.
II. Introduction
The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority
underlying this proposed determination, as well as some of the
historical background relevant to the establishment of standards for
GSFLs.
A. Authority
EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number
of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part
B of EPCA established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer
Products Other Than Automobiles. These products include GSFLs, the
subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(14)) EPCA prescribed
energy conservation standards for these products (42 U.S.C.
6295(i)(1)(B)), and directs DOE to conduct future rulemaking to
determine whether to amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(3)-(5))
The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of
four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of 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).
Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to
develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use,
or estimated annual operating cost of each covered product. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(3)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(r)) Manufacturers of covered products
must use the prescribed DOE test procedure as the basis for certifying
to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy
conservation standards adopted under EPCA and when making
representations to the public regarding the energy use or efficiency of
those products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) Similarly,
DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the products
comply with standards adopted pursuant to EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The
DOE test procedures for GSFLs appear at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B,
appendix R.
Federal energy conservation requirements generally supersede State
laws or regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling,
and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c)) DOE may, however, grant waivers
of Federal preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in
accordance with the procedures and other provisions set forth under
EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C. 6297(d))
Pursuant to the amendments contained in the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007 (``EISA 2007''), Public Law 110-140, any final
rule for new or amended energy conservation standards promulgated after
July 1, 2010, is required to address standby mode and off mode energy
use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) Specifically, when DOE adopts a standard
for a covered product after that date, it must, if justified by the
criteria for adoption of standards under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)),
incorporate standby mode and off mode energy use into a single
standard, or, if that is not feasible, adopt a separate standard for
such energy use for that product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)(A)-(B)) DOE
has determined that standby mode and off mode do not apply to GSFLs and
that their energy use is accounted for entirely in the active mode.
Therefore, DOE is not addressing standby and off modes, and will only
address active mode in this proposed determination. In this analysis
DOE considers only active mode in its determination of whether energy
conservation standards need to be amended.
DOE must periodically review its already established energy
conservation standards for a covered product no later than 6 years from
the issuance of a final rule establishing or amending a standard for a
covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)) This 6-year look-back provision
requires that DOE publish either a determination that standards do not
need to be amended or a NOPR, including new proposed standards
(proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1))
EPCA further provides that, not later than 3 years after the issuance
of a final determination not to amend standards, DOE must publish
either a notification of determination that standards for the product
do not need to be amended, or a NOPR including new proposed energy
conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate).
(42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(3)(B)) DOE must make the analysis on which a
determination is based publicly available and provide an opportunity
for written comment. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(2))
A determination that amended standards are not needed must be based
on consideration of whether amended standards will result in
significant conservation of energy, are technologically feasible, and
are cost effective. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2))
Additionally, any new or amended energy conservation standard
prescribed by the Secretary for
[[Page 32331]]
any type (or class) of covered product shall be designed to achieve the
maximum improvement in energy efficiency which the Secretary determines
is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(A)) Among the factors DOE considers in evaluating whether a
proposed standard level is economically justified includes whether the
proposed standard at that level is cost effective, as defined under 42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II). Under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II), an
evaluation of cost effectiveness requires DOE to consider savings in
operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered
products in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price,
initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the covered products that
are likely to result from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2) and 42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE is publishing this NOPD in
satisfaction of the 6-year review requirement in EPCA.
B. Background
1. Current Standards
In a final rule published on January 26, 2015, DOE prescribed the
current energy conservation standards for GSFLs. 80 FR 4042 (``January
2015 final rule''). These standards are set forth in DOE's regulations
at 10 CFR 430.32(n) and repeated in Table II.1.
Table II.1--Federal Energy Conservation Standards for GSFLs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum
average lamp
Correlated color efficacy
Lamp type temperature lumens per
watt (``lm/
W'')
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Four-Foot Medium Bipin (``MBP'').. <=4,500 Kelvin 92.4
(``K'').
>4,500 K and <=7,000 K............ 88.7................
Two-Foot U-Shaped................. <=4,500 K........... 85.0
>4,500 K and <=7,000 K............ 83.3................
Eight-Foot Single Pin (``SP'') <=4,500 K........... 97.0
Slimline.
>4,500 K and <=7,000 K............ 93.0................
Eight-Foot Recessed Double Contact <=4,500 K........... 92.0
(``RDC'') High Output.
>4,500 K and <=7,000 K............ 88.0................
Four-Foot Miniature Bipin Standard <=4,500 K........... 95.0
Output.
>4,500 K and <=7,000 K............ 89.3................
Four-Foot Miniature Bipin High <=4,500 K........... 82.7
Output.
>4,500 K and <=7,000 K............ 76.9................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. History of Standards Rulemakings for GSFLs
Amendments to EPCA in the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (``EPAct
1992''; Pub. L. 102-486), established energy conservation standards for
certain classes of GSFLs and incandescent reflector lamps (``IRLs''),
and authorized DOE to conduct two rulemaking cycles to determine
whether these standards should be amended. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(1) and
(3)-(4)) EPCA also authorized DOE to adopt standards for additional
GSFLs, if such standards were warranted. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(5)). DOE
completed the first of these rulemaking cycles in a final rule
published on July 14, 2009, that adopted amended performance standards
for GSFLs and IRLs manufactured on or after July 14, 2012. 74 FR 34080.
That rule adopted standards for additional GSFLs, amended the
definition of ``colored fluorescent lamp'' and ``rated wattage,'' and
also adopted test procedures applicable to the newly covered GSFLs. Id.
DOE completed a second rulemaking cycle to amend the standards for
GSFLs and IRLs by publishing a final rule on January 26, 2015. 80 FR
4042. In this rule DOE amended standards for GSFLs; and concluded that
amending standards for IRLs would not be economically justified. Id.
The current energy conservation standards for GSFLs are located in 10
CFR 430.32(n). The currently applicable DOE test procedures appear at
10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix R.
In support of the present review of the GSFL energy conservation
standards, DOE published a request for information (``RFI''), which
identified various issues on which DOE sought comment to inform its
determination of whether amended standards for GSFLs and IRLs are
warranted. 85 FR 25326 (``May 2020 RFI'').
Subsequently, on May 9, 2022, DOE published a final rule expanding
the definition of general service lamp (``GSL'') to include IRLs. 87 FR
27461 May 2022 Final Rule. On that same day, DOE also published a final
rule implementing a statutory backstop requirement applicable to GSLs
which prohibits the sale of any GSL that is less than 45 lm/W. 87 FR
27439. Because IRLs, a newly covered GSL, cannot meet the 45 lm/W
backstop requirement, DOE is no longer evaluating amended standards for
IRLs and is only considering GSFLs in this NOPD.
DOE received comments in response to the May 2020 RFI from the
interested parties listed in Table II.2.
[[Page 32332]]
Table II.2--Written Comments Received in Response to the May 2020 RFI
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference in this
Commenter(s) NOPD Commenter type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appliance Standards Awareness ASAP et al........ Efficiency
Project, American Council for Organizations
an Energy-Efficient Economy,
Consumer Federation of America,
National Consumer Law Center,
Natural Resources Defense
Council, Northeast Energy
Efficiency Partnerships,
Northwest Energy Efficiency
Alliance.
Attorneys General............... Attorneys General. State Official/
Agency
California Energy Commission.... CEC............... State Official/
Agency
Pacific Gas and Electric CA IOUs........... Utilities
Company, San Diego Gas &
Electric Company, Southern
California Edison.
Consumer Federation of America, CFA et al......... Consumer Advocacy
Environment America, National Organizations
Consumer Law Center, Natural
Resources Defense Council,
Sierra Club, U.S. Public
Interest Research Group,
Earthjustice.
Institute for Policy Integrity IPI............... Think Tank
at NYU School of Law.
National Electrical NEMA.............. Trade Association
Manufacturers Association.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in the docket. (Docket No. EERE-2019-BT-STD-
0030, which is maintained at www.regulations.gov/). The references
are arranged as follows: (Commenter name, comment docket ID number
at page of that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Deviation From Appendix A
In accordance with section 3(a) of 10 CFR part 430 subpart C,
appendix A (``appendix A''), DOE notes that it is deviating from the
provision in appendix A regarding the comment period for a notice of
proposed rulemaking. Section 6(f)(2) of appendix A specifies that the
length of the public comment period for a NOPR will not be less than 75
days. For this proposed determination, DOE has opted to instead provide
a 60-day comment period. As stated previously, DOE requested comment in
the May 2020 RFI on the technical and economic analyses that would be
used to determine whether a more stringent standard would result in
significant conservation of energy and is technologically feasible and
economically justified. DOE has determined that a 60-day comment
period, in conjunction with the prior May 2020 RFI, provides sufficient
time for interested parties to review the proposed rule and develop
comments.
III. General Discussion
DOE developed this proposed determination after considering
comments, data, and information from interested parties that represent
a variety of interests. This notice addresses issues raised by these
commenters.
A. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage
When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE
divides covered products into product classes by the type of energy
used or by capacity or other performance-related features that justify
differing standards. In making a determination whether a 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 determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) The product classes
for this proposed determination are discussed in further detail in
section IV.B.4 of this document. This proposed determination covers
GSFLs defined as any fluorescent lamp which can be used to satisfy the
majority of fluorescent lighting applications, but does not include any
lamp designed and marketed for the following nongeneral application:
(1) Fluorescent lamps designed to promote plant growth; (2) Fluorescent
lamps specifically designed for cold temperature applications; (3)
Colored fluorescent lamps; (4) Impact-resistant fluorescent lamps; (5)
Reflectorized or aperture lamps; (6) Fluorescent lamps designed for use
in reprographic equipment; (7) Lamps primarily designed to produce
radiation in the ultra-violet region of the spectrum; and (8) Lamps
with a Color Rendering Index of 87 or greater. 10 CFR 430.2. The scope
of coverage is discussed in further detail in section IV.B.1 of this
document.
B. Test Procedure
EPCA sets forth generally applicable criteria and procedures for
DOE's adoption and amendment of test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6293)
Manufacturers of covered products must use these test procedures to
certify to DOE that their product complies with energy conservation
standards and to quantify the efficiency of their product. (42 U.S.C.
6295(s) and 42 U.S.C. 6293(c)). DOE's current energy conservation
standards for GSFLs are expressed in terms of lumens per watt (``lm/
W''). (See 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix R)
On July 6, 2009, DOE published a final rule that updated citations
to industry standards and made several other modifications to the GSFL
test procedure. 74 FR 31829. DOE further amended the test procedures to
update references to industry standards for GSFLs in a final rule
published on January 27, 2012. 77 FR 4203. On August 8, 2017, DOE
published a RFI seeking comments on the current test procedures for
GSFLs, IRLs, and general service incandescent lamps (``GSILs''). 82 FR
37031. On June 3, 2021, DOE published a NOPR proposing amendments to
DOE's GSFL, IRL and GSIL test procedures. 86 FR 29888. (``June 2021
NOPR'') With regards to GSFLs, in the June 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to
update to the latest versions of the referenced industry test standards
and provide cites to specific sections of these standards; clarify
definitions, test conditions and methods, and measurement procedures;
clarify test frequency and inclusion of cathode power in measurements;
allow manufacturers to make voluntary (optional) representations of
GSFLs at high frequency settings; revise the sampling requirements; and
align sampling and certification requirements with proposed test
procedure terminology and with the Federal Trade Commission's labeling
program. 86 FR 29888. DOE continues to review comments received in
response to the June 2021 NOPR.
The current test procedures for GSFLs are codified in appendix R to
subpart B of 10 CFR part 430.
[[Page 32333]]
C. Technological Feasibility
1. General
In evaluating potential amendments to energy conservation
standards, DOE conducts a screening analysis based on information
gathered on all current technology options and prototype designs that
could improve the efficiency of the products or equipment that are the
subject of the determination. As the first step in such an analysis,
DOE develops a list of technology options for consideration in
consultation with manufacturers, design engineers, and other interested
parties. DOE then determines which of those means for improving
efficiency are technologically feasible. DOE considers technologies
incorporated in commercially available products or in working
prototypes to be technologically feasible. Sections 6(b)(3)(i) and
7(b)(1) of appendix A.
After DOE has determined that particular technology options are
technologically feasible, it further evaluates each technology option
in light of the following additional screening criteria: (1)
Practicability to manufacture, install, and service; (2) adverse
impacts on product utility or availability; (3) adverse impacts on
health or safety; and (4) unique-pathway proprietary technologies.
Sections 6(b)(3)(ii)-(v) and 7(b)(2)-(5) of appendix A. Section IV.B.3
of this document discusses the results of the screening analysis for
GSFLs, particularly the designs DOE considered, those it screened out,
and those that are the basis for the standards considered in this
proposed determination. For further details on the screening analysis
for this proposed determination, see chapter 4 of the NOPD technical
support document (``TSD'').
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
As when DOE proposes to adopt an amended standard for a type or
class of covered GSFLs, in this analysis it must determine the maximum
improvement in energy efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use
that is technologically feasible for such a product. (42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(1)) Accordingly, in the engineering analysis, DOE determined
the maximum technologically feasible (``max-tech'') improvements in
energy efficiency for GSFLs, using the design parameters for the most
efficient products available on the market or in working prototypes.
The max-tech levels that DOE determined for this analysis are described
in section IV.C of this proposed determination and in chapter 5 of the
NOPD TSD.
D. Energy Savings
1. Determination of Savings
For each efficiency level (``EL'') evaluated, DOE projected energy
savings from application of the EL to the GSFLs purchased in the 30-
year period that begins in the assumed year of compliance with the
potential standards (2026-2055). The savings are measured over the
entire lifetime of the GSFLs purchased in the previous 30-year period.
In order to account for wider market dynamics, DOE also modeled the
purchases and energy consumption of tubular LEDs (``TLEDs'') over the
same period that would compete for GSFL demand. DOE quantified the
energy savings attributable to each EL as the difference in energy
consumption of both GSFLs and TLEDs between each standards case and the
no-new-standards case. The no-new-standards case represents a
projection of energy consumption that reflects how the market for a
product would likely evolve in the absence of amended energy
conservation standards. DOE used its NIA spreadsheet model \4\ to
estimate national energy savings (``NES'') from potential amended or
new standards for GSFLs. The NIA spreadsheet model (described in
section IV.G of this document) calculates energy savings in terms of
site energy, which is the energy directly consumed by products at the
locations where they are used. For electricity, DOE reports NES in
terms of primary energy savings, which is the savings in the energy
that is used to generate and transmit the site electricity. DOE also
calculates NES in terms of full-fuel-cycle (``FFC'') energy savings.
The FFC metric includes the energy consumed in extracting, processing,
and transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum
fuels), and thus presents a more complete picture of the impacts of
energy conservation standards.\5\ DOE's approach is based on the
calculation of an FFC multiplier for each of the energy types used by
covered products or equipment. For more information on FFC energy
savings, see section IV.G of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ A model coded in the Python programming language to estimate
lamp purchases, energy consumption, and national energy savings.
\5\ The FFC metric is discussed in DOE's statement of policy and
notice of policy amendment. 76 FR 51282 (Aug. 18, 2011), as amended
at 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Significance of Savings
In determining whether amended standards are needed, DOE must
consider whether such standards will result in significant conservation
of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A)) The significance of energy savings
offered by a new or amended energy conservation standard cannot be
determined without knowledge of the specific circumstances surrounding
a given rulemaking. For example, the United States has now rejoined the
Paris Agreement on February 19, 2021. As part of that agreement, the
United States has committed to reducing GHG emissions in order to limit
the rise in mean global temperature.\6\ As such, energy savings that
reduce GHG emission have taken on greater importance. Additionally,
some covered products and equipment have most of their energy
consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of
these products on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than
products with relatively constant demand. In evaluating the
significance of energy savings, DOE considers differences in primary
energy and FFC effects for different covered products and equipment
when determining whether energy savings are significant. Primary energy
and FFC effects include the energy consumed in electricity production
(depending on load shape), in distribution and transmission, and in
extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal,
natural gas, petroleum fuels), and thus present a more complete picture
of the impacts of energy conservation standards. Accordingly, DOE
evaluates the significance of energy savings on a case-by-case basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Executive Order 14008, 86 FR 7619 (Feb. 1, 2021)
(``Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Cost Effectiveness
Under EPCA's six-year-lookback review provision for existing energy
conservation standards at 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1), cost-effectiveness of
potential amended standards is a relevant consideration both where DOE
proposes to adopt such standards, as well as where it does not. In
considering cost-effectiveness when making a determination of whether
amended energy conservation standards do not need to be amended, DOE
considers the savings in operating costs throughout the estimated
average life of the covered product compared to any increase in the
price of, or in the initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of,
the covered product that are likely to result from a standard. (42
U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) (referencing 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2))) Additionally,
any new or amended
[[Page 32334]]
energy conservation standard prescribed by the Secretary for any type
(or class) of covered product shall be designed to achieve the maximum
improvement in energy efficiency which the Secretary determines is
technologically feasible and economically justified. 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2(A) Cost-effectiveness is one of the factors that DOE
considers under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B) in determining whether new or
amended standards are economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)))
In determining cost effectiveness of amending standards for GSFLs,
DOE conducted LCC and PBP analyses that estimate the costs and benefits
to users from standards. To further inform DOE's consideration of the
cost effectiveness of amended standards, DOE considers the NPV of total
costs and benefits estimated as part of the NIA. The inputs for
determining the NPV of the total costs and benefits experienced by
consumers are (1) total annual installed cost, (2) total annual
operating costs (energy costs and repair and maintenance costs), and
(3) a discount factor to calculate the present value of costs and
savings.
F. Further Considerations
Pursuant to EPCA, absent DOE publishing a notification of
determination that energy conservation standards for GSFLs do not need
to be amended, DOE must issue a NOPR that includes new proposed
standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(B)). The new proposed standards in any
such NOPR must be based on the criteria established under 42 U.S.C.
6295(o) and follow the procedures established under 42 U.S.C. 6295(p).
(42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(B)). The criteria in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) require
that standards be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency, which the Secretary determines is technologically feasible
and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)). In deciding
whether a proposed standard is economically justified, DOE must
determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)). DOE must make this determination after
receiving comments on the proposed standard, and by considering, to the
greatest extent practicable, the following seven statutory factors:
(1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and
consumers of the products subject to the standard;
(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average
life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared to any
increase in the price, initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of
the covered products that are likely to result from the standard;
(3) The total projected amount of energy (or as applicable, water)
savings likely to result directly from the standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered
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 considers relevant.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments
This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this
proposed determination with regard to GSFLs. Separate subsections
address each component of DOE's analyses. DOE used several analytical
tools to estimate the impact of potential energy conservation
standards. The first tool is a spreadsheet that calculates the LCC
savings and PBP of potential energy conservation standards. The NIA
uses a second spreadsheet set that provides shipments projections, and
calculates NES and net present value of total consumer costs and
savings expected to result from potential energy conservation
standards. These spreadsheet tools are available on the website:
www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2019-BT-STD-0030.
A. Overall
DOE received several comments from stakeholders in response to the
May 2020 RFI regarding whether DOE should amend standards for GSFLs.
NEMA stated that sales of GSFLs have been in a decline which is
expected to continue as light-emitting diode (``LED'') replacement
products (including integrated LED fixtures and LED replacement lamps)
continue to replace GSFLs through naturally occurring market adoption
without regulation. NEMA noted that based on the current rate of market
decline, there is very limited, meaningful energy savings that can be
economically justified through revised energy conservation standards
for GSFLs. (NEMA, No. 6 at p. 2)
NEMA also stated that slightly increasing the efficacy of
fluorescent lamps will not achieve the desired energy savings DOE seeks
and will only make lighted areas brighter. NEMA notes that because new
construction and renovations are shifting to cost-competitive LED
lighting, DOE's calculations in the previous rulemaking that show
brighter fluorescent lamps will allow for fewer lamps, fixtures, and
ballasts, are no longer realistic. As a result, NEMA notes that
fluorescent lamps would not be used in fewer numbers and will still be
driven at the rated wattage of the ballasts in existing fixtures, using
the same amount of energy. (NEMA, No. 6 at p. 2)
CEC agreed with DOE's findings in the May 2020 RFI that indicated
that GSFLs on the market are more energy efficient than current federal
standards. CEC noted that setting higher efficiency levels is cost
effective and can be achieved using either fluorescent or LED lighting
sources. Additionally, CEC pointed out that manufacturing costs and
retail prices of TLED lamps are dropping while their market share is
increasing and that this trend is expected to continue. CEC determined
that more stringent standards will result in significant conservation
of energy, are technologically feasible, and are cost effective. CEC
asserted that DOE should increase the minimum energy efficiency of
GSFLs and consider the technology-neutral utility of replacement lamps
by including TLED lamps as a feasible replacement option in its cost
analysis. (CEC, No. 9 at p. 3)
ASAP et al. and CA IOUs noted that new GSFLs on the market that are
currently certified in DOE's compliance certification database are more
energy efficient than current federal standards and asserted that DOE
should conduct a full analysis to determine whether standards for GSFLs
should be amended as the market for GSFLs has changed substantially
since the last rulemaking. (ASAP et al., No. 5 at p. 2; CA IOUs, No. 8
at p. 2) ASAP et al. added that the new GSFL standards that required
compliance in 2018 eliminated many lamp options and forced
manufacturers to overhaul their product offerings. As a result, TLEDs
have seen an increase in market supply, at a reduced price. (ASAP et
al., No. 5 at p. 2) ASAP et al. added that raising the existing
standards for GSFLs will affect their prices, resulting in a market
shift to LED technology. ASAP et al. urged DOE to consider the economic
and energy saving impacts in its evaluation of higher standards. (ASAP
et al., No. 5 at p. 5)
As discussed in section II.A of this document, DOE is required to
periodically review its already established energy conservation
standards for a covered product no later than 6 years from the issuance
of a final rule establishing or amending a standard for a covered
product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)) This proposed
[[Page 32335]]
determination represents the mandatory 6-year review of standards for
GSFLs. DOE discusses the methodology used to analyze potential
standards in the following subsections of this section IV and the
results of the analysis in section V of this document. DOE discusses
the tentative conclusion regarding amended standards for GSFLs in
section V.C of this document.
ASAP et al. highlighted two potential market failures that may
hinder adoption of energy efficient products. One of the market
failures was a lack of information about potential savings causing
consumers to focus on lower first costs. The other market failure was a
scenario where the entity making the purchase decision, such as the
landlord, is not incentivized to purchase slightly more expensive
energy efficient products over the lowest cost products. (ASAP et al.,
No. 5 at pp. 5-6) DOE appreciates the feedback regarding potential
market failures in the context of amended energy conservation standards
for GSFLs. More efficient substitutes for GSFLs and their associated
product prices are discussed in section IV.C of this document. The
shipments analysis and life-cycle cost analysis are discussed in
sections IV.F and IV.E of this document.
B. Market and Technology Assessment
DOE develops information in the market and technology assessment
that provides an overall picture of the market for the products
concerned, including the purpose of the products, the industry
structure, manufacturers, market characteristics, and technologies used
in the products. This activity includes both quantitative and
qualitative assessments, based primarily on publicly available
information. The subjects addressed in the market and technology
assessment for this proposed determination include (1) a determination
of the scope and product classes, (2) manufacturers and industry
structure, (3) existing efficiency programs, (4) shipments information,
(5) market and industry trends, and (6) technologies or design options
that could improve the energy efficiency of GSFLs. The key findings of
DOE's market assessment are summarized in the following sections. See
chapter 3 of the NOPD TSD for a complete discussion of the market and
technology assessment.
1. Scope of Coverage
In this analysis, DOE relied on the definition of fluorescent lamp
and general service fluorescent lamp in 10 CFR 430.2. A fluorescent
lamp is a low pressure mercury electric-discharge source in which a
fluorescing coating transforms some of the ultraviolet energy generated
by the mercury discharge into light, including only the following: (1)
Any 4-foot medium bipin lamp with a rated wattage of 25 or more; (2)
any 2-foot U-shaped lamp with a rated wattage of 25 or more; (3) any 8-
foot high output (``HO'') lamp; (4) any 8-foot slimline lamp with a
rated wattage of 49 or more; (5) any 4-foot miniature bipin
(``miniBP'') standard output (``SO'') lamp with a rated wattage of 25
or more; and (6) any 4-foot miniature bipin high output (``HO'') lamp
with a rated wattage of 44 or more. 10 CFR 430.2. GSFL is defined as
any fluorescent lamp which can be used to satisfy the majority of
fluorescent lighting applications, but does not include any lamp
designed and marketed for the following nongeneral application: (1)
Fluorescent lamps designed to promote plant growth; (2) fluorescent
lamps specifically designed for cold temperature applications; (3)
colored fluorescent lamps; (4) impact-resistant fluorescent lamps; (5)
reflectorized or aperture lamps; (6) fluorescent lamps designed for use
in reprographic equipment; (7) lamps primarily designed to produce
radiation in the ultra-violet region of the spectrum; and (8) lamps
with a color rendering index (``CRI'') of 87 or greater. 10 CFR 430.2.
Any product meeting the definition of GSFL is included in DOE's scope
of coverage, though all products within the scope of coverage may not
be subject to standards.
In response to the May 2020 RFI, DOE received several comments
regarding extending coverage to currently exempt lamp types. ASAP et
al., CA IOUs and CEC agreed that DOE should expand the GSFL definition
to include impact-resistant fluorescent lamps, lamps with a CRI of 87
or greater, and lamps less than 4-foot in length. ASAP et al., CA IOUs
and CEC noted that excluding these lamp types from the current
definition of GSFL has created a significant loophole in the GSFL
standard resulting in increased sales of inefficient T12 lamps mainly
comprised of impact-resistant fluorescent lamps and lamps with a CRI of
87 or greater. (ASAP et al., No. 5 at pp. 2-4; CA IOUs, No. 8 at pp. 2-
3; CEC, No. 9 at pp. 1-2) NEMA stated that majority of the lamps with a
CRI of 87 or greater are 4-foot T12 lamps and are mainly used in
residential applications, while 8-foot T12 lamps are mainly deployed in
commercial spaces. (NEMA, No. 6 at p. 12) NEMA commented that DOE could
consider including less than 4-foot fluorescent lamps in the scope,
however, this lamp category exhibits significantly lower energy use per
lamp relative to 4-foot linear fluorescent lamps. NEMA added that it is
unaware of any new fluorescent lamp or incandescent reflector lamp
products coming to the market. (NEMA, No. 6 at p. 3)
Regarding exempt GSFLs, CEC supports two final rules DOE published
on January 19, 2017, amending the definitions of GSL and GSIL \7\,
which included a revised definition for ``designed and marketed'' that
would require markings to be prominently displayed. CEC asserted that
DOE should reinstate the revised definition for ``designed and
marketed'' in its evaluation of standards for GSFLs. CEC noted that the
reinstated definition would require exempt GSFLs to be designed and
marketed for their specialty application, limiting their use in general
lighting applications. (CEC, No. 9 at pp. 3-4) ASAP et al. added that
if DOE decides to not set standards for impact-resistant fluorescent
lamps, DOE should add a definition for these lamps to prevent potential
loopholes. (ASAP et al., No. 5 at p. 5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ On January 19, 2017, DOE published two related final rules
amending the definitions of GSL and GSIL by discontinuing certain
exemptions for some lamps that Congress originally excluded from
those definitions. 82 FR 7276; 82 FR 7322 (``January 2017 Final
Rules''). DOE subsequently issued a final rule withdrawing the
January 2017 final rules. 84 FR 46661, 46664 (Sep. 5, 2019). The May
2022 Final Rule discussed in section II.B.2 of this document
reinstated the amendments to the definitions of GSL and GSIL in the
January 2017 Final Rules. 87 FR 27461.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on information collected during manufacturer interviews, DOE
determined that less than 4-foot fluorescent lamps are a small portion
of the market and are decreasing in shipments. Therefore, DOE
tentatively determined that standards for less than 4-foot lamps were
unlikely to result in significant energy savings. Further, because
these lamps are not regulated and yet are decreasing in shipments, DOE
tentatively concluded that continuing to exclude these lamp types from
the GSFL definition would likely not create a loophole in current
standards for GSFLs. Regarding lamps with a CRI of 87 or greater and
impact-resistant fluorescent lamps, these are exemptions stated in the
statutory definition of ``general service fluorescent lamp'' (42 U.S.C.
6291(30)(B)) and it is not within the scope of DOE's authority in this
rulemaking to modify these exemptions for GSFLs. Given that EPCA's
statutory definition of ``general service fluorescent lamp'' contains a
number of express exclusions for certain categories
[[Page 32336]]
of fluorescent lamps, DOE finds no basis in the language of EPCA to
support assertions that the agency's authority to act under section
325(i)(5) of EPCA is unlimited. DOE believes section 325(i)(5) covers
additional GSFL that are not one of the enumerated specialized products
that EPCA excludes from coverage (See 42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(B)). 73 FR
13620, 13629 (Mar. 13, 2008). (emphasis added). For these reasons, and
for the additional reasons set forth in the March 2008 ANOPR, DOE views
``additional'' GSFL, as that term is used in 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(5), as
lamps that: (1) Meet the technical portion of the statutory definition
of ``fluorescent lamp'' . . . (2) can be used to satisfy the majority
of fluorescent lighting applications . . . ; (3) are not within the
exclusions from the definition of GSFL specified in 42 U.S.C.
6291(30)(B); and (4) are ones for which EPCA does not prescribe
standards. 74 FR 16920, 16926-16928 (emphasis added).
ASAP et al. commented that DOE should consider adopting a
technology-agnostic approach that groups together all products that
provide the same general lighting service. ASAP et al. pointed out that
TLEDs have gained market share at the expense of GSFLs over time and
are marketed as suitable substitutes for GSFLs. ASAP et al. noted that
DOE has the broad authority to cover electric lights (42 U.S.C.
6311(2)(B)(v)) and any products that meet certain minimum consumption
thresholds (42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(1)). (ASAP et al, No. 5 at p. 3)
DOE agrees with ASAP et al. that TLEDs have gained market share at
the expense of GSFLs over time and are marketed as suitable substitutes
for GSFLs. However, this proposed determination addresses only GSFLs
defined in 10 CFR 430.2. DOE is not authorized to consider any product
not meeting this definition, such as TLEDs, as a part of this proposed
determination.
2. Technology Options
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE identified several technology options that
would be expected to improve the efficiency (i.e., efficacy or lumens
per watt) of GSFLs, as measured by the DOE test procedure. To develop a
list of technology options, DOE reviewed manufacturer catalogs, recent
trade publications, technical journals, and the January 2015 final
rule.
In response to the May 2020 RFI, ASAP et al. commented that lamps
currently covered by standards include technology options that can be
applied to the lamp types that can be added to scope, and DOE should
evaluate these technology options for potential scope additions. (ASAP
et al., No. 5 at p. 5) As discussed in section IV.B.1 of this NOPD, DOE
has tentatively determined that modifications to the scope of lamps
included as GSFLs are either not possible or not likely to result in
significant energy savings.
DOE conducted research for this NOPD to identify new technology
options for GSFLs. DOE identified mercury isotopes as a technology
option that can be implemented to improve the efficiency of GSFLs.
Mercury used in GSFLs is composed of seven different isotopes, each
having a distinct excited state that provides ultraviolet (``UV'')
light. The abundance of these isotopes can be altered to optimize the
amount of UV light emitted and increase the efficiency of the lamp. For
more detail on this technology option see chapter 3 of the NOPD TSD. In
summary, for this analysis, DOE considers the technology options shown
in Table IV.1 of this document. These options are the same ones
presented in the May 2020 RFI with the addition of mercury isotopes.
Detailed descriptions of these technology options can be found in
chapter 3 of the NOPD TSD.
Table IV.1--GSFL Technology Options
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology option Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highly Emissive Electrode Coatings..... Improved electrode coatings
allow electrons to be more
easily removed from
electrodes, reducing lamp
power and increasing overall
efficacy.
Higher Efficiency Lamp Fill Gas Fill gas compositions improve
Composition. cathode thermionic emission or
increase mobility of ions and
electrons in the lamp plasma.
Higher Efficiency Phosphors............ Phosphors increase the
conversion of UV light into
visible light.
Glass Coatings......................... Coatings on inside of bulb
enable the phosphors to absorb
more UV energy, so that they
emit more visible light.
Higher Efficiency Lamp Diameter........ Optimal lamp diameters improve
lamp efficacy.
Multi-Photon Phosphors................. Phosphors emit more than one
visible photon for each
incident UV photon.
Mercury Isotopes....................... The abundance of mercury
isotopes can be altered to
optimize the amount of UV
light emitted and increase the
efficiency of the lamp.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Screening Analysis
DOE uses the following five screening criteria to determine which
technology options are suitable for further consideration in an energy
conservation standards rulemaking:
(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 and reliable installation and servicing
of a technology in commercial products could not be achieved on the
scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the
projected compliance date of the standard, then that technology will
not be considered further.
(3) Impacts on product utility or product availability. If it is
determined that a technology would have significant adverse impact on
the utility of the product to significant subgroups of consumers or
would result in the unavailability of any covered product type with
performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes,
capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as products
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 would have significant adverse impacts on health or safety,
it will not be considered further.
(5) Unique-Pathway Proprietary Technologies. If a design option
utilizes proprietary technology that represents a unique pathway to
achieving a given efficiency level, that technology will not be
considered further due to the potential for monopolistic concerns.
Sections 6(b)(3) and 7(b) of appendix A. In summary, if DOE
determines that a technology, or a combination of technologies, fails
to meet one or more of the listed five criteria, it will be
[[Page 32337]]
excluded from further consideration in the engineering analysis.
a. Screened-Out Technologies
For this analysis, DOE found that multi-photon phosphors are still
not used in working prototypes or in commercially available products.
DOE did not receive any comments on the screening analysis for GSFLs.
In this NOPD, as it did in the January 2015 final rule (80 FR 4042,
4061), DOE continues to screen out multi-photon phosphors. Regarding
the new technology option identified for this NOPD, DOE was not able to
find mercury isotopes utilized in working prototypes or in commercially
available products. Therefore, in this NOPD, DOE has screened out
mercury isotopes based on technological feasibility. See chapter 4 of
the NOPD TSD for further details on the GSFL screening analysis.
b. Remaining Technologies
After reviewing each technology, DOE did not screen out the
following technology options and considers them as design options in
the engineering analysis:
(1) Highly Emissive Electrode Coatings
(2) Higher Efficiency Lamp Fill Gas Composition
(3) Higher Efficiency Phosphors
(4) Glass Coatings
(5) Higher Efficiency Lamp Diameter
DOE determined that these technology options are technologically
feasible because they are being used or have previously been used in
commercially available products or working prototypes. DOE also finds
that all of the remaining technology options meet the other screening
criteria (i.e., practicable to manufacture, install, and service and do
not result in adverse impacts on consumer utility, product
availability, health, or safety). For additional details, see chapter 4
of the NOPD TSD.
4. Product Classes
In general, when evaluating and establishing energy conservation
standards, DOE divides the covered product into classes by (1) the type
of energy used, (2) the capacity of the product, or (3) any other
performance-related feature that affects energy efficiency and
justifies different standard levels, considering factors such as
consumer utility. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q))
a. Existing Product Classes
For GSFLs, the current energy conservation standards specified in
10 CFR 430.32(n)(4) are based on 12 product classes, separated
according to the following three factors: (1) Correlated color
temperature (``CCT''); (2) physical constraints of lamps (i.e., lamp
shape and length); and (3) lumen package (i.e., standard output
(``SO'') versus high output (``HO'')).
NEMA and CA IOUs commented that there is no need for any changes to
product classes or groupings, as the GSFL category is a mature and
well-established technology and the current GSFL product classes
adequately cover the GSFL products on the market today. NEMA commented
that separating or combining any GSFL product classes would eliminate
some features. (NEMA, No. 6 at p. 3) CA IOUs stated that any new GSFL
product classes could create additional loopholes in the GSFL
standards. (CA IOUs, No. 8 at p. 3) DOE agrees that the existing
product classes sufficiently cover the GSFLs on the market. Therefore,
DOE is not proposing any amendments to the existing GSFL product
classes.
b. Summary
In this analysis, DOE proposes to maintain separate product classes
for GSFLs based on the following three factors: (1) CCT (i.e., less
than or equal to versus greater than 4,500 K); (2) physical constraints
of lamps (i.e., lamp shape and length); and (3) lumen package (i.e.,
standard output versus high output). In summary, DOE assesses the
product classes shown in Table IV.2 in its analysis.
Table IV.2-GSFL Product Classes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lamp Type CCT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4-foot medium bipin..................................... <= 4,500 K
>4,500 K
2-foot U-shaped......................................... <= 4,500 K
>4,500 K
8-foot single pin slimline.............................. <= 4,500 K
>4,500 K
8-foot recessed double contact high output.............. <= 4,500 K
>4,500 K
4-foot T5, miniature bipin standard output.............. <= 4,500 K
>4,500 K
4-foot T5, miniature bipin high output.................. <= 4,500 K
>4,500 K
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Engineering Analysis
The purpose of the engineering analysis is to establish the
relationship between efficiency and cost for GSFLs. There are two
elements to consider in the engineering analysis; the selection of
efficiency levels to analyze (i.e., the ``efficiency analysis'') and
the determination of product cost at each efficiency level (i.e., the
``cost analysis''). In determining the performance of higher-efficiency
products, DOE considers technologies and design option combinations not
eliminated by the screening analysis. For each product class, DOE
estimates the baseline cost, as well as the incremental cost for the
product at efficiency levels above the baseline. The output of the
engineering analysis is a set of cost-efficiency ``curves'' that are
used in downstream analyses (i.e., the LCC and PBP analyses and the
NIA).
1. Efficiency Analysis
DOE typically uses one of two approaches to develop energy
efficiency levels for the engineering analysis: (1) Relying on observed
efficiency levels in the market (i.e., the efficiency-level approach),
or (2) determining the incremental efficiency improvements associated
with incorporating specific design options to a baseline model (i.e.,
the design-option approach). Using the efficiency-level approach, the
efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined based on
the market distribution of existing products (in other words, based on
the range of efficiencies and efficiency level ``clusters'' that
already exist on the market). Using the design option approach, the
efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined through
detailed engineering calculations and/or computer simulations of the
efficiency improvements from implementing specific design options that
have been identified in the technology assessment. DOE may also rely on
a combination of these two approaches. For example, the efficiency-
level approach (based on actual products on the market) may be extended
using the design option approach to interpolate to define ``gap fill''
levels (to bridge large gaps between other identified efficiency
levels) and/or to extrapolate to the max-tech level (particularly in
cases where the max-tech level exceeds the maximum efficiency level
currently available on the market).
In this proposed determination, DOE is adopting an efficiency-level
approach for GSFLs. In this NOPD, efficiency levels are referred to as
efficacy levels (``ELs'') because GSFL efficiency is reported in terms
of lumens per watt, which is known as the lamp's efficacy. DOE derives
efficacy levels in the efficiency analysis and end-user prices in the
cost analysis. DOE estimates the end-user price of GSFLs directly
because reverse-engineering a lamp is impractical as the lamps are not
easily disassembled. By combining the results of the efficiency
analysis and the cost analysis, DOE derives typical inputs for
[[Page 32338]]
use in the LCC and NIA. Section IV.C.2 discusses the cost analysis (see
chapter 5 of the NOPD TSD for further details).
The methodology for the efficiency analysis consists of the
following steps: (1) Select representative product classes, (2) select
baseline lamps, (3) identify more efficacious substitutes, (4) develop
efficacy levels by directly analyzing representative product classes,
and (5) scale efficacy levels to non-representative product classes.
The details of the efficiency analysis are discussed in chapter 5 of
the NOPD TSD.
NEMA commented that since GSFL technologies are fully mature, the
previous analytical conclusions continue to be accurate when it comes
to use of certain combinations of design options. NEMA strongly opposed
any amendments to the current GSFL efficiency levels, stating that
since any new research in this market segment is unlikely, the increase
in efficiency levels threatens to significantly reduce the product
offerings. (NEMA, No. 6 at pp. 7-8)
DOE agrees with NEMA that fluorescent is a more mature technology
than LED, meaning that the rates of product development for the former
are much slower than the rate for the latter. In the efficiency
analysis, DOE reviews products certified in DOE's compliance
certification database and offered in manufacturer catalogs and on
retailer websites. DOE bases its more efficient substitutes on products
currently or formerly offered for sale on the market. The more
efficient substitutes and corresponding efficacy levels are discussed
in more detail in the following sections.
a. Representative Product Classes
In the case where a covered product has multiple product classes,
DOE identifies and selects certain product classes as
``representative'' and concentrates its analytical effort on those
classes. DOE chooses product classes as representative primarily
because of their high market volumes. DOE then scales its analytical
findings for those representative product classes to other product
classes that are not directly analyzed. Based on its assessment of
product offerings, DOE analyzed as representative all GSFLs with CCTs
less than or equal to 4,500 K with the exception of the 2-foot U-shaped
lamps, as shown in gray in Table IV.3 of this document. DOE did not
directly analyze GSFLs with CCTs greater than 4,500 K or GSFLs that are
2-foot U-shaped lamps of any CCT due to low shipment volumes.
Table IV.3--GSFL Representative Product Classes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lamp type CCT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4-foot medium bipin..................................... <= 4,500 K
>4,500 K
2-foot U-shaped......................................... <= 4,500 K
>4,500 K
8-foot single pin slimline.............................. <= 4,500 K
>4,500 K
8-foot recessed double contact high output.............. <= 4,500 K
>4,500 K
4-foot T5, miniature bipin standard output.............. <= 4,500 K
>4,500 K
4-foot T5, miniature bipin high output.................. <= 4,500 K
>4,500 K
------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Baseline Lamps
For each representative product class, DOE generally selects a
baseline model as a reference point for each class, and measures
changes resulting from potential energy conservation standards against
the baseline. The baseline model in each product class represents the
characteristics of a product typical of that class (e.g., capacity,
physical size). Generally, a baseline model is one that just meets
current energy conservation standards, or, if no standards are in
place, the baseline is typically the most common or least efficient
unit on the market. Typically, the baseline lamp is the most common,
least efficacious lamp that meets existing standards. In this analysis,
DOE selected as baselines the least efficacious lamps meeting standards
that have common attributes for lamps in each product class such as
diameter, wattage, CCT, lumen output, and lifetime.
NEMA commented that any review of reported lamp efficiencies for
determining baseline models in each product class should start with
DOE's compliance certification database. (NEMA, No. 6 at p. 7).
To identify baseline lamps for this analysis, DOE reviewed data in
the compliance certification database, product offerings in catalogs
and on retailer websites, and manufacturer feedback obtained during
interviews. DOE used the efficacy values of lamps in the compliance
certification database to select baseline lamps. For representative
product classes without certification data at the baseline, DOE used
catalog and retailer data to select a baseline lamp. Specifically, DOE
selected a baseline lamp from a retailer for the 8-foot single pin
(``SP'') slimline product class because DOE was unable to identify any
lamp in the compliance certification database that just meets the
existing standards with common attributes for lamps in the product
class.
DOE is proposing the GSFL baseline lamps specified in Table IV.4.
See chapter 5 of the NOPD TSD for more detail.
Table IV.4--GSFL Baseline Lamps
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nominal Efficacy ** lm/ Initial lumen Mean lumen Rated life ***
Representative product class Lamp diameter wattage W W output lm output lm hr CRI
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4-foot MBP.............................. T8 32 92.4 3,050 2,910 24,000 85
8-foot SP slimline...................... T8 59 98.2 5,900 5,430 15,000 82
8-foot RDC HO........................... T8 86 94.6 8,000 7,520 18,000 78
4-foot T5 MiniBP SO *................... T5 28 95.9 2,610 2,453 24,000 85
4-foot T5 MiniBP HO *................... T5 54 83 4,500 4,140 30,000 85
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO and HO initial lumen output, and mean lumen output given at 25 [deg]C. Initial and mean lumens are calculated from catalog lumens
at 35 [deg]C by applying a 10 percent lumen reduction.
** Efficacy is from the compliance certification database, if available, or catalog initial lumen output divided by the American National Standards
Institute (``ANSI'') rated wattage if the lamp does not have certification data.
*** Rated life is based on an instant start ballast with 3 hour starts for the 4-foot MBP and 8-foot SP slimline product classes and a programmed start
ballasts with 3 hour starts for all other product classes.
[[Page 32339]]
c. More Efficacious Substitutes
As part of DOE's analysis, the maximum available efficiency level
is the highest efficiency unit currently available on the market. DOE
also defines a ``max-tech'' efficiency level to represent the maximum
possible efficiency for a given product. DOE selects more efficacious
replacements for the baseline lamps considered within each
representative product class. DOE considers only design options
identified in the screening analysis. More efficacious substitutes were
selected such that, where possible, potential substitutions maintained
light output within 10 percent of the baseline lamp's light output. DOE
also sought to keep characteristics of substitute lamps, such as CCT,
CRI, and lifetime, as similar as possible to the baseline lamps. DOE
used efficacy data from the compliance certification database to
identify more efficacious substitutes in all product classes. DOE
ensured that all more efficacious substitutes selected showed an
improvement in efficacy of at least one percent from the previous
level. DOE identified more efficacious substitutes that typically
represent a group of lamps in the compliance certification database
with similar efficacy data. The GSFL representative lamps analyzed in
the NOPR are shown in Table IV.5 of this document.
The CA IOUs commented that DOE should consider new information
regarding the energy efficiency of available GSFLs. The CA IOUs pointed
out that new and more efficient fluorescent lamps exceed the max-tech
efficiency levels established in January 2015 final rule (e.g., 4-foot
T8 lamps can achieve 97 to 100 lm/W compared to the 2015 max-tech value
of 92.4 lm/W). (CA IOUs, No. 8 at p. 2)
However, NEMA pointed out in its comments that DOE, while in
pursuit of higher efficiencies, should be aware of newer test
procedures for fluorescent lamps and the possibility of incorrectly
testing efficiency by using a high frequency ballast, thus yielding an
inflated efficiency level. If DOE did decide to pursue a new, higher
baseline efficiency, then NEMA strongly recommended that DOE verify
selected representative products to ensure that the efficiency levels
are not inadvertently inflated. (NEMA, No. 6 at pp. 7-8)
NEMA concluded, upon review of the compliance certification
database, that only T5 products have any opportunity for minimal
efficiency gain and that although the T8 category may appear to have
some room for improvement NEMA warns that efficiency gain opportunities
may exist but at the expense of dimming functionality. (NEMA, No. 6 at
pp. 12-13) Regarding dimming, NEMA stated that the fill gas in reduced
wattage fluorescent lamps, krypton, adversely affects dimming
capability and thus only 32 W 4-foot T8 lamps are recommended for
dimming applications. Although the demand for fluorescent lamps
continues a downward trend, an amended standard that eliminates the 32
W category would leave consumers with little choice other than
converting to dimmable solid-state lighting. NEMA states that this
scenario must be included in the cost-benefit analysis. (NEMA, No. 6 at
p. 4)
For this analysis, DOE did consider new information regarding the
efficacy of currently available GSFLs as compared to GSFLs available at
the time of the January 2015 final rule. As described previously, DOE
gathered recent product information from DOE's compliance certification
database, manufacturer catalogs, and retailer websites. As shown in
Table IV.5, DOE did identify max-tech levels in certain product classes
that are higher than the max-tech levels identified in the January 2015
final rule. Regarding 4-foot T8 lamps, reduced wattage lamps available
at the max-tech level are around the 100 lm/W value cited by the CA
IOUs. However, as pointed out by NEMA, reduced wattage lamps do not
maintain full dimming functionality due to the krypton fill gas.
Therefore, DOE has established the efficacy level at the efficacy
achieved by the most efficient 32 W lamp. DOE notes that the max-tech
value for the 32 W 4-foot T8 lamp in this NOPD is higher than the max-
tech value for the same product class in the January 2015 final rule.
Table IV.5--GSFL More Efficacious Substitutes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial
Product classes EL Lamp Nominal Efficacy ** light Mean light Rated life CRI
diameter wattage W lm/W output lm output lm *** hr
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4-foot MBP...................................... EL 1 T8 32 93.6 3,200 3,010 24,000 85
EL 2 T8 32 94.6 3,100 2,915 24,000 85
EL 2 T8 25 100.8 2,300 2,230 32,000 85
EL 2 T8 28 100.3 2,725 2,560 24,000 85
8-foot SP slimline.............................. EL 1 T8 59 99.6 5,900 5,430 18,000 82
EL 2 T8 59 102.8 6,100 5,730 24,000 85
EL 2 T8 49 105.4 5,000 4,700 24,000 82
8-foot RDC HO................................... EL 1 T8 86 99.0 8,200 7,800 18,000 85
EL 2 T8 86 108.4 8,200 7,710 18,000 85
T5 MiniBP SO *.................................. EL 1 T5 28 97.0 2,610 2,394 30,000 85
EL 2 T5 28 98.8 2,610 2,427 36,000 85
EL 3 T5 28 100.8 2,610 2,408 24,000 82
EL 3 T5 26 101.0 2,610 2,394 25,000 85
T5 MiniBP HO *.................................. EL1 T5 54 85.6 4,500 4,185 30,000 85
EL 1 T5 49 88.8 4,365 4,140 36,000 85
EL 2 T5 54 89.8 4,500 4,050 30,000 82
EL 2 T5 47 90 4,320 3,969 30,000 84
EL 3 T5 54 96.4 4,365 4,140 36,000 85
EL 3 T5 49 96.5 4,500 4,005 30,000 85
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO and HO rated efficacy, initial lumen output, and mean lumen output given at 25 [deg]C. Initial and mean lumens are calculated from
catalog lumens at 35[deg]C by applying a 10 percent lumen reduction.
** Efficacy is from the compliance certification database, if available, or catalog/retailer initial lumen output divided by the ANSI rated wattage if
the lamp does not have certification data.
*** Rated life is based on an instant start ballast with 3 hour starts for the 4-foot MBP and 8-foot SP slimline product classes and a programmed start
ballasts with 3 hour starts for all other product classes.
[[Page 32340]]
d. Efficacy Levels
After identifying more efficacious substitutes for each of the
baseline lamps, DOE develops ELs based on the consideration of several
factors, including: (1) The design options associated with the specific
lamps being studied (e.g., grades of phosphor); (2) the ability of
lamps across wattages to comply with the standard level of a given
product class; and (3) max-tech level. Although fluorescent lamps are a
component of a system that often includes ballasts and fixtures, DOE
based its ELs only on lamp performance because GSFLs are the subject of
this proposed determination. DOE acknowledges, however, that the energy
consumption of fluorescent lamps is related to the ballast on which
they operate. Therefore, DOE pairs each lamp with an appropriate
ballast to better approximate real-world conditions (see section
IV.C.1.e of this document for more information).
To determine appropriate ELs, DOE used efficacy values of lamps
certified in its compliance certification database. DOE considered only
ELs at which a full wattage version of the lamp type was available
because reduced wattage lamps have limited dimming capability.
Table IV.6 summarizes the ELs developed by the engineering analysis
for GSFLs in this NOPD.
Table IV.6--Summary of ELs for GSFL Representative Product Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficacy level (lm/W)
CCT Lamp type -----------------------------------------------
1 2 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<=4,500 K............................. 4-foot MBP.............. 93.6 94.6 N/A
8-foot SP slimline...... 99.6 102.8 N/A
8-foot RDC HO........... 99.0 108.4 N/A
4-foot T5 MiniBP SO..... 97.0 98.8 100.8
4-foot T5 MiniBP HO..... 85.6 89.8 96.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e. Lamp-and-Ballast Systems
Because fluorescent lamps operate on a ballast in practice, DOE
analyzed lamp-and-ballast systems in the engineering analysis. DOE
determined that pairing a lamp with a ballast more accurately captures
real-world energy use and light output.
DOE considered two different scenarios in the engineering analysis:
(1) A lamp replacement scenario in which the consumer selects a
replacement lamp that can operate on the installed ballast and (2) a
lamp-and-ballast replacement scenario in which the consumer selects a
new lamp and also selects a new ballast with potentially different
performance characteristics, such as ballast factor \8\ (``BF'') or
ballast luminous efficiency \9\ (``BLE''). DOE only selected
replacement systems that do not have higher energy consumption than the
baseline system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ BF is defined as the output of a ballast delivered to a
reference lamp in terms of power or light divided by the output of
the relevant reference ballast delivered to the same lamp (ANSI
C82.13-2002). Because BF affects the light output of the system,
manufacturers design ballasts with a range of ballast factors to
allow consumers to vary the light output, and thus power consumed,
of a fluorescent system. See the fluorescent lamp ballast (``FLB'')
final determination (published on October 22, 2019, 85 FR 81558) TSD
Chapter 3. The FLB ECS final determination materials are available
at www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2015-BT-STD-0006.
\9\ BLE is the ratio of the total lamp arc power to ballast
input power, multiplied by the appropriate frequency adjustment
factor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For both substitution scenarios, DOE determined energy consumption
by calculating the system input power of the lamp-and-ballast system.
The system input power represents the energy consumption rate of both
the lamp and ballast, and therefore is greater than the rated power of
the lamp alone. In addition to the rated lamp power, the system input
power is also affected by the number of lamps operated per ballast, BLE
of ballast used, starting method, and the BF of that ballast.
f. Scaling to Other Product Classes
As noted previously, DOE analyzes the representative product
classes directly. DOE then scales the levels developed for the
representative product classes to determine levels for product classes
not analyzed directly. For GSFLs, the representative product classes
analyzed were all lamp types with CCTs <= 4,500 K, with the exception
of 2-foot U-shaped lamps. For the 2-foot U-shaped product class, DOE
scaled from the efficacy levels developed for the 4-foot MBP product
class.
Efficacy levels developed for lamp types with CCTs less than or
equal to 4,500 K were scaled to obtain levels for higher CCT product
classes not analyzed. DOE found variation in the percent reduction in
efficacy associated with increased CCT among product classes and
therefore chose to develop a separate scaling factor for each product
class. DOE developed scaling factors by identifying pairs and comparing
the efficacies between the same lamp type from the same manufacturer
within the same product class but that differed by CCT.
For 2-foot U-shaped lamps, DOE compared catalog and certification
data for 2-foot U-shaped lamps with equivalent 4-foot MBP lamps, and
determined an average efficacy reduction of 6 percent from the 4-foot
MBP lamps was appropriate. For the higher CCT product classes, DOE
determined a 4 percent scaling factor for the 4-foot MBP product class,
2 percent scaling factor for the 2-foot U-shaped product class, 3
percent scaling factor for the 8-foot SP slimline product class, 3
percent scaling factor for the 8-foot RDC HO product class, 6 percent
scaling factor for the T5 SO product class, and 6 percent scaling
factor for the T5 HO product class were appropriate.
Regarding the max efficacy achievable by 2-foot U-shaped lamps,
NEMA commented that the information outlined in DOE's compliance
certification database is available and that the sales of U-shaped 1 5/
8'' lamps are lower than U-shaped 6'' lamps sales. (NEMA, No. 6 at p.
4) NEMA further added that the scaling factors developed in the prior
rulemaking pertaining to the average efficacy difference between 2-foot
MBP and 4-foot MBP lamps, and between lamps with CCT less than 4,500 K
and CCT greater than 4,500 K, are still adequate and do not require any
revision. (NEMA, No. 6 at p. 8)
As described previously in this section, DOE has calculated scaling
factors for each product class to scale from lamps with CCTs less than
4,500 K to lamps with CCTs greater than 4,500 K. These scaling factors
are the same as those used in the January 2015 final rule with the
exception of the scaling factors for the 8-foot RDC HO (3 percent
instead of 4 percent) and T5 HO (6 percent instead of 7 percent)
product classes. DOE also calculated a scaling factor for 2-foot U-
shaped lamps and found it to be 6 percent instead of the 8 percent
[[Page 32341]]
used in the January 2015 final rule. DOE determined the updated scaling
factors by considering efficacy data for lamps in the compliance
certification database and catalog data. DOE updated the scaling factor
in cases where both data sources indicated that the existing scaling
factors do not capture the difference in efficacy of the scaled lamp
types. DOE determined that the updated scaling factors more accurately
represent lamps currently on the market. Regarding the different leg
spacings of 2-foot U-shaped lamps, DOE compared the scaled ELs to
available certification data and confirmed that 2-foot U-shaped lamps
with both 6-inch and 1 5/8-inch leg spacings can meet the analyzed ELs.
Table IV.7 summarizes the ELs for all GSFL product classes.
Table IV.7--Summary of All Efficacy Levels for GSFLs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficacy level
CCT Lamp type -----------------------------------------------
1 2 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<=4,500 K............................. 4-foot medium bipin..... 93.6 94.6 ..............
2-foot U-shaped......... 88.0 88.9 ..............
8-foot single pin 99.6 102.8 ..............
slimline.
8-foot recessed double 99.0 108.4 ..............
contact HO.
4-foot T5 miniature 97.0 98.8 100.8
bipin SO.
4-foot T5 miniature 85.6 89.8 96.4
bipin HO.
>4,500 K.............................. 4-foot medium bipin..... 89.9 90.8 ..............
2-foot U-shaped......... 86.2 87.1 ..............
8-foot single pin 96.6 99.7 ..............
slimline.
8-foot recessed double 96.0 105.1 ..............
contact HO.
4-foot T5 miniature 91.2 92.9 94.8
bipin SO.
4-foot T5 miniature 80.5 84.4 90.6
bipin HO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Cost Analysis
The cost analysis portion of the Engineering Analysis is conducted
using one or a combination of cost approaches. The selection of cost
approach depends on a suite of factors, including the availability and
reliability of public information, characteristics of the regulated
product and the availability and timeliness of purchasing the GSFLs on
the market. The cost approaches are summarized as follows:
Physical teardowns: Under this approach, DOE physically
dismantles a commercially available product, component-by-component, to
develop a detailed bill of materials for the product.
Catalog teardowns: In lieu of physically deconstructing a
product, DOE identifies each component using parts diagrams (available
from manufacturer websites or appliance repair websites, for example)
to develop the bill of materials for the product.
Price surveys: If neither a physical nor catalog teardown
is feasible (for example, for tightly integrated products such as
fluorescent lamps, which are infeasible to disassemble and for which
parts diagrams are unavailable) or cost-prohibitive and otherwise
impractical (e.g., large commercial boilers), DOE conducts price
surveys using publicly available pricing data published on major online
retailer websites and/or by soliciting prices from distributors and
other commercial channels.
In the present case, DOE conducted the analysis using the price
survey approach. Typically, DOE develops manufacturing selling prices
(``MSPs'') for covered products and applies markups to create end-user
prices to use as inputs to the LCC analysis and NIA. Because GSFLs are
difficult to reverse-engineer (i.e., not easily disassembled), DOE
directly derives end-user prices for the lamps covered in this proposed
determination. The end-user price refers to the product price a
consumer pays before tax and installation. Because GSFLs operate with a
ballast in practice, DOE also incorporated prices for ballasts that
operate those lamps.
In its review of publicly available prices for GSFLs, DOE observed
a range of end-user prices paid for a lamp, depending on the
distribution channel through which the lamp was purchased. DOE
identified the following three main distribution channels: Small
consumer-based distributors (i.e., internet retailers, drug stores);
large retail distributors: (i.e., home centers, mass merchants,
hardware stores, and electrical distributors); and state procurement.
For each distribution channel, DOE calculated an average price for
the representative lamp unit at each EL using prices for the
representative lamp unit and similar lamp models at the same level.
Because the lamps included in the calculation were equivalent to the
representative lamp unit in terms of performance and utility (i.e., had
similar wattage, CCT, shape, base type, CRI, and technology), DOE
considered the pricing of these lamps to be representative of the
technology of the EL. DOE developed average end-user prices for the
representative lamp units sold in each of the three main distribution
channels analyzed. DOE then calculated an average weighted end-user
price using estimated shipments through each distribution channel.
Table IV.8 summarizes the weightings used for the GSFL main
distribution channels. Table IV.9 summarizes the weightings within the
large retail distributors. The cost analysis methodology is explained
in more detail in chapter 5 of the NOPD TSD.
Table IV.8--Weightings for GSFL Distribution Channels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Main Channels Weighting (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Procurement....................................... 10
Large retail distributors............................... 70
Online Retailers........................................ 20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IV.9--Weightings Within Large Retail Distributor Channel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GSFL weighting
Main channels Description (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large Retail Distributors......... Mass merchants and 11
Home centers.
[[Page 32342]]
Hardware stores..... 1
Electrical 88
distributors.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Energy Use Analysis
The purpose of the energy use analysis is to determine the annual
energy consumption of GSFLs at different efficiencies in representative
U.S. single-family homes, multi-family residences, and commercial
buildings, and to assess the energy savings potential of increased GSFL
efficiency. The energy use analysis estimates the range of energy use
of GSFLs in the field (i.e., as they are actually used by consumers).
The energy use analysis provides the basis for other analyses DOE
performed, particularly assessments of the energy savings and the
savings in consumer operating costs that could result from adoption of
amended or new standards.
Tables 6.4.1 through 6.4.10 in section 6.4 of the January 2015
final rule TSD present the average energy consumption for each GSFL
product class and efficiency level. DOE has tentatively concluded that
the current average energy consumption for these products is comparable
to the estimates developed in the January 2015 final rule, as the
wattage options have not changed substantially for most products
classes. Max-tech parameters, including system arc power, BF, and BLE
have been updated to account for the max-tech levels described in
section IV.C of this proposed determination. NEMA suggested that the
2015 DOE Lighting Market Characterization Report \10\ (2015 LMC) should
be used for operating hours for GSFLs. (NEMA, No. 6 at pp.8-9). DOE
agrees that the operating hours in the 2015 LMC are appropriate. The
8.1 average daily operating hours in the commercial sector from the
2015 LMC translate to lower energy use and thus lower potential energy
savings from GSFLs compared to the estimated 11.1 average daily
operating hours in the commercial sector in the January 2015 final
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 2015 U.S. Lighting Market Characterization. U.S. Department
of Energy, available at www.energy.gov/eere/ssl/2015-us-lighting-market-characterization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 6 of the NOPD TSD provides details on DOE's energy use
analysis for GSFLs.
E. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
DOE conducts LCC and PBP analyses to evaluate the economic impacts
on individual consumers of potential energy conservation standards for
GSFLs. The effect of new or amended energy conservation standards on
individual consumers usually involves a reduction in operating cost and
an increase in purchase cost. DOE typically uses the following two
metrics to measure consumer impacts:
The LCC is the total consumer expense of an appliance or
product over the life of that product, consisting of total installed
cost (manufacturer selling price, distribution chain markups, sales
tax, and installation costs) plus operating costs (expenses for energy
use, maintenance, and repair). To compute the operating costs, DOE
discounts future operating costs to the time of purchase and sums them
over the lifetime of the product.
The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it
takes consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including
installation) of a more-efficient product through lower operating
costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost
at higher efficiency levels by the change in annual operating cost for
the year that amended or new standards are assumed to take effect.
Based on the rapidly declining shipments of GSFLs, limited and
uncertain energy savings opportunity, and potential impacts on
manufacturers, as discussed in sections IV.D, IV.F, and V.C of this
NOPD, DOE did not conduct LCC and PBP analyses to evaluate the economic
impacts on individual consumers of amended GSFL energy conservation
standards.
F. Shipments Analysis
DOE uses projections of annual product shipments to calculate the
national impacts of potential amended or new energy conservation
standards on energy use, NPV, and future manufacturer cash flows.\11\
The shipments model takes an accounting approach in tracking market
shares of each product class and the vintage of units in the stock.
Stock accounting uses product shipments as inputs to estimate the age
distribution of in-service product stocks for all years. The age
distribution of in-service product stocks is a key input to
calculations of both the NES and NPV, because operating costs for any
year depend on the age distribution of the stock. DOE used a model
coded in the Python programming language to compute an estimate of
shipments and stock in each projection year up through the end of the
analysis period (2021-2055). DOE included 4-foot T8, 4-foot T5 standard
output and 4-ft T5 high output representative lamps in its shipments
model. While T8 lamps represent the largest part of the GSFL market,
the T5 product classes have engineering options with lower wattage
options at higher ELs that may result in energy savings for consumers.
The 8-foot recessed double-contact high-output product class does not
include any lamp options at higher ELs that reduce energy compared to
the baseline lamp, and the only lamp option in the 8-foot slimline
product class that would reduce energy consumption does not offer the
same utility as the other representative lamp options because its lumen
output is more than 10 percent lower. These lamp categories with
smaller markets and without potential energy savings at higher
efficiency levels were excluded from analysis due to the fact that
there would be either no or miniscule savings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ DOE uses data on manufacturer shipments as a proxy for
national sales, as aggregate data on sales are lacking. In general,
one would expect a close correspondence between shipments and sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE seeded this model with estimates of total historical shipments
derived from the January 2015 final rule (up through data year 2015)
and sales indices of the linear lamp market published by NEMA\1\ (for
data years 2015--2020). These indices show a steep decline of GSFL
sales for lamps of all types over this five year period. In order to
account for LED competition for GSFL applications, DOE included
representative T8 and T5 LED replacement lamps in the shipments model
(see the chapter 8 of the NOPD TSD for details). DOE assumed that in
each shipments projection year, demand for replacements would be the
only source of demand for new lamp purchases. Demand for replacement
[[Page 32343]]
lamps in each year is allotted among available replacement options
using a consumer choice model that derives market share based on the
features of available representative lamps. This model includes
consumer sensitivity to price, lifetime, energy savings, and mercury
content as measured in a market study \12\ of consumer preference for
lamps. Though these parameters represent the preference of residential
consumers, DOE adopted them for the linear lamp market in the absence
of available alternatives. DOE expects that because these parameters
place more weight on first-cost than other attributes, the model
results in a conservative estimate of LED adoption since commercial and
industrial consumers are more likely to weigh decreases in operating
costs in purchasing decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Steven Krull and Dan Freeman, ``Next Generation Light Bulb
Optimization'' (Pacific Gas and Electric Company, February 10,
2012), https://www.etcc-ca.com/sites/default/files/OLD/images/stories/Lighting_Conjoint_Study_v020712f.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE assumes that the purchase price of TLED lamp options will drop
over the course of the analysis period due to price learning associated
to cumulative shipments of LED lamps of all types (consistent with the
price learning analysis detailed in a LBNL report on the impact of the
GSL backstop \13\). Further, DOE assumes that while consumers may
replace fluorescent lamps with either a fluorescent or TLED lamp
option, those with failing LEDs will only opt for an LED replacement.
Lastly, DOE applies an efficiency trend, based on a fit to projections
of linear fixture efficiency from the 2019 Solid State Lighting
Report,\14\ to the most efficient LEDs available. Over the course of
the shipments projection period, the application of this trend expands
the range of available LED efficiencies and attempts to account for
increases in LED market share that would occur as a result of this
shift. Due in part to these assumptions, the shipments model projects
that the linear lamp market continues to shift quickly towards LED over
the analysis period in the no-new-standards case. See the chapter 8 of
the NOPD TSD for more details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ C.L.S. Kantner et al., ``Impact of the EISA 2007 Backstop
Requirement on General Service Lamps'' (Berkeley, CA: Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory, December 2021), https://eta.lbl.gov/publications/impact-eisa-2007-backstop-requirement.
\14\ Navigant Consulting, Inc., ``Energy Savings Forecast of
Solid-State Lighting in General Illumination Applications''
(Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy, December 2019), https://www.energy.gov/eere/ssl/downloads/2019-ssl-forecast-report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE also assumed that a fixed fraction of all tubular lamp stock in
each year will leave the market due to retrofits or renovation with
integrated LED fixtures. This assumption has the effect of reducing the
number of lamps that might retire, and therefore the size of the
market, in each year.
NEMA commented that their data shows a much more aggressive decline
than the assumption in the January 2015 final rule which accounts for
the penetration of LED lighting into GSFL markets. (NEMA, No. 6 at p.
10). Additionally, during manufacturer interviews, manufacturers
commented that the market is shifting to LED technology in the GSFL
markets. Most manufacturers commented that there has been a 20 to 40
percent decline in shipments for GSFLs each year that is expected to
continue absent new standards for GSFLs. This decline is greater than
that projected in the January 2015 final rule, and more in line with
the projected market share estimated in this proposed determination.
G. National Energy Savings
The NIA assesses the NES and the NPV from a national perspective of
total consumer costs and savings that would be expected to result from
new or amended standards at specific efficiency levels.\15\ DOE
calculates the NES and NPV for the potential standard levels considered
based on projections of annual product shipments, along with the annual
energy consumption and total installed cost data estimated or provided
from other sources. For the present analysis, DOE projected the energy
savings, operating cost savings, product costs, and NPV of consumer
benefits over the lifetime of GSFLs sold from 2026 through 2055.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ The NIA accounts for impacts in the 50 states and
Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE evaluates the effects of new or amended standards by comparing
a case without such standards with standards-case projections. The no-
new-standards case characterizes energy use and consumer costs for each
GSFL class in the absence of new or amended energy conservation
standards. The efficiency distribution is projected using a consumer-
choice model, as discussed in section IV.F, and takes into account
competition from TLED substitutes. DOE compares the no-new-standards
case with projections characterizing the market for each product class
if DOE adopted new or amended standards at specific energy efficiency
levels (i.e., the ELs or standards cases) for that class. For the
standards cases, consistent with the approach in the no-new-standards
case, DOE considers how a given standard would likely affect the market
shares of GSFLs with efficiencies greater than the standard and TLED
substitutes using the consumer-choice model discussed previously.
The only potential standard for which NES and NPV were calculated
was the max-tech levels, where the standard for each GSFL product class
is set at the maximum available level. NES and NPV at this candidate
standard define an upper bound on how much savings could be realized at
any lower standard.
Because a LCC analysis was not performed for consumers of lamps
covered under this analysis, DOE estimated the per-unit annual energy
use of available GSFL options based on nominal wattages derived during
the engineering analysis (described in section IV.C) and separate
average hours-of-use (HOU) estimates for individual sectors.
To estimate the HOU for linear lamps in the residential sector, DOE
scaled the average HOU estimated for A-type medium screw-base lamps in
DOE's 2016 GSL NOPR analysis. 81 FR 14528 (Mar. 16, 2016) The national-
average HOU for A-type lamps in the residential sector was estimated to
be 2.3 hours/day based on DOE's 2016 GSL NOPR analysis, which
considered a number of field metering studies conducted across the U.S.
DOE developed a scaling factor for linear lamps using the distribution
of room types that linear lamps are typically installed in and the HOU
associated with those room types, relative to the distribution of room
types and associated HOU for A-type lamps. Room-specific average HOU
data came from NEEA's 2014 Residential Building Stock Assessment
Metering Study (RBSAM) \16\ and room distribution data by lamp type
came from a 2010 KEMA report.\17\ DOE estimated the national weighted-
average HOU of linear lamps to be 2.1 hours per day in the residential
sector. See chapter 9 of this NOPD TSD for more detail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Ecotope Inc. Residential Building Stock Assessment:
Metering Study. 2014. Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance: Seattle,
WA. Report No. E14-283. (Last accessed December 5, 2019.) https://neea.org/data/residential-building-stock-assessment.
\17\ KEMA, Inc. Final Evaluation Report: Upstream Lighting
Program: Volume 2. 2010. California Public Utilities Commission,
Energy Division: Sacramento, CA. Report No. CPU0015.02. (Last
accessed March 14, 2016.) https://www.calmac.org/publications/FinalUpstreamLightingEvaluationReport_Vol2_CALMAC.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to estimate HOU for linear lamps in the commercial sector,
DOE took HOU estimates from the 2015 LMC of linear fluorescent lamps
for the commercial buildings present in that report. The building-
specific HOU for
[[Page 32344]]
these lamps was weighted by the relative floor space of each building
type as reported in the 2015 LMC. The national weighted-average HOU for
linear lamps GSLs in the commercial sector were estimated at 8.1 hours
per day.
DOE derived LED alternatives to the T8 GSFL lamps represented in
this analysis by looking at the efficiency and estimated cost of TLED
lamps found in manufacturer catalogs and retailer websites (in order of
data priority). DOE chose seven total TLED lamps ranging from 120 to
177 lumens per watt, and an estimated pre-tax price of $8.78 to $14.20
in 2021 USD. DOE assumed that the efficiency of T5 and 8-foot TLED
lamps would be the same as LED T8 lamps, and estimated their wattage by
assuming they would have the same lumen output of their GSFL
competitors described in the engineering analysis. Like with the GSFLs,
the annual energy use of TLED lamps was estimated using average hours
of use and wattage. The price of any given T5 or 8-foot LED alternative
is estimated as the sum of (a) the cost of the least efficient GSFL
option of that lamp type, and (b) the incremental cost between the
least efficient T8 GSFL and the LED T8 with the same efficiency as the
given lamp. See the chapter 8 and chapter 9 of the NOPD TSD for more
details.
DOE uses a model written in the python programming language to
calculate the energy savings and the national consumer costs and
savings from each EL.
Table IV.10 summarizes the inputs and methods DOE used for the NIA
analysis for the NOPD.
Table IV.10--Summary of Inputs and Methods for the National Impact
Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inputs Method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shipments.............................. Annual shipments from shipments
model.
Modeled Compliance Date of Standard.... 2026.
Annual Energy Consumption per Unit..... Energy consumption values of
modeled representative lamps
are a function of EL.
Total Installed Cost per Unit.......... Purchase price of modeled
representative lamps.
Electricity Prices..................... AEO2021 projections (to 2050)
and extrapolation through
2055.
Energy Site-to-Primary and FFC A time-series conversion factor
Conversion. based on AEO2021.
Discount Rate.......................... 3 percent and 7 percent.
Present Year........................... 2022 (the year to which NPV is
discounted).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Product Efficiency Trends
A key component of the NIA is the trend in energy efficiency
projected for the no-new-standards case and each of the standards
cases. DOE uses a shipments model that implements consumer choice over
available lamp options in each year in order to compute the efficiency
distribution. At each standard level and the no-new-standards case, the
consumer choice model uses consumer sensitivity to price, relative
energy savings, lamp lifetime, and mercury content to estimate the
efficiency distribution of purchases in each year.
2. National Energy Savings
The NES analysis involves a comparison of national energy
consumption of the considered products between each potential standards
case and the case with no new or amended energy conservation standards.
DOE calculated the national energy consumption by multiplying the
number of units (stock) of each product (by vintage or age) by the unit
energy consumption (also by vintage). DOE calculated annual NES based
on the difference in national energy consumption for the no-new-
standards case and for each higher efficiency standard case. DOE
estimated energy consumption and savings based on site energy and
converted the electricity consumption and savings to primary energy
(i.e., the energy consumed by power plants to generate site
electricity) using annual conversion factors derived from AEO2021.
Cumulative energy savings are the sum of the NES for each year over the
timeframe of the analysis.
In 2011, in response to the recommendations of a committee on
``Point-of-Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle Measurement Approaches to Energy
Efficiency Standards'' appointed by the National Academy of Sciences,
DOE announced its intention to use FFC measures of energy use and
greenhouse gas and other emissions in the NIA and emissions analyses
included in future energy conservation standards rulemakings. 76 FR
51281 (Aug. 18, 2011). After evaluating the approaches discussed in the
August 18, 2011 notice, DOE published a statement of amended policy in
which DOE explained its determination that EIA's National Energy
Modeling System (``NEMS'') is the most appropriate tool for its FFC
analysis and its intention to use NEMS for that purpose. 77 FR 49701
(Aug. 17, 2012). NEMS is a public domain, multi-sector, partial
equilibrium model of the U.S. energy sector \18\ that EIA uses to
prepare its AEO. The FFC factors incorporate losses in production, and
delivery in the case of natural gas, (including fugitive emissions) and
additional energy used to produce and deliver the various fuels used by
power plants. The approach used for deriving FFC measures of energy use
and emissions is described in appendix 10B of the NOPD TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ For more information on NEMS, refer to The National Energy
Modeling System: An Overview 2009, DOE/EIA-0581(2009), October 2009.
Available at www.eia.gov/analysis/pdfpages/0581(2009)index.php (last
accessed March 4, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Net Present Value Analysis
The inputs for determining the NPV of the total costs and benefits
experienced by consumers are (1) total annual installed cost, (2) total
annual operating costs (energy costs and repair and maintenance costs),
and (3) a discount factor to calculate the present value of costs and
savings. DOE calculates net savings each year as the difference between
the no-new-standards case and each standards case in terms of total
savings in operating costs versus total increases in installed costs.
DOE calculates operating cost savings over the lifetime of each product
shipped during the projection period.
DOE assumed that the price of TLED lamps would decrease over the
analysis period due to price learning, as described in section IV.F of
this document, which affected the market share projected by the
shipments model. The gradual decrease in LED prices also affects the
total installed cost over the analysis period, and has the effect of
reducing lamp costs in both the standards- and no-new-standards cases
as well as the incremental cost of a standard.
The operating cost savings are energy cost savings, which are
calculated using
[[Page 32345]]
the estimated energy savings in each year and the projected price of
the appropriate form of energy. To estimate energy prices in future
years, DOE multiplied the average regional energy prices by the
projection of annual national-average residential energy price changes
in the Reference case from AEO2021, which has an end year of 2050. To
estimate price trends after 2050, DOE assumed that prices would remain
constant after 2050.
In calculating the NPV, DOE multiplies the net savings in future
years by a discount factor to determine their present value. For this
NOPD, DOE estimated the NPV of consumer benefits using both a 3-percent
and a 7-percent real discount rate. DOE uses these discount rates in
accordance with guidance provided by the Office of Management and
Budget (``OMB'') to Federal agencies on the development of regulatory
analysis.\19\ The discount rates for the determination of NPV are in
contrast to the discount rates used in the LCC analysis, which are
designed to reflect a consumer's perspective. The 7-percent real value
is an estimate of the average before-tax rate of return to private
capital in the U.S. economy. The 3-percent real value represents the
``social rate of time preference,'' which is the rate at which society
discounts future consumption flows to their present value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ United States Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-
4: Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 2003. Section E. Available at
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/m03-21.html (last accessed March 4,
2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Analytical Results and Conclusions
The following section addresses the results from DOE's analyses
with respect to the considered energy conservation standards for GSFLs.
It addresses the max tech levels examined by DOE and the projected
impacts of these levels. Additional details regarding DOE's analyses
are contained in the NOPD TSD supporting this document.
A. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers
Based on the lack of energy savings and declining shipments of
GSFLs, as discussed in sections IV.D and IV.F of this NOPD, DOE did not
conduct LCC and PBP analyses to evaluate the economic impacts on
individual consumers of amended GSFL energy conservation standards.
B. National Impact Analysis
This section presents DOE's estimates of the NES and the NPV of
consumer benefits that would result from each of the ELs considered as
potential amended standards.
1. Significance of Energy Savings
To estimate the energy savings attributable to potential amended
standards for GSFLs, DOE compared their energy consumption under the
no-new-standards case to their anticipated energy consumption under the
max-tech levels for 4-foot T8 and 4-foot standard and high output T5
GSFL product classes. The savings are measured over the entire lifetime
of products purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the year of
anticipated compliance with amended standards (2026-2055).
The NIA model projected relatively low potential savings from a
max-tech standard level and that the majority of savings realized by
setting a GSFL standard are the result of incurring quicker market
shift to LED alternatives, rather than the reduction in energy
consumption of a constant GSFL market share. Further, because the
entire tubular lamp market is projected to decline over the analysis
period, most savings occur in the first decade of a potential standard.
For more details, see chapters 9 and 10 of the NOPD TSD.
Table V.1 presents DOE's projections of the NES the max-tech levels
considered for GSFLs. The savings were calculated using the approach
described in section IV.G of this document.
Table V.1--Cumulative National Energy Savings for GSFLs (Quads); 9 Years
of Shipments (2026-2034) and 30 Years of Shipments (2026-2055)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Max tech savings
-------------------------------
9 years 30 years
shipments shipments
(2026-2034) (2026-2055)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site Energy............................. 0.01 0.01
FFC Energy.............................. 0.03 0.03
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMB Circular A-4 \20\ requires agencies to present analytical
results, including separate schedules of the monetized benefits and
costs that show the type and timing of benefits and costs. Circular A-4
also directs agencies to consider the variability of key elements
underlying the estimates of benefits and costs. For this proposed
determination, DOE undertook a sensitivity analysis using 9 years,
rather than 30 years, of product shipments. The choice of a 9-year
period is a proxy for the timeline in EPCA for the review of certain
energy conservation standards and potential revision of and compliance
with such revised standards.\21\ The review timeframe established in
EPCA is generally not synchronized with the product lifetime, product
manufacturing cycles, or other factors specific to GSFLs. Thus, such
results are presented for informational purposes only and are not
indicative of any change in DOE's analytical methodology. The NES
sensitivity analysis results based on a 9-year analytical period are
presented in Table V.1. The impacts are counted over the
[[Page 32346]]
lifetime of GSFLs purchased in 2026-2034.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-4:
Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 2003. Available at
obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4/ (last accessed
March 4, 2022).
\21\ Section 325(m) of EPCA requires DOE to review its standards
at least once every 6 years, and requires, for certain products, a
3-year period after any new standard is promulgated before
compliance is required, except that in no case may any new standards
be required within 6 years of the compliance date of the previous
standards. If DOE makes a determination that amended standards are
not needed, it must conduct a subsequent review within three years
following such a determination. As DOE is evaluating the need to
amend the standards, the sensitivity analysis is based on the review
timeframe associated with amended standards. While adding a 6-year
review to the 3-year compliance period adds up to 9 years, DOE notes
that it may undertake reviews at any time within the 6-year period
and that the 3-year compliance date may yield to the 6-year
backstop. A 9-year analysis period may not be appropriate given the
variability that occurs in the timing of standards reviews and the
fact that for some products, the compliance period is 5 years rather
than 3 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits
DOE estimated the cumulative NPV of the total costs and savings for
consumers that would result from the max-tech levels considered for
GSFLs. In accordance with OMB's guidelines on regulatory analysis,\22\
DOE calculated NPV using both a 7-percent and a 3-percent real discount
rate. Table V.2 shows the consumer NPV results with impacts counted
over the lifetime of products purchased in 2026-2055.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-4:
Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 2003. Available at
obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4/ (last accessed
March 4, 2022).
Table V.2--Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for GSFLs
(Billions of 2021 USD); 9 Years of Shipments (2026-2034) and 30 Years of
Shipments (2026-2055)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum tech standard
-------------------------------
Discount rate 9 Years of 30 Years of
shipments shipments
(2026-2034) (2026-2055)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 percent............................... 0.21 0.26
7 percent............................... 0.15 0.18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NPV results based on the aforementioned 9-year analytical
period are also presented in Table V.2. The impacts are counted over
the lifetime of GSFLs purchased in 2026-2034. As mentioned previously,
such results are presented for informational purposes only and are not
indicative of any change in DOE's analytical methodology or decision
criteria.
C. Proposed Determination
As required by EPCA, this NOPD analyzes whether the Secretary
should issue a notification of determination not to amend standards for
GSFLs based on DOE's consideration of whether amended standards would
be technologically feasible, result in significant conservation of
energy, and be cost effective. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C.
6295(n)(2)) Any new or amended standards issued by the Secretary would
be required to comply with the economic justification and other
requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o).
1. Technological Feasibility
EPCA mandates that DOE consider whether amended energy conservation
standards for GSFLs would be technologically feasible. (42 U.S.C.
6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)(B)) DOE has tentatively
determined that there are technology options that would improve the
efficacy of GSFLs. These technology options are being used in
commercially available GSFLs and therefore are technologically
feasible. Hence, DOE has tentatively determined that amended energy
conservation standards for GSFLs are technologically feasible.
2. Cost Effectiveness
EPCA requires DOE to consider whether energy conservation standards
for GSFLs would be cost effective through an evaluation of the savings
in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered
GSFLs compared to any increase in the price of, or in the initial
charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered GSFLs which are
likely to result from the imposition of an amended standard. (42 U.S.C.
6295(m)(1)(A), 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)(C), and 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) In the absence of a LCC analysis, DOE considers
NPV estimated by the NIA model to estimate the potential monetary
benefits of amended standards for GSFLs. (See results in Table V.2) The
inputs for determining the NPV are (1) total annual installed cost, (2)
total annual operating costs (energy costs and repair and maintenance
costs), and (3) a discount factor to calculate the present value of
costs and savings. DOE observes that most of the estimated NPV
resulting from a potential standard comes from operating cost savings
associated to a slightly faster market transition to LED alternatives,
rather than savings associated to lower energy consumption for GSFL
consumers.
3. Significant Conservation of Energy
EPCA also mandates that DOE consider whether amended energy
conservation standards for GSFLs would result in significant
conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C.
6295(n)(2)(A)) DOE observed that a max-tech FFC energy savings of 0.03
quads over 30 years of shipments represents an approximately 1 percent
decrease in total energy use of lamps shipped in the period 2026-2055.
In addition, the model used to estimate these savings projects that
most of this reduction comes in incurring a faster market shift to
solid state lighting rather than a reduction in energy use among
existing GSFL consumers.
DOE also notes that GSFLs are manufactured and sold at standard
wattage levels, which restricts the effect of efficiency gains to
increasing the amount of light provided by GSFLs rather than directly
reducing energy consumption. For 4-foot T8 GSFLs, which represent the
bulk of GSFL shipments, the same wattage options are available at the
max tech standard level as at the baseline, so there is no reason to
believe that GSFL consumers will use less energy as a result of a
standard. The 0.02 FFC quads of potential energy savings associated
with these lamps is thus uncertain, as consumers may simply continue to
purchase a GSFL of the same wattage as their current lamp, rather than
shift to a lower wattage lamp or different lighting technology.
Consumers who have not already transitioned to LED lighting, once the
vast majority of the market has done so, may be less inclined to do so
than the typical consumer modeled by the consumer-choice model.
The 8-foot recessed double-contact high-output product class and
the 8-foot slimline product class do not include any lamp options at
higher ELs that would reduce energy compared to the baseline lamp, with
the exception of one lamp option in the 8-foot slimline product class
that doesn't offer the same utility as the other representative lamp
options because its lumen output is more than 10 percent lower. Thus
there is no potential energy savings from more efficient GSFLs for the
8-foot product classes.
[[Page 32347]]
The potential FFC energy savings from the remaining (4-foot T5
standard and high output) product classes is only 0.01 quads over 30
years of shipments. While these product classes do offer a lower
wattage option at max tech, in addition to an option with the same
wattage as the baseline lamp, DOE notes that for standard output T5
lamps, the lower wattage lamp costs more than the baseline-equivalent
wattage option, and for the high output T5 lamps, the lower wattage
lamp costs similar to the baseline-equivalent option, again suggesting
uncertainty that consumers will switch to a lower wattage lamp.
Additionally, most potential energy savings would come from consumers
switching to LEDs, and as with 4-foot T8 GSFLs, there is no guarantee
that consumers will switch to LEDs as a result of a standard, rather
than continue to purchase GSFLs of the same wattage as their current
lamp.
Further, while consumers historically might save energy under a
standard by retrofitting their systems with lower ballast factor
ballasts to reduce the operating wattage of their lamps (while
retaining light output), it appears unlikely in the current market that
consumers would retrofit their ballasts in this way as opposed to
installing a solid-state lighting solution. This removes the potential
lamp-and-ballast replacement approach as a strategy to save energy, and
consequently this approach was not modeled in this analysis of
potential energy savings.
4. Further Considerations
As discussed previously, any amended standards for GSFLs would be
required to comply with the economic justification and other
requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). Based on the: (1) Uncertainty of
potential energy savings discussed in detail in section V.C.3 of this
document; (2) the fact that an amended standard for GSFLs would require
manufacturers to invest in the manufacture of more efficient GSFLs at a
time when the market is already rapidly declining, as discussed in
section IV.F; and (3) international uncertainty regarding the ability
to sell GSFLs in the future following the second segment of the fourth
meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Minamata Convention on
Mercury,\23\ DOE has tentatively determined that energy conservation
standards for GSFLs would not be economically justified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ clasp, ``Convention on Mercury Promises CFLs Phase-Out;
Action on LFLs Delayed,'' available at https://www.clasp.ngo/updates/convention-on-mercury-agrees-to-phase-out-major-category-of-fluorescent-light-bulbs-but-last-minute-interventions-delay-action-on-another/; UN Environment Programme, ``Minamata COP-4 closes with
global commitment to strengthen efforts against toxic mercury,''
available at https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/minamata-cop-4-closes-global-commitment-strengthen-efforts-against;
UN Environment Programme, ``Minamata Convention on Mercury,''
available at https://www.mercuryconvention.org/en.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Summary
Based on the reasons stated in the foregoing discussion, DOE has
tentatively determined that the energy conservation standards for GSFLs
do not need to be amended because amended standards would not be
economically justified.
DOE will consider all comments received on this proposed
determination in issuing any final determination.
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 and 13563
Executive Order (``E.O.'') 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and
Review,'' as supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O. 13563, ``Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review, 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011), requires
agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to (1) propose or adopt a
regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify
its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to
quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on
society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into
account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs
of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative
regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety,
and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the
extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying
the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must
adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct
regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the
desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing
information upon which choices can be made by the public. DOE
emphasizes as well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to use the best
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its guidance, the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (``OIRA'') in the Office
of Management and Budget (``OMB'') has emphasized that such techniques
may include identifying changing future compliance costs that might
result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, this proposed regulatory action
is consistent with these principles.
Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit
``significant regulatory actions'' to OIRA for review. OIRA has
determined that this proposed regulatory action does not constitute a
``significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866.
Accordingly, this action was not submitted to OIRA for review under
E.O. 12866.
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (``IRFA'')
for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless
the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
As required by E.O. 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in
Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published
procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the
potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly
considered during the rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its
procedures and policies available on the Office of the General
Counsel's website (www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel).
DOE recently conducted a focused inquiry into small business
manufacturers of the products covered by this rulemaking. DOE used the
Small Business Administration (``SBA'') size standards to determine
whether any small entities would be subject to the requirements of the
proposed determination. The small business size standards are listed by
North American Industry Classification System (``NAICS'') code as well
as by industry description and are available at www.sba.gov/document/support--table-size-standards. Manufacturing GSFLs is classified under
NAICS code 335110, ``electric lamp bulb and part manufacturing.'' The
SBA sets a threshold of 1,250 employees or fewer for an entity to be
considered as a small business for this category. DOE used the
[[Page 32348]]
Compliance Certification Database \24\ and other publicly available
information to create a list of manufacturers. DOE then used market
research tools to determine whether any of the potential manufacturers
met the SBA's definition of a small entity, based on the total number
of employees for each company including parent, subsidiary, and sister
entities. DOE additionally screened out companies that are entirely or
largely foreign owned and operated. DOE identified a total of 38
distinct potential small businesses that import or manufacturer GSFLs
in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ U.S. Department of Energy Compliance Certification
Database, available at: www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE reviewed this proposed determination under the provisions of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the policies and procedures
published on February 19, 2003. Because DOE is proposing not to amend
standards for GSFLs, if adopted, the determination would not amend any
energy conservation standards. 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 an IRFA 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
Manufacturers of GSFLs must certify to DOE that their products
comply with any applicable energy conservation standards. To certify
compliance, manufacturers must first obtain test data for their
products according to the DOE test procedures, including any amendments
adopted for those test procedures. DOE has established regulations for
the certification and recordkeeping requirements for all covered
consumer products and commercial equipment, including microwave ovens.
(See generally 10 CFR part 429.) The collection-of-information
requirement for the certification and recordkeeping is subject to
review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (``PRA'').
This requirement has been approved by OMB under OMB control number
1910-1400. Public reporting burden for the certification is estimated
to average 35 hours per response, including the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information.
DOE has tentatively determined that current standards for GSFLs do
not need to be amended. This proposed determination, if made final,
would not impact the reporting burden approved under OMB control number
1910-1400.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays
a currently valid OMB Control Number.
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
DOE is analyzing this proposed action in accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (``NEPA'') and DOE's NEPA
implementing regulations (10 CFR part 1021). DOE's regulations include
a categorical exclusion for actions which are interpretations or
rulings with respect to existing regulations. 10 CFR part 1021, subpart
D, appendix A4. DOE anticipates that this action qualifies for
categorical exclusion A4 because it is an interpretation or ruling in
regards to an existing regulation and otherwise meets the requirements
for application of a categorical exclusion. See 10 CFR 1021.410. DOE
will complete its NEPA review before issuing the final action.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
E.O. 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), imposes
certain requirements on Federal 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 carefully assess
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 the development of regulatory
policies that have Federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE
published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental
consultation process it will follow in the development of such
regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has examined this proposed determination
and has tentatively determined that it would not have a substantial
direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
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 GSFLs that are the subject of this proposed
determination. States can petition DOE for exemption from such
preemption to the extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42
U.S.C. 6297) Therefore, 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,'' imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to
adhere to the following requirements: (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. 61 FR
4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). Regarding the review required by section 3(a),
section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 specifically requires that executive
agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation:
(1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any, (2) clearly
specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation, (3)
provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting
simplification and burden reduction, (4) specifies the retroactive
effect, if any, (5) adequately defines key terms, and (6) addresses
other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship
under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of
Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations
in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to
determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or
more of them. DOE has 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'')
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531).
For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may
cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the
[[Page 32349]]
private sector of $100 million or more in any one 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),
(b)) The UMRA also 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,'' and requires an agency plan for giving notice and
opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments
before establishing any requirements 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. DOE's policy statement is also available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf.
DOE examined this proposed determination according to UMRA and its
statement of policy and determined that the proposed determination does
not contain a Federal intergovernmental mandate, nor is it expected to
require expenditures of $100 million or more in any one year by State,
local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private
sector. As a result, the analytical requirements of UMRA do not apply.
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 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, if finalized as proposed, 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 (Mar. 15,
1988), DOE has determined that this proposed determination, if
finalized as proposed, 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,
2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for Federal agencies to review
most disseminations of information to the public under information
quality guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general
guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452
(Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446
(Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to OMB Memorandum M-19-15, Improving
Implementation of the Information Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE
published updated guidelines which are available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final%20Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%20Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has
reviewed this NOPD 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 the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (``OIRA'') at 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 or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final
rule, and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under Executive
Order 12866, or any successor Executive 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 should the proposal be implemented,
and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected
benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
This proposed determination, which does not propose to amend energy
conservation standards for GSFLs, is not a significant regulatory
action under Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it would not have a
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy, nor has it been designated as such by the Administrator at
OIRA. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.
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 (Jan.
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,'' which the Bulletin defines 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.'' Id. at 70 FR 2667.
In response to OMB's Bulletin, DOE conducted formal peer reviews of
the energy conservation standards development process and the analyses
that are typically used and has prepared Peer Review report pertaining
to the energy conservation standards rulemaking analyses.\25\
Generation of this report involved a rigorous, formal, and documented
evaluation using objective criteria and qualified and independent
reviewers to make a judgment as to the technical/scientific/business
merit, the actual or anticipated results, and the productivity and
management effectiveness of programs and/or projects. Because available
data, models, and technological understanding have changed since 2007,
DOE has engaged with the National Academy of Sciences to review DOE's
analytical methodologies to ascertain whether modifications are needed
to improve the Department's analyses. DOE is in the process of
evaluating the resulting report.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ ``Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Peer Review
Report.'' 2007. Available at www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/energy-conservation-standards-rulemaking-peer-review-report-0 (last accessed March 4, 2022).
\26\ The report is available at www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/review-of-methods-for-setting-building-and-equipment-performance-standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. Public Participation
DOE invites public participation in this process through
participation in the
[[Page 32350]]
webinar and submission of written comments and information. After the
webinar and the closing of the comment period, DOE will consider all
timely-submitted comments and additional information obtained from
interested parties, as well as information obtained through further
analyses.
A. Participation in the Webinar
The time and date of the webinar are listed in the DATES section at
the beginning of this document. If no participants register for the
webinar then it will be cancelled. Webinar registration information,
participant instructions, and information about the capabilities
available to webinar participants will be published on DOE's website:
www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=22. Participants are responsible for ensuring
their systems are compatible with the webinar software.
B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for
Distribution
Any person who has an interest in the topics addressed in this
NOPD, or who is representative of a group or class of persons that has
an interest in these issues, may request an opportunity to make an oral
presentation at the webinar. Such persons may submit requests to speak
to [email protected]. Persons who wish to speak
should include with their request a computer file in WordPerfect,
Microsoft Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file format that briefly describes
the nature of their interest in this proposed determination and the
topics they wish to discuss. Such persons should also provide a daytime
telephone number where they can be reached.
C. Conduct of the Webinar
DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the webinar/public
meeting and may also use a professional facilitator to aid discussion.
The meeting will not be a judicial or evidentiary-type public hearing,
but DOE will conduct it in accordance with section 336 of EPCA (42
U.S.C. 6306). A court reporter will be present to record the
proceedings and prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the right to
schedule the order of presentations and to establish the procedures
governing the conduct of the webinar/public meeting. There shall not be
discussion of proprietary information, costs or prices, market share,
or other commercial matters regulated by U.S. anti-trust laws. After
the webinar/public meeting and until the end of the comment period,
interested parties may submit further comments on the proceedings and
any aspect of the proposed determination.
The webinar/public meeting will be conducted in an informal,
conference style. DOE will present a general overview of the topics
addressed in this rulemaking, allow time for prepared general
statements by participants, and encourage all interested parties to
share their views on issues affecting this proposed determination. Each
participant will be allowed to make a general statement (within time
limits determined by DOE), before the discussion of specific topics.
DOE will permit, as time permits, other participants to comment briefly
on any general statements.
At the end of all prepared statements on a topic, DOE will permit
participants to clarify their statements briefly. Participants should
be prepared to answer questions by DOE and by other participants
concerning these issues. DOE representatives may also ask questions of
participants concerning other matters relevant to this proposed
determination. The official conducting the webinar/public meeting will
accept additional comments or questions from those attending, as time
permits. The presiding official will announce any further procedural
rules or modification of the above procedures that may be needed for
the proper conduct of the public meeting.
A transcript of the webinar/public meeting will be included in the
docket, which can be viewed as described in the Docket section at the
beginning of this NOPD. In addition, any person may buy a copy of the
transcript from the transcribing reporter.
D. Submission of Comments
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this
proposed determination no later than the date provided in the DATES
section at the beginning of this NOPD. Interested parties may submit
comments, data, and other information using any of the methods
described in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this document.
Submitting comments via www.regulations.gov. The
www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE
Building Technologies 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 itself 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. Otherwise, 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 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
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 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 www.regulations.gov
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
Submitting comments via email. Comments and documents submitted via
email also will be posted to 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 in a cover letter. Include your first
and last names, email address, telephone number, and optional mailing
address. With this instruction followed, 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. No faxes will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in
[[Page 32351]]
PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII)
file format. Provide documents that are not secured, that are written
in English, and that are 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. Pursuant 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 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. DOE will make
its own determination about the confidential status of the information
and treat it according to its determination.
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).
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, DOE
is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of
interested parties concerning the following issues:
(1) DOE seeks comment on the technology options identified and the
ones selected as design options in the screening analysis. See sections
IV.B.2 and IV.B.3 of this document.
(2) DOE seeks comment on the performance characteristics of the
more efficacious substitutes. See section IV.C of this document.
(3) DOE welcomes any relevant data and comment on the energy use
analysis methodology. See section IV.D of this document.
(4) DOE welcomes any relevant data and comment on the shipments
analysis methodology. See section IV.F of this document.
VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this
notification of proposed determination and request for comment.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on May 23,
2022, by Kelly J. Speakes-Backman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated
authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original
signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes
only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal
Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been
authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for
publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This
administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this
document upon publication in the Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on May 24, 2022.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2022-11437 Filed 5-27-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P