[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 193 (Thursday, October 6, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60555-60567]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-21696]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 193 / Thursday, October 6, 2022 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 60555]]
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[EERE-2022-BT-STD-0023]
RIN 1904-AF44
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Metal Halide Lamp Fixtures
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Request for information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') is initiating an
effort to determine whether to amend the current energy conservation
standards for metal halide lamp fixtures (``MHLF''). On October 25,
2021, DOE published a final determination concluding that energy
conservation standards for MHLFs do not need to be amended because they
are not economically justified. No later than 3 years after such a
determination, under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as
amended, DOE must periodically review these standards and publish
either a notice of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'') to propose new
standards for MHLFs or a notification of determination that the
existing standards do not need to be amended. This request for
information (``RFI'') solicits information from the public to help DOE
determine whether amended standards for MHLFs would result in
significant energy savings and whether such standards would be
technologically feasible and economically justified. As part of this
RFI, DOE seeks comment on technological and market changes since the
most recent standards update to consider in its evaluation of more
stringent standards. DOE also welcomes written comments from the public
on any subject within the scope of this document (including those
topics not specifically raised), as well as the submission of data and
other relevant information.
DATES: Written comments and information are requested and will be
accepted on or before November 7, 2022.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov under docket
number EERE-2022-BT-STD-0023. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments. Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments may
submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2022-BT-STD-0023, by
any of the following methods:
Email: [email protected]@ee.doe.gov. Include the docket
number EERE-2022-BT-STD-0023 in the subject line of the message.
Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc
(``CD''), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.
Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program,
U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 L'Enfant
Plaza SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 287-1445.
If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not
necessary to include printed copies.
No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this
process, see section III of this document.
Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials,
is available for review at www.regulations.gov. All documents in the
docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. However, some
documents listed in the index, such as those containing information
that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly available.
The docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2022-BT-STD-0023. The docket web page contains instructions on how
to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See
section III for information on how to submit comments through
www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Bryan Berringer, 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) 586-0371. Email: [email protected].
Ms. Kathryn McIntosh, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the
General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-2002. 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. Introduction
A. Authority and Background
B. Rulemaking Process
C. Deviation From Appendix A
II. Request for Information and Comments
A. Equipment Covered by This Process
B. Market and Technology Assessment
1. Equipment Classes
2. Technology Assessment
C. Screening Analysis
D. Engineering Analysis
1. Efficiency Analysis
2. Baseline Models
3. Efficiency Levels and Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
4. Scaling Non-Representative Equipment Classes
5. Cost Analysis
E. Markup Analysis
F. Energy Use Analysis
G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Analysis
1. Equipment Cost
2. Installation Cost
3. Annual Energy Consumption
4. Energy Prices
5. Replacement Costs
6. Equipment Lifetime
7. Discount Rates
8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case
9. Payback Period Analysis
H. Shipments
I. National Impact Analysis
J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
III. Submission of Comments
[[Page 60556]]
I. Introduction
A. Authority and Background
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''),\1\
authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of
consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-
6317) Title III, Part B \2\ of EPCA established the Energy Conservation
Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. These products
include MHLFs, the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(19))
\3\ EPCA prescribed initial energy conservation standards for MHLFs,
and directed DOE to conduct two cycles of rulemakings to determine
whether to amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(hh)(1)(A), 42 U.S.C.
6295(hh)(2)(A), and 42 U.S.C. 6295(hh)(3)(A)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 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.
\2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part B was redesignated Part A.
\3\ DOE notes that because of the codification of the MHLF
provisions in 42 U.S.C. 6295, MHLF energy conservation standards and
the associated test procedures are subject to the requirements of
the consumer products provisions of Part B of Title III of EPCA.
However, because MHLFs are generally considered to be commercial
equipment, DOE established the requirements for MHLFs in 10 CFR part
431 (``Energy Efficiency Program for Certain Commercial and
Industrial Equipment'') for ease of reference. DOE notes that the
location of the provisions within the CFR does not affect either the
substance or applicable procedure for MHLFs. Based upon their
placement into 10 CFR part 431, MHLFs are referred to as
``equipment'' throughout this document, although covered by the
consumer product provisions of EPCA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of
four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation
standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant
provisions of EPCA specifically include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291),
test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294),
energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to
require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered products
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42
U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c)) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal
preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with
the procedures and other provisions set forth under EPCA. (42 U.S.C.
6297(d))
EPCA also requires that, not later than 6 years after the issuance
of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE evaluate the
energy conservation standards for each type of covered product,
including those at issue here, and publish either a notification of
determination that the standards do not need to be amended, or a NOPR
that includes new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to
a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)). In making a
determination that the standards do not need to be amended, DOE must
evaluate whether amended standards (1) will result in significant
conservation of energy, (2) are technologically feasible, and (3) are
cost effective as described under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II). (42
U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A); 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)). Under 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II), DOE must determine whether the benefits of a
standard exceed its burdens by, to the greatest extent practicable,
considering the savings in operating costs throughout the estimated
average life of the covered product in the type (or class) compared to
any increase in the price of, or in the initial charges for, or
maintenance expenses of, the covered products which are likely to
result from the imposition of the standard. If DOE determines not to
amend a standard based on the statutory criteria, 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)).
In proposing new standards, DOE must evaluate that proposal against
the criteria of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), as described in the following
section, and follow the rulemaking procedures set out in 42 U.S.C.
6295(p). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(B) If DOE decides to amend the standard
based on the statutory criteria, DOE must publish a final rule not
later than two years after energy conservation standards are proposed.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(3)(A)).
DOE completed the first of these required rulemaking cycles in 2014
by publishing a final rule amending performance standards for MHLFs
manufactured on or after February 10, 2017. 79 FR 7746 (February 10,
2014) (``2014 Final Rule''). Additionally, DOE completed the second
rulemaking cycle reviewing current standard and determined not to amend
the energy conservation standards for MHLFs by publishing a final rule
in 2021. 86 FR 58763 (October 25, 2021) (``2021 Final Determination'').
The current energy conservation standards are located in title 10 of
the Code of Federal Regulations (``CFR'') part 431, section 31.326. The
currently applicable DOE test procedures for MHLFs appear at 10 CFR
431.324.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ DOE also recently published a final rule adopting amendments
to its test procedure for MHLFs to incorporate by reference new
relevant industry standards as well as update to latest versions of
existing references; clarify the selection of reference lamps used
for testing; specify the light output level at which to test dimming
ballasts; revise definitions and reorganize the content of the test
procedure for better readability and clarity; and revise the standby
mode test method for MHLFs. 87 FR 37685 (Jun. 24, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE is publishing this RFI pursuant to EPCA's requirement that DOE
must reevaluate the energy conservation standards no later than 3 years
after making a determination not to amend standards, (42 U.S.C.
6295(m)(3)(B), and to collect data and information to inform its
decision consistent with its obligations under EPCA.
B. Rulemaking Process
DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or
amended standards for covered products. EPCA requires that any new or
amended energy conservation standard prescribed by the Secretary of
Energy (``Secretary'') be designed to achieve the maximum improvement
in energy or water efficiency that is technologically feasible and
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)). Furthermore, DOE may
not prescribe an amended or new standard that will not result in
significant conservation of energy or is not technologically feasible
or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
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.\5\ 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 greenhouse gas (``GHG'') emissions in order to
limit the rise in mean global temperature.\6\ As
[[Page 60557]]
such, energy savings that reduce GHG emission have taken on greater
importance. In evaluating the significance of energy savings, DOE
considers primary energy and full-fuel cycle (``FFC'') effects 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for Consideration
in New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures
for Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial Equipment, 86 FR
70892, 70901 (Dec. 13, 2021).
\6\ See Executive Order 14008, 86 FR 7619 (Feb. 1, 2021)
(``Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To determine whether a standard is economically justified, EPCA
requires that DOE determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed
its burdens by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the
following seven factors:
(1) The economic impact of the standard on the manufacturers and
consumers of the affected products;
(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average
life of the product compared to any increases in the initial cost, or
maintenance expenses;
(3) The total projected amount of energy and water (if applicable)
savings likely to result directly from the standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the products
likely to result from the standard;
(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the
standard;
(6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and
(7) Other factors the Secretary considers relevant.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII)).
Further, EPCA establishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard
is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the additional
cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying with an energy
conservation standard level will be less than three times the value of
the energy savings during the first year that the consumer will receive
as a result of the standard, as calculated under the applicable test
procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)).
DOE fulfills these and other applicable requirements by conducting
a series of analyses throughout the rulemaking process. Table I-1 shows
the individual analyses that are performed to satisfy each of the
requirements within EPCA.
Table I-1--EPCA Requirements and Corresponding DOE Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPCA requirement Corresponding DOE analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Significant Energy Savings................ Shipments Analysis.
National Impact
Analysis.
Energy and Water
Use Determination.
Technological Feasibility................. Market and
Technology Assessment.
Screening Analysis.
Engineering
Analysis.
Economic Justification:
1. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Manufacturer Impact
Consumers. Analysis.
Life-Cycle Cost and
Payback Period Analysis.
Life-Cycle Cost
Subgroup Analysis.
Shipments Analysis.
2. Lifetime Operating Cost Savings Markups for
Compared to Increased Cost for the Equipment Price
Product. Determination.
Energy and Water
Use Determination.
Life-Cycle Cost and
Payback Period Analysis.
3. Total Projected Energy Savings......... Shipments Analysis.
National Impact
Analysis.
4. Impact on Utility or Performance....... Screening Analysis.
Engineering
Analysis.
5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition. Manufacturer Impact
Analysis.
6. Need for National Energy and Water Shipments Analysis.
Conservation. National Impact
Analysis.
7. Other Factors the Secretary Considers Employment Impact
Relevant. Analysis.
Utility Impact
Analysis.
Emissions Analysis.
Monetization of
Emission Reductions
Benefits.\7\
Regulatory Impact
Analysis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As detailed throughout this RFI, DOE is publishing this document
seeking input and data from interested parties to aid in the
development of the technical analyses on which DOE will ultimately rely
to determine whether (and if so, how) to amend the standards for MHLF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No.
22-30087) granted the federal government's emergency motion for stay
pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction
issued in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a
result of the Fifth Circuit's order, the preliminary injunction is
no longer in effect, pending resolution of the federal government's
appeal of that injunction or a further court order. Among other
things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that
case from ``adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying
upon'' the interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse
gases--which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the
Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021--to monetize
the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In the absence of
further intervening court orders, DOE will revert to its approach
prior to the injunction and present monetized benefits where
appropriate and permissible by law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 pre-NOPR stages for an energy
conservation standards rulemaking. Section 6(d)(2) of appendix A states
that the public comment period for pre-NOPR rulemaking documents will
vary depending upon the circumstances of the particular rulemaking but
will not be less than 75 calendar days. DOE is
[[Page 60558]]
opting to deviate from this provision by specifying a public comment
period of 30 days for this RFI. As noted, the 2021 Final Determination
was published on October 25, 2021. The methodologies and information
upon which DOE seeks comment in this RFI are based on the analysis
conducted for the 2021 Final Determination. Because stakeholders have
been made recently familiar with the subjects covered in this RFI
through the 2021 Final Determination and are not reviewing new
information, DOE has determined that 30 days is sufficient a period for
providing comments.
II. Request for Information and Comments
In the following sections, DOE has identified a variety of issues
on which it seeks input to aid in the development of the technical and
economic analyses regarding whether amended standards for MHLFs may be
warranted.
A. Equipment Covered by This Process
This RFI covers equipment that meets the definition of MHLF, as
codified at 10 CFR 430.2. An MHLF is defined as a light fixture for
general lighting application designed to be operated with a metal
halide lamp and a ballast for a metal halide lamp. 42 U.S.C. 6291(64);
10 CFR 431.322. DOE has also defined several terms related to MHLF in
10 CFR 431.322.
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Public Law 110-
140 (December 19, 2007) (``EISA 2007''), established energy
conservation standards for MHLFs with ballasts designed to operate
lamps with rated wattages between 150 watts (``W'') and 500 W and
excluded three types of fixtures within the covered wattage range from
energy conservation standards: (1) fixtures with regulated-lag
ballasts; (2) fixtures that use electronic ballasts and operate at 480
volts (``V''); and (3) fixtures that are rated only for 150 watt lamps,
are rated for use in wet locations as specified by the National Fire
Protection Association (``NFPA'') in NFPA 70, ``National Electrical
Code 2002 Edition,'' and contain a ballast that is rated to operate at
ambient air temperatures above 50 Celsius (``[deg]C'') as specified by
Underwriters Laboratory (``UL'') in UL 1029, ``Standard for Safety
High-Intensity-Discharge Lamp Ballasts.'' (42 U.S.C. 6295(hh)(1)(A)-
(B)). In the 2014 Final Rule, DOE also promulgated standards for the
group of MHLFs with ballasts designed to operate lamps rated 50 W-150 W
and 501 W-1,000 W. DOE also promulgated standards for one type of
previously excluded fixture: A 150 W MHLF rated for use in wet
locations and containing a ballast that is rated to operate at ambient
air temperatures greater than 50 [deg]C--i.e., those fixtures that fall
under 42 U.S.C. 6295(hh)(1)(B)(iii). DOE continued to exclude from
standards MHLFs with regulated-lag ballasts and 480 V electronic
ballasts. In addition, due to a lack of applicable test method for
high-frequency electronic (``HFE'') ballasts, in the 2014 Final Rule,
DOE did not establish standards for MHLFs with HFE ballasts. 79 FR
7746, 7754-7756.
Although current standards for MHLFs require them to contain a
ballast that meets or exceeds a minimum ballast efficiency, the entity
responsible for certifying compliance with the applicable standard is
the MHLF manufacturer or importer. The MHLF manufacturer may opt to use
a third-party to certify on its behalf, such as the ballast
manufacturer. However, the MHLF manufacturer or importer is ultimately
responsible for certifying compliance to DOE. See generally 42 U.S.C.
6291(10)-(12) and 10 CFR 429.12.
DOE seeks feedback on whether definitions related to MHLFs in 10
CFR 431.322 require any revisions--and if so, how those definitions
should be revised. DOE also seeks input on whether additional
definitions are necessary for DOE to clarify or otherwise implement its
regulatory requirements related to MHLFs.
B. Market and Technology Assessment
The market and technology assessment that DOE routinely conducts
when analyzing the impacts of a potential new or amended energy
conservation standard provides information about the MHLF industry that
will be used in DOE's analysis throughout the rulemaking process. DOE
uses qualitative and quantitative information to characterize the
structure of the industry and market. DOE identifies manufacturers,
estimates market shares and trends, addresses regulatory and non-
regulatory initiatives intended to improve energy efficiency or reduce
energy consumption, and explores the potential for efficiency
improvements in the design and manufacturing of MHLF. DOE also reviews
equipment literature, industry publications, and company websites.
Additionally, DOE considers conducting interviews with manufacturers to
improve its assessment of the market and available technologies for
MHLFs.
1. Equipment Classes
When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE
may divide covered products into classes based on the type of energy
used, or by capacity or other performance-related features that justify
a different standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)). In making a determination
whether capacity or another performance-related feature justifies a
different standard, DOE must consider such factors as the utility of
the feature to the consumer and other factors DOE deems appropriate.
(Id.)
For MHLF, the current energy conservation standards specified in 10
CFR 431.326 are based on 24 equipment classes determined according to
performance-related features that provide utility to the consumer, in
terms of input voltage, rated lamp wattage, and designation for indoor
versus outdoor applications. Table II-1 lists the current 24 equipment
classes for MHLFs.
Table II-1--Current MHLF Equipment Classes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designed to be operated with
lamps of the following rated Indoor/outdoor Input voltage type
lamp wattage ***
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>=50 W and <=100 W.............. Indoor............ Tested at 480 V.
>=50 W and <=100 W.............. Indoor............ All others.
>=50 W and <=100 W.............. Outdoor........... Tested at 480 V.
>=50 W and <=100 W.............. Outdoor........... All others.
>100 W and <150 W *............. Indoor............ Tested at 480 V.
>100 W and <150 W *............. Indoor............ All others.
>100 W and <150 W *............. Outdoor........... Tested at 480 V.
>100 W and <150 W *............. Outdoor........... All others.
>=150 W ** and <=250 W.......... Indoor............ Tested at 480 V.
>=150 W ** and <=250 W.......... Indoor............ All others.
[[Page 60559]]
>=150 W ** and <=250 W.......... Outdoor........... Tested at 480 V.
>=150 W ** and <=250 W.......... Outdoor........... All others.
>250 W and <=500 W.............. Indoor............ Tested at 480 V.
>250 W and <=500 W.............. Indoor............ All others.
>250 W and <=500 W.............. Outdoor........... Tested at 480 V.
>250 W and <=500 W.............. Outdoor........... All others.
>500 W and <=1,000 W............ Indoor............ Tested at 480 V.
>500 W and <=1,000 W............ Indoor............ All others.
>500 W and <=1,000 W............ Outdoor........... Tested at 480 V.
>500 W and <=1,000 W............ Outdoor........... All others.
>1,000 W and <=2,000 W.......... Indoor............ Tested at 480 V.
>1,000 W and <=2,000 W.......... Indoor............ All others.
>1,000 W and <=2,000 W.......... Outdoor........... Tested at 480 V.
>1,000 W and <=2,000 W.......... Outdoor........... All others.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Includes 150 W fixtures that are fixtures rated only for 150 W lamps;
rated for use in wet locations, as specified by the NFPA 70
(incorporated by reference, see 10 CFR 431.323), section 410.4(A); and
containing a ballast that is rated to operate at ambient air
temperatures above 50 [deg]C, as specified by UL 1029 (incorporated by
reference, see 10 CFR 431.323).
** Excludes 150 W fixtures that are fixtures rated only for 150 W lamps;
rated for use in wet locations, as specified by the NFPA 70, section
410.4(A); and containing a ballast that is rated to operate at ambient
air temperatures above 50 [deg]C, as specified by UL 1029.
*** Input voltage for testing is specified by the test procedures.
Ballasts rated to operate lamps less than 150 W must be tested at 120
V, and ballasts rated to operate lamps >=150 W must be tested at 277
V. Ballasts not designed to operate at either of these voltages must
be tested at the highest voltage the ballast is designed to operate.
In the 2014 Final Rule, DOE adopted standards that would result in
the benefits of energy savings, emissions reductions, and net present
value (``NPV'') at each representative equipment class that outweighed
the potential reduction in industry net present value (``INPV'') for
manufacturers. In doing so, DOE did not adopt standards for MHLFs
designed to be operated with lamps rated greater than 1,000 W and less
than or equal to 2,000 W. 79 FR 7746, 7834-7836. Furthermore, because
DOE adopted the same standards for indoor and outdoor equipment classes
that are tested at the same input voltage and operate lamps of the same
wattage, DOE omitted the indoor/outdoor distinction when codifying the
table of standards into 10 CFR 431.326(c). In the 2014 Final Rule, DOE
analyzed indoor and outdoor fixtures separately because these two types
of fixtures offer different performance-related features. When
electronic ballasts are used in outdoor applications, they require
additional transient protection because of the potential for voltage
surges in outdoor locations. Indoor fixtures with electronic ballasts
also have an added feature to provide 120 V auxiliary power
functionality for use in the event of a power outage. Based on these
different features, DOE established separate equipment classes for
indoor and outdoor fixtures, but adopted the same minimum energy
conservation standards for these classes. 79 FR 7746, 7763-7764. In the
2021 Final Determination, for the same reasons noted above, DOE
continued to analyze MHLFs under separate equipment classes for indoor
and outdoor fixtures. 86 FR 58763, 58769. As noted previously, DOE did
not amend standards in the 2021 Final Determination.
DOE seeks feedback on the current MHLF equipment classes and
whether changes to these individual equipment classes and their
descriptions should be made or whether certain classes should be merged
or separated (e.g., indoor and outdoor, wattage ranges). Specifically,
DOE requests comment on whether the features associated with indoor
and/or outdoor fixtures (e.g., thermal management, transient
protection, auxiliary power functionality) remain in the market today.
DOE is also aware that new configurations and features are
available for MHLFs that may not have been available at the time of the
last energy conservation standards analysis. Based on DOE's review of
the market, DOE found metal halide dimming ballasts available from
multiple manufacturers that could be used in MHLFs. DOE has identified
both step-level dimming and continuous dimming metal halide systems
that are dimmable down to 50 percent of rated power.
DOE seeks information regarding any new equipment classes it should
consider for inclusion in its analysis. Specifically, DOE requests
information on any performance-related features (e.g., dimmability,
etc.) that may provide unique consumer utility and data detailing the
corresponding impacts on energy use that would justify separate
equipment classes (i.e., explanation for why the presence of these
performance-related features would increase energy consumption).
In describing which MHLFs are included in each equipment class, DOE
incorporates by reference the 2002 version of NFPA 70, ``National
Electrical Code'' \8\ and the 2007 version of UL 1029, ``High-
Intensity-Discharge Lamp Ballasts'' \9\ in DOE's regulations through 10
CFR 431.323. NFPA 70 is a national safety standard for electrical
design, installation, and inspection, and is also known as the National
Electrical Code. UL 1029 is a safety standard specific to high
intensity discharge (``HID'') lamp ballasts; a metal halide lamp
ballast is a type of HID lamp ballast. Both NFPA 70 and UL 1029 are
used to describe the applicable equipment class for MHLFs (see section
II.B.1 of this document). DOE has found that a 2020 version of NFPA 70
\10\ (``NFPA 70-2020'') and a 2022 version of UL 1029 \11\ (``UL 1029-
2022'') are now available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ National Fire Protection Association, NFPA 70-2002 (``NFPA
70''), National Electrical Code 2002 Edition.
\9\ Underwriters Laboratories, UL 1029 (ANSI/UL 1029-2007) (``UL
1029''), Standard for Safety High-Intensity-Discharge Lamp Ballasts,
5th edition, Approved May 25, 1994.
\10\ National Fire Protection Association, NFPA 70-2020 (``NFPA
70''), National Electrical Code 2020 Edition.
\11\ Underwriters Laboratories, UL 1029 (ANSI/UL 1029-2007)
(``UL 1029''), Standard for Safety High-Intensity-Discharge Lamp
Ballasts, 5th edition, Revised July 15, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE seeks comment on whether incorporating by reference the updated
industry standards, NFPA 70-2020 and UL 1029-2022, will impact the
MHLFs
[[Page 60560]]
included in each equipment class in DOE's regulations.
2. Technology Assessment
In analyzing the feasibility of potential new or amended energy
conservation standards, DOE uses information about existing and past
technology options and prototype designs to help identify technologies
that manufacturers could use to meet and/or exceed a given set of
energy conservation standards under consideration. In consultation with
interested parties, DOE intends to develop a list of technologies to
consider in its analysis. That analysis will likely include a number of
the technology options DOE previously considered during the 2021 Final
Determination for MHLFs. A complete list of those prior options appears
in Table II-2.
Table II-2--Technology Options for MHLFs Considered in the Development of the 2021 Final Determination
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ballast type Design option Description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Magnetic............................. Improved Core Steel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grain-Oriented Silicon Use a higher grade of electrical steel,
Steel. including grain-oriented silicon steel, to
lower core losses.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amorphous Steel........ Create the core of the inductor from laminated
sheets of amorphous steel insulated from each
other.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improved Steel Add steel laminations to lower core losses by
Laminations. using thinner laminations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copper Wiring.......... Use copper wiring in place of aluminum wiring to
lower resistive losses.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improved Windings...... Use of optimized-gauge copper wire; multiple,
smaller coils; shape-optimized coils to reduce
winding losses.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Ballast..... Replace magnetic ballasts with electronic
ballasts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic........................... Improved Components
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Magnetics.............. Improved Windings: Use of optimized-gauge copper
wire; multiple, smaller coils; shape-optimized
coils; litz wire to reduce winding losses.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diodes................. Use diodes with lower losses.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capacitors............. Use capacitors with a lower effective series
resistance and output capacitance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transistors............ Use transistors with lower drain-to-source
resistance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improved Circuit Design
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Circuits.... Substitute discrete components with an
integrated circuit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE seeks information on the technologies listed in Table II-2
regarding their applicability to the current market and how these
technologies may impact the efficiency of MHLFs as measured according
to the DOE test procedure. DOE also seeks information on how these
technologies may have changed since they were considered in the 2021
Final Determination analysis. Specifically, DOE seeks information on
the range of efficiencies or performance characteristics that are
currently available for each technology option.
DOE seeks comment on other technology options that it should
consider for inclusion in its analysis and if these technologies may
impact equipment features or consumer utility of MHLFs.
C. Screening Analysis
The purpose of the screening analysis is to evaluate the
technologies that improve equipment efficiency to determine which
technologies will be eliminated from further consideration and which
will be passed to the engineering analysis for further consideration.
DOE determines whether to eliminate certain technology options from
further consideration based on the following criteria:
(1) Technological feasibility. Technologies that are not
incorporated in commercial equipment or in working prototypes will not
be considered further.
(2) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If it is
determined that mass production of a technology in commercial equipment
and reliable installation and servicing of the technology could not be
achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the
time of the compliance date of the standard, then that technology will
not be considered further.
(3) Impacts on equipment utility or equipment availability. If a
technology is determined to have significant adverse impact on the
utility of the equipment to significant subgroups of consumers, or
result in the unavailability of any covered equipment type with
performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes,
capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as equipment
generally available in the United States at the time, it will not be
considered further.
(4) Adverse impacts on health or safety. If it is determined that a
technology will have significant adverse impacts on health or safety,
it will not be considered further.
[[Page 60561]]
(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.
10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, sections 6(b)(3) and 7(b).
Technology options identified in the technology assessment are
evaluated against these criteria using DOE analyses and inputs from
interested parties (e.g., manufacturers, trade organizations, and
energy efficiency advocates). Technologies that pass through the
screening analysis are referred to as ``design options'' in the
engineering analysis. Technology options that fail to meet one or more
of the five criteria are eliminated from consideration.
In the 2021 Final Determination, for magnetic ballasts, DOE
screened out the technology option of using laminated sheets of
amorphous steel. DOE determined that using amorphous steel could have
adverse impacts on consumer utility because increasing the size and
weight of the ballast may limit the places a consumer could use the
ballast. DOE did not screen out any other technology options in that
rulemaking. 86 FR 58763, 58771.
DOE requests feedback on what impact, if any, the five screening
criteria described in this section would have on each of the technology
options listed in Table II-2 with respect to MHLFs. Similarly, DOE
seeks information regarding how these same criteria would affect any
other technology options not already identified in this document with
respect to their potential use in MHLFs.
With respect to the screened-out technology option of laminated
sheets of amorphous steel, DOE seeks information on whether this option
would, based on current and projected assessments, remain screened out
under the five screening criteria described in this section.
Additionally, DOE seeks information on what steps, if any, could be (or
have already been) taken to facilitate the introduction of this
technology option as a means to improve the energy performance of MHLFs
and the potential to impact consumer utility of MHLFs.
D. Engineering Analysis
The purpose of the engineering analysis is to establish the
relationship between the efficiency and cost of MHLFs. 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 equipment cost at each efficiency level (i.e., the
``cost analysis''). In determining the performance of higher-efficiency
equipment, DOE considers technologies and design option combinations
not eliminated by the screening analysis. For each equipment class, DOE
estimates the baseline cost, as well as the incremental cost for the
equipment 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 life-cycle cost (``LCC'') and
payback period (``PBP'') analyses and the national impact analysis
(``NIA'')). The following sections provide further detail on DOE's
engineering analysis and seek public input on specific issues pertinent
to MHLFs, the subject of this rulemaking.
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 equipment (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 equipment 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 maximum technologically
feasible (``max-tech'') efficiency level (particularly in cases where
the max-tech level exceeds the maximum efficiency level currently
available on the market).
2. Baseline Models
For each established equipment class, DOE selects a baseline model
as a reference point against which any changes resulting from new or
amended energy conservation standards can be measured. The baseline
model in each equipment class represents the characteristics of common
or typical equipment in that class. Typically, a baseline model is one
that meets the current minimum energy conservation standards and
provides basic consumer utility. Consistent with this analytical
approach, DOE tentatively plans to consider the current minimum energy
conservations standards (which went into effect February 10, 2017) to
establish the baseline efficiency levels for each equipment class. 79
FR 7749. The current standards for each equipment class are based on
ballast efficiency. The current standards for MHLFs are found at 10 CFR
431.326.
DOE requests feedback on whether the current energy conservation
standards for MHLFs are the appropriate baseline efficiency levels for
DOE to apply to each equipment class in evaluating whether to amend the
current energy conservation standards for these equipment classes.
DOE requests feedback on the appropriate baseline efficiency levels
for any newly analyzed equipment classes that are not currently in
place or for the contemplated combined equipment classes, as discussed
in section II.B.1 of this document.
3. Efficiency Levels and Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
As part of DOE's analysis, the maximum available efficiency level
is the highest efficiency unit currently available on the market. DOE
selects certain equipment classes as ``representative'' to focus its
analysis. DOE chooses equipment classes as representative primarily
because of their high market volumes and/or unique characteristics. In
the 2021 Final Determination analysis, DOE did not directly analyze the
equipment classes containing fixtures with ballasts tested at 480 V due
to low shipment volumes. DOE selected all other equipment classes as
representative, resulting in a total of 12 representative classes
covering the full range of lamp wattages, as well as indoor and outdoor
designations. DOE then scaled the efficiency levels (``ELs'') from
representative equipment classes to those equipment classes it did not
analyze directly (see section II.D.4 for further details on scaling).
86 FR 58763, 58771-58772, 58776.
In the 2021 Final Determination, based on the more-efficient
ballasts selected for the analysis, DOE developed ELs for the
representative equipment classes. DOE found the more-efficient magnetic
EL represented
[[Page 60562]]
a magnetic ballast with a higher grade of steel compared to the
baseline. DOE identified a second EL (an electronic EL) for the >=150 W
and <=250 W and >250 W and <=500 W equipment classes. The standard
electronic level represented a ballast with standard electronic
circuitry. DOE identified a third EL (a more efficient electronic EL)
in the >=50 W and <=100 W and >100 W and <150 W equipment classes. The
more-efficient electronic EL represented an electronic ballast with an
improved circuit design and/or more efficient components compared to
the standard electronic level. The maximum available ELs identified for
the 12 analyzed equipment classes in the 2021 Final Determination are
specified in Table II-3. 86 FR 58763, 58774, 58776.
Table II-3--Maximum Efficiency Levels From 2021 Final Determination
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designed to be operated with lamps of Maximum efficiency
the following rated lamp wattage Indoor/outdoor Input voltage type level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>=50 W and <=100 W................... Indoor/Outdoor......... All others except 480 V 1/(1+0.4*P[supcaret](-
0.3)).
>100 W and <150 W.................... Indoor/Outdoor......... All others except 480 V 1/(1+0.4*P[supcaret](-
0.3)).
>=150 W and <=250 W.................. Indoor/Outdoor......... All others except 480 V 1/(1+0.4*P[supcaret](-
0.3)).
>250 W and <=500 W................... Indoor/Outdoor......... All others except 480 V 1/(1+0.4*P[supcaret](-
0.3)).
>500 W and <=1,000 W................. Indoor/Outdoor......... All others except 480 V 0.000057*P+0.881.
>1,000 W and <=2,000 W............... Indoor/Outdoor......... All others except 480 V -0.000008*P+0.946.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P is defined as the rated wattage of the lamp the fixture is designed to operate.
DOE defines a max-tech efficiency level to represent the
theoretical maximum possible efficiency if all available design options
are incorporated in a model. In applying these design options, DOE
would only include those that are compatible with each other that when
combined, would represent the theoretical maximum possible efficiency.
In many cases, the max-tech efficiency level is not commercially
available because it is not economically feasible to implement. In the
2021 Final Determination, DOE determined max-tech efficiency levels
based on commercially available ballasts.
DOE seeks input on whether the max-tech efficiency levels presented
in Table II-3 are appropriate and technologically feasible for
potential consideration as possible energy conservation standards for
the equipment at issue--and if not, why not.
DOE also requests feedback on whether the max-tech efficiency
levels presented in Table II-3 are representative of those for the
equipment classes not directly analyzed in the 2021 Final Determination
(i.e., ballasts tested at 480 V). If the range of possible efficiencies
is different for the other equipment classes not directly analyzed,
what alternative approaches should DOE consider using for those
equipment classes and why?
DOE seeks feedback on what design options would be incorporated at
a max-tech efficiency level, and the efficiencies associated with those
levels. As part of this request, DOE also seeks information as to
whether there are limitations on the use of certain combinations of
design options.
4. Scaling Non-Representative Equipment Classes
After developing ELs, DOE then scales the ELs from representative
equipment classes to those equipment classes it does not analyze
directly. As discussed in section II.D.3 of this document, DOE did not
directly analyze the equipment classes containing fixtures with
ballasts tested at 480 V and instead scaled them from the ELs of
equipment classes analyzed in the 2021 Final Determination.
Specifically, DOE developed a scaling factor by comparing quad-voltage
ballasts \12\ over all representative wattages to their 480 V ballast
counterparts. DOE found that the difference in efficiency between
ballasts tested at 480 V and ballasts tested at other input voltages
varied based on the wattage of the ballast. Based on this analysis and
comments from manufacturers DOE concluded a scaling factor of 12.0
percent (in the form of a subtraction of 12 percent from the
representative equipment class ELs) to be appropriate from 50 W-150 W,
a scaling factor of 4.0 percent to be appropriate from 150 W to 1,000
W, and a scaling factor of 0.0 percent (i.e., no reduction) to be
appropriate from 1,001 W to 2,000 W. 86 FR 58763, 58776-58777.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Quad-voltage ballasts are capable of operating at 120 V or
277 V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE requests comment on whether it is necessary to individually
analyze all 24 equipment classes used in the 2021 Final Determination.
Additionally, DOE welcomes comment on whether the approach used to
apply the analyzed equipment class results to the other equipment
classes is appropriate--and if not, why not? For example, if it is
necessary to individually analyze more than 12 equipment classes used
in the 2021 Final Determination, please provide information on why
aggregating certain equipment is not appropriate. If this approach is
not appropriate, what alternative approaches should DOE consider using
and why?
DOE requests feedback on how the performance of ballasts that are
tested at 480 V compares to ballasts of the same wattage and indoor/
outdoor classification that are in other equipment classes. DOE also
requests comment on the scaling factors used to develop ELs for the
equipment classes containing fixtures with ballasts tested at 480 V.
5. 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 availability and
reliability of public information, characteristics of the regulated
equipment, and the availability and timeliness of purchasing the
equipment on the market. The cost approaches are summarized as follows:
[ballot] Physical teardowns: Under this approach, DOE physically
dismantles a commercially available equipment, component-by-component,
to develop a detailed bill of materials for the equipment.
[ballot] Catalog teardowns: In lieu of physically deconstructing an
equipment, 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 equipment.
[ballot] Price surveys: If neither a physical nor catalog teardown
is feasible (for example, for tightly integrated
[[Page 60563]]
equipment 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.
The bill of materials provides the basis for the manufacturer
production cost (``MPC'') estimates. DOE then applies a manufacturer
markup to convert the MPC to manufacturer selling price (``MSP''). The
manufacturer markup accounts for costs such as overhead and profit. The
resulting bill of materials provides the basis for the MPC estimates.
For the 2021 Final Determination, DOE conducted teardown analyses
on commercially available MHLFs, and the ballasts included in these
fixtures. Using the information from these teardowns, DOE summed the
direct material, labor, and overhead costs used to manufacture a MHLF
or metal halide (``MH'') ballast, to calculate the MPC. DOE then
determined the MSPs of fixture components and more-efficient MH
ballasts identified for each EL. To determine the fixture components
MSPs, DOE conducted fixture teardowns to derive MPCs of empty fixtures
(i.e., lamp enclosure and optics). The empty fixture does not include
the ballast or lamp. DOE then added the other components required by
the system (including ballast and any cost adders associated with
electronically ballasted systems) and applied appropriate markups to
obtain a final MSP for the entire fixture. 86 FR 58763, 58777.
DOE requests feedback on how manufacturers would incorporate the
technology options listed in Table II-2 to increase energy efficiency
in MHLFs beyond the baseline. This includes information on the
sequencing manufacturers would follow when incorporating the different
technologies to incrementally improve MHLF efficiency. DOE also
requests feedback on whether increased energy efficiency would lead to
other design changes that would not occur otherwise. DOE is interested
in information regarding any potential impact of design options on a
manufacturer's ability to incorporate additional functions or
attributes in response to consumer demand. DOE is also interested in
the extent to which (if at all) any design changes may adversely impact
the ability of a given MHLF to operate with currently compatible
applications.
DOE seeks input on the increase in MPC associated with
incorporating each particular design option (e.g., improved core
steel). Specifically, DOE is interested in whether and how the costs
estimated for design options in the 2021 Final Determination have
changed since the time of that analysis. DOE also requests information
on the investments necessary to incorporate specific design options,
including, but not limited to, costs related to new or modified tooling
(if any), materials, engineering and development efforts to implement
each design option, and manufacturing/production impacts.
DOE requests comment on whether certain design options may not be
applicable to (or incompatible with) certain equipment classes.
DOE seeks input on any relevant cost adders necessary based on
ballast and fixture type (e.g., electronic or magnetic ballast, indoor
or outdoor fixture). Specifically, DOE is interested in whether and how
the incremental costs for electronically ballasted fixtures in the 2021
Final Determination have changed since the time of that analysis.
To account for manufacturers' non-production costs and profit
margin, DOE applies a non-production cost multiplier (the manufacturer
markup) to the MPC. The resulting MSP is the price at which the
manufacturer distributes a unit into commerce. For the 2021 Final
Determination DOE used separate markups for ballast manufacturers
(1.47) and fixture manufacturers (1.58). 86 FR 58763, 58778.
DOE requests feedback on whether its assumptions regarding
manufacturer markups and the values of the markups (1.47 and 1.58) are
appropriate for ballast manufacturers and fixture manufacturers,
respectively--with the 1.58 markup applying to fixtures with and
without ballasts). If they are appropriate, why--and if not, why not?
If they are not appropriate, what should they be and why?
E. Markup Analysis
DOE derives consumer prices based on manufacturer markups, retailer
markups, distributor markups, contractor markups (where appropriate),
and sales taxes. In deriving these markups, DOE determines the major
distribution channels for equipment sales, the markup associated with
each party in each distribution channel, and the existence and
magnitude of differences between markups for baseline equipment
(``baseline markups'') and higher-efficiency equipment (``incremental
markups''). The identified distribution channels (i.e., how the
equipment is distributed from the manufacturer to the consumer), and
estimated relative sales volumes through each channel are used in
generating consumer price inputs for the LCC analysis and NIA.
DOE tentatively plans to use the same distribution channels and
wholesaler and contractor markups as in the 2021 Final Determination.
In an electrical wholesaler distribution channel, DOE assumed the
fixture manufacturer sells the fixture to an electrical wholesaler
(i.e., distributor), who in turn sells it to a contractor, who sells it
to the consumer. In a contractor distribution channel, DOE assumed the
fixture manufacturer sells the fixture directly to a contractor, who
sells it to the consumer. In a utility distribution channel, DOE
assumed the fixture manufacturer sells the fixture directly to the
consumer (i.e., electrical utility). Indoor fixtures are all assumed to
go through the electrical wholesaler distribution channel. Outdoor
fixtures are assumed to go through all three distribution channels as
follows: 60 percent electrical wholesaler, 20 percent contractor, and
20 percent utility. 86 FR 58763, 58778-58779.
In the 2021 Final Determination, DOE used the same wholesaler and
contractor markups as the 2014 Final Rule and assumed a wholesaler
baseline markup of 1.23 and a contractor markup of 1.13, yielding a
total wholesaler distribution channel baseline markup of 1.49. The
lower wholesaler incremental markup of 1.05 yields a lower total
incremental markup through this distribution channel of 1.27. DOE also
assumed a utility markup of 1.00 for the utility distribution channel
in which the manufacturer sells a fixture directly to the consumer. DOE
again assumed a contractor markup of 1.13 for the utility distribution
channel in which a manufacturer sells a fixture to a contractor who in
turn sells it to the consumer yielding an overall markup of 1.21 for
this channel. 86 FR 58763, 58779.
DOE requests information and data on any changes to the
distribution channels or wholesaler or contractor markups.
F. Energy Use Analysis
As part of the rulemaking process, DOE conducts an energy use
analysis to identify how the equipment is used by consumers, and
thereby determine the energy savings potential of energy efficiency
improvements. DOE bases the energy consumption of metal halide lamp
fixtures on the rated annual energy consumption as determined by the
DOE test procedure. Along similar lines, the energy use analysis is
meant to
[[Page 60564]]
represent typical energy consumption in the field.
DOE tentatively plans to use the same energy use methodology as in
the 2021 Final Determination. To develop annual energy use estimates,
DOE multiplied the lamp-and-ballast system input power (in watts) by
annual usage (in hours per year). DOE characterized representative
lamp-and-ballast systems in the engineering analysis, which provided
measured input power ratings. To characterize the country's average
usage of fixtures for a typical year, DOE developed annual operating
hour distributions by sector, using data published in the 2015 U.S.
Lighting Market Characterization (``LMC'').\13\ For the >=50 W and
<=100 W to >500 W and <=1000 W equipment classes, DOE obtained
weighted-average annual operating hours for the commercial, industrial,
and outdoor stationary sectors of approximately 2,300 hours, 5,100
hours, and 5,000 hours, respectively. For the 1,500 W equipment class,
DOE assigned annual operating hours of approximately 770 hours for all
lamps according to the 2015 LMC estimate of 2.1 hours per day for
sports field lighting. 86 FR 58763, 58779.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Navigant Consulting, Inc. 2015 U.S. Lighting Market
Characterization. 2017. U.S. Department of Energy: Washington, DC.
Report No. DOE/EE-1719. (Last accessed February 3, 2020.) https://energy.gov/eere/ssl/downloads/2015-us-lighting-market-characterization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE requests information and data on any changes to the operating
hours for metal halide lamp fixtures.
G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Analysis
DOE conducts the LCC and PBP analysis to evaluate the economic
effects of potential energy conservation standards for metal halide
lamp fixtures on individual consumers. For any given efficiency level,
DOE measures the PBP and the change in LCC relative to an estimated
baseline level. The LCC is the total consumer expense over the life of
the equipment, consisting of purchase, installation, and operating
costs (expenses for energy use, maintenance, and repair). Inputs to the
calculation of total installed cost include the cost of the equipment--
which includes MSPs, distribution channel markups, and sales taxes--and
installation costs. Inputs to the calculation of operating expenses
include annual energy consumption, energy prices and price projections,
repair and maintenance costs, equipment lifetimes, discount rates, and
the year that compliance with new and amended standards is required.
DOE tentatively plans to develop inputs for the LCC analysis similarly
to the 2021 Final Determination, as discussed in the following
subsections.
1. Equipment Cost
In the 2021 Final Determination, to calculate consumer equipment
costs, DOE multiplied the MSPs developed in the engineering analysis by
the markups described previously (along with sales taxes). DOE used
different markups for baseline equipment and higher-efficiency
equipment because DOE applies an incremental markup to the increase in
MSP associated with higher-efficiency equipment. 86 FR 58763, 58779,
58780-58781.
2. Installation Cost
Installation cost is the cost to install the fixture such as the
labor, overhead, and any miscellaneous materials and parts needed. In
the 2021 Final Determination, DOE used the installation costs from the
2014 Final Rule but inflated to 2020$ using the GDP price deflator. 86
FR 58763, 58780-58781.
DOE requests information and data on any changes to the
installation cost for metal halide lamp fixtures.
3. Annual Energy Consumption
In the 2021 Final Determination, for each sampled consumer, DOE
determined the energy consumption for an MHLF at different efficiency
levels using the approach described previously in section II.F of this
document. DOE used operating hour (and, by extension, energy use)
distributions to better characterize the potential range of operating
conditions faced by MHLF consumers. 86 FR 58763, 58779-58781.
4. Energy Prices
DOE applied average electricity prices for the energy use of the
equipment purchased in the no-new-standards case, and marginal
electricity prices for the incremental change in energy use associated
with the other efficiency levels considered in the 2021 Final
Determination. DOE derived annual electricity prices for each census
division using data from the Edison Electric Institute (``EEI'')
Typical Bills and Average Rates reports.\14\ To estimate energy prices
in future years, DOE multiplied the average regional energy prices by a
projection of annual change in national-average commercial and
industrial energy prices in the Reference case of Annual Energy Outlook
2021 (``AEO 2021'').\15\ AEO 2021 has an end year of 2050. DOE assumed
regional electricity prices after 2050 are constant at their 2050
price. 86 FR 58763, 58780-58781.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Edison Electric Institute. Typical Bills and Average Rates
Report. 2019. Winter 2019, Summer 2019: Washington, DC.
\15\ U.S. Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy
Outlook 2021 with Projections to 2050. 2021. Washington, DC. (Last
accessed March 18, 2021.) https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Replacement Costs
Replacement costs include the labor and materials costs associated
with replacing a ballast or lamp at the end of their lifetimes and are
annualized across the years preceding and including the actual year in
which equipment is replaced. In the 2021 Final Determination, the costs
were taken from the 2014 Final Rule but inflated to 2020$ using the GDP
price deflator. For the LCC and PBP analysis, the analysis period
corresponds with the fixture lifetime that is assumed to be longer than
that of either the lamp or the ballast. For this reason, ballast and
lamp prices and labor costs associated with lamp or ballast
replacements are included in the calculation of operating costs. Id.
DOE requests information and data on any changes to the replacement
costs for metal halide lamp fixtures.
6. Equipment Lifetime
DOE defines equipment lifetime as the age when a fixture, ballast,
or lamp is retired from service. In the 2021 Final Determination, for
fixtures in all equipment classes, DOE assumed average lifetimes for
indoor and outdoor fixtures of 20 and 25 years, respectively. DOE also
assumed that magnetic ballasts had a rated lifetime of 50,000 hours and
electronic ballasts had a rated lifetime of 40,000 hours. DOE used
manufacturer catalog data to obtain rated lifetime estimates (in hours)
for lamps in each equipment class. DOE accounted for uncertainty in the
fixture, ballast, and lamp lifetimes by applying Weibull survival
distributions to the components' rated lifetimes. Furthermore, DOE
included a residual value calculation for lamps and ballasts to account
for the residual monetary value associated with the remaining life in
the lamp and ballast at the end of the fixture lifetime. Id.
DOE requests information and data on any changes to the equipment
lifetime for metal halide lamp fixtures.
7. Discount Rates
The discount rate is the rate at which future expenditures are
discounted to estimate their present value. In the 2021 Final
Determination, DOE estimated separate discount rates for commercial,
industrial, and outdoor stationary applications. DOE used discount rate
[[Page 60565]]
data from a 2019 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory report.\16\ The
average discount rates, weighted by the shares of each rate value in
the sectoral distributions, are 8.3 percent for commercial consumers,
8.8 percent for industrial consumers, and 3.2 percent for outdoor
stationary consumers. 86 FR 58763, 58781-58782.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Fujita, K. S. Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional
Discount Rate Estimation for Efficiency Standards Analysis: Sector-
Level Data 1998-2018. 2019. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory:
Berkeley, CA. (Last accessed January 15, 2020.) https://eta.lbl.gov/publications/commercial-industrial-institutional.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case
For the 2021 Final Determination, DOE developed a no-new-standards
case efficiency distribution using model count data from DOE's
compliance certification database collected on May 5, 2021. The
compliance certification database does not contain models in the >1000
W and <=2000 W equipment class; therefore, DOE assumed 56 percent of
the market is at the baseline and 44 percent of the market is at EL 1,
based on MHLF catalog data. The complete efficiency distribution for
2025 that DOE used in the 2021 Final Determination is shown in Table
II-4. 86 FR 58763, 58782.
Table II-4--MHLF Efficiency Distribution by Equipment Class for 2025 From the 2021 Final Determination
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment class *
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency level >=50 W and >100 W and >=150 W and >250 W and >500 W and >1000 W and
<=100 W (%) <150 W (%) <=250 W (%) <=500 W (%) <=1000 W (%) <=2000 W (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0....................................................... 82.0 16.4 53.6 95.6 97.1 56.0
1....................................................... 1.2 32.9 40.1 1.1 2.9 44.0
2....................................................... 9.5 0.0 6.3 3.3 .............. ..............
3....................................................... 7.4 50.7 .............. .............. .............. ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ Columns may not sum to 100% due to rounding.
DOE requests information and data on any changes to the no-new-
standards efficiency distribution for metal halide lamp fixtures.
9. Payback Period Analysis
The payback period is the amount of time it takes the consumer to
recover the additional installed cost of more-efficient equipment,
compared to baseline equipment, through energy cost savings. Payback
periods are expressed in years. Payback periods that exceed the life of
the equipment mean that the increased total installed cost is not
recovered in reduced operating expenses.
The inputs to the PBP calculation for each efficiency level are the
change in total installed cost of the equipment and the change in the
first-year annual operating expenditures relative to the baseline. The
PBP calculation uses the same inputs as the LCC analysis, except that
discount rates are not needed.
As noted previously, EPCA establishes a rebuttable presumption that
a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the
additional cost to the consumer of purchasing equipment complying with
an energy conservation standard level will be less than three times the
value of the first year's energy savings resulting from the standard,
as calculated under the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)). For each considered efficiency level, DOE
determines the value of the first year's energy savings by calculating
the energy savings in accordance with the applicable DOE test
procedure, and multiplying those savings by the average energy price
projection for the year in which compliance with the amended standards
would be required.
H. Shipments
DOE develops shipments forecasts of MHLFs to calculate the national
impacts of potential amended energy conservation standards on energy
consumption, NPV, and future manufacturer cash flows. Using a three-
step process, in the 2021 Final Determination, DOE developed
projections of future fixture shipments using historical data as the
basis. First, DOE used U.S. Census Bureau fixture shipment data,
National Electrical Manufacturers Association (``NEMA'') lamp shipment
data, and NEMA ballast sales trends to estimate historical shipments of
each fixture type analyzed. Second, DOE estimated the installed stock
for each fixture in 2021 based on the average service lifetime of each
fixture type. Third, DOE developed annual shipment projections for
2021-2052 by modeling fixture purchasing events, such as replacement
and new construction, and applying estimates of the building stock
growth rate, MHLF replacement rate, and penetration rate of light
emitting diode (``LED'') alternatives. 86 FR 58763, 58782-58783. DOE
used model counts from data downloaded from DOE's compliance
certification database for MHLFs to estimate market shares by equipment
class as shown in Table II-5. Id.
Table II--5 Market Share by Equipment Class for Shipments in 2021 From the 2021 Final Determination
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>=50 W and >100 W and >=150 W and >250 W and >500 W and >1000 W and
<=100 W (%) <150 W (%) <=250 W (%) <=500 W (%) <=1000 W (%) <=2000 W (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Market Share...................................... 25.5 8.2 24.9 31.2 9.7 0.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE seeks any information or data on updates to the market share by
equipment class relative to the market shares estimated in the 2021
Final Determination.
Current sales estimates allow for a more accurate model that
captures recent trends in the market. In the 2021 Final Determination,
DOE projected a faster decline in MHLF shipments compared to what it
had projected in
[[Page 60566]]
the notice of proposed determination for the rule (see 85 FR 47472
(August 5, 2020)), based on updated NEMA sales indices, that resulted
in a decline of 2030 shipments of metal halide lamps by more than 99
percent relative to shipments in 2021, due to the incursion of out-of-
scope LED equipment.\17\ 86 FR 58763, 58782-58783.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See chapter 9 of the 2021 Final Determination Technical
Support Document: https://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0016-0017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE seeks data on MHLF and metal halide lamp ballast shipments, as
well as the projected shipment values from the 2021 Final Determination
as compared to actual recent shipments of MHLFs.
I. National Impact Analysis
The purpose of the NIA is to estimate the aggregate economic
impacts of potential efficiency standards at the national level. The
NIA assesses the national energy savings and the national NPV of total
consumer costs and savings that would be expected to result over 30
years of shipments from new or amended standards at specific efficiency
levels.
DOE evaluates the impacts of new and amended standards by comparing
no-new-standards-case projections with standards-case projections. The
no-new-standards-case projections characterize energy use and consumer
costs for each equipment class in the absence of new or amended energy
conservation standards. DOE compares the no-new-standards-case with
projections characterizing the market for each equipment class if DOE
adopts new or amended standards at specific energy efficiency levels
(i.e., the trial standard levels (``TSLs'') or standards cases) for
that class. In characterizing the no-new-standards and standards cases,
DOE considers historical shipments, the mix of efficiencies sold in the
absence of amended standards, penetration into the market from out-of-
scope LED alternatives, and how the market may evolve over time.
J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
The purpose of the manufacturer impact analysis (``MIA'') is to
estimate the financial impact of amended energy conservation standards
on manufacturers of MHLFs, and to evaluate the potential impact of such
standards on direct employment and manufacturing capacity. The MIA
includes both quantitative and qualitative aspects. The quantitative
part of the MIA primarily relies on the Government Regulatory Impact
Model (``GRIM''), an industry cash-flow model adapted for every
equipment in this analysis, with the key output of INPV. The
qualitative part of the MIA addresses the potential impacts of energy
conservation standards on manufacturing capacity and industry
competition, as well as factors such as equipment characteristics,
impacts on particular subgroups of firms, and important market and
equipment trends.
As part of the MIA, DOE intends to analyze impacts of amended
energy conservation standards on subgroups of manufacturers of covered
equipment, including small business manufacturers. DOE uses the Small
Business Administration's (``SBA'') small business size standards to
determine whether manufacturers qualify as small businesses, which are
listed by the applicable North American Industry Classification System
(``NAICS'') code.\18\ Manufacturing of consumer MHLF is classified
under NAICS 335122, ``Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional
Electric Lighting Fixture Manufacturing,'' and the SBA sets a threshold
of 500 employees or less for a domestic entity to be considered as a
small business. Manufacturing of metal halide ballasts is classified
under NAICS 335311, ``Power, Distribution and Specialty Transformer
Manufacturing,'' and the SBA sets a threshold of 750 employees or less
for a domestic entity to be considered as a small business. The
employee threshold includes all employees in a business' parent company
and any other subsidiaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Available online at www.sba.gov/document/support--table-size-standards (last accessed August 9, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One aspect of assessing manufacturer burden involves examining the
cumulative impact of multiple DOE standards and the product/equipment-
specific regulatory actions of other Federal agencies that affect the
manufacturers of a covered product or equipment. While any one
regulation may not impose a significant burden on manufacturers, the
combined effects of several existing or impending regulations may have
serious consequences for some manufacturers, groups of manufacturers,
or an entire industry. Assessing the impact of a single regulation may
overlook this cumulative regulatory burden. In addition to energy
conservation standards, other regulations can significantly affect
manufacturers' financial operations. Multiple regulations affecting the
same manufacturer can strain profits and lead companies to abandon
product or equipment lines or markets with lower expected future
returns than competing products or equipment. For these reasons, DOE
conducts an analysis of cumulative regulatory burden as part of its
rulemakings pertaining to appliance efficiency.
To the extent feasible, DOE seeks the names and contact information
of any domestic or foreign-based manufacturers that distribute MHLFs in
the United States.
DOE identified small businesses as a subgroup of manufacturers that
could be disproportionally impacted by amended energy conservation
standards. DOE requests the names and contact information of small
business manufacturers, as defined by the SBA's size threshold, of
MHLFs that manufacture equipment in the United States. In addition, DOE
requests comment on any other manufacturer subgroups that could be
disproportionally impacted by amended energy conservation standards.
DOE requests feedback on any potential approaches that could be
considered to address impacts on manufacturers, including small
businesses.
DOE requests information regarding the cumulative regulatory burden
impacts on manufacturers of MHLFs associated with: (1) other DOE
standards applying to different products or equipment that these
manufacturers may also make and (2) product/equipment-specific
regulatory actions of other Federal agencies. DOE also requests comment
on its methodology for computing cumulative regulatory burden and
whether there are any flexibilities it can consider that would reduce
this burden while remaining consistent with the requirements of EPCA.
III. Submission of Comments
DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by the date
specified in the DATES section of this document, comments and
information on matters addressed in this document and on other matters
relevant to DOE's consideration of amended energy conservations
standards for MHLF. After the close of the comment period, DOE will
review the public comments received and may begin collecting data and
conducting the analyses discussed in this document.
Submitting comments via www.regulations.gov. The
www.regulations.gov web page requires you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE
Building Technologies Office staff only. Your contact information will
not be publicly viewable except for your first and last
[[Page 60567]]
names, organization name (if any), and submitter representative name
(if any). If your comment is not processed properly because of
technical difficulties, DOE will use this information to contact you.
If DOE cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and
cannot contact you for clarification, DOE may not be able to consider
your comment.
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you
include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment.
Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not
be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your
comment. If this instruction is followed, 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, hand delivery/courier, or postal
mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery/
courier, or postal mail 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 on a cover letter.
Include your first and last names, email address, telephone number, and
optional mailing address. The cover letter will not be publicly
viewable as long as it does not include any comments.
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data,
documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via postal mail
or hand delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if
feasible, in which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies.
No faxes will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that
are not secured, written in English and free of any defects or viruses.
Documents should not contain special characters or any form of
encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature
of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting
time.
Confidential Business Information. 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 to [email protected]@ee.doe.gov, 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).
DOE considers public participation to be a very important part of
the process for developing energy conservation standards. DOE actively
encourages the participation and interaction of the public during the
comment period in this process. Interactions with and between members
of the public provide a balanced discussion of the issues and assist
DOE. Anyone who wishes to be added to the DOE mailing list to receive
future notices and information about this process or would like to
request a public meeting should contact Appliance and Equipment
Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or via email at
[email protected].
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on September
28, 2022, by Francisco Alejandro Moreno, Acting 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 September 30, 2022.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2022-21696 Filed 10-5-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P