[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 29 (Monday, February 13, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9118-9136]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-02863]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Final determination.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 final determination, DOE has determined that energy
conservation standards for GSFLs do not need to be amended.
DATES: The effective date of this final determination is March 15,
2023.
ADDRESSES: The docket for this activity, 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, some documents listed in the
index, such as information that is exempt from public disclosure, may
not be publicly available.
The docket web page can be found at https://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2019-BT-STD-0030. The docket web page contains instructions
on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the
docket.
For further information on how to review the docket, contact the
Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by
email: [email protected].
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. 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].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Synopsis of the Final Determination
II. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
1. Current Standards
2. History of Standards Rulemakings for GSFLs
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. Market and Technology Assessment
1. Scope of Coverage and Product Classes
2. Technology Options
3. Screening Analysis
a. Screened-Out Technologies
b. Remaining Technologies
4. Product Classes
a. Existing Product Classes
b. Summary
B. Engineering and Cost Analysis
1. Efficiency Analysis
a. Representative Product Classes
b. Baseline Efficiency
c. More Efficacious Substitutes
d. Higher Efficiency Levels
e. Lamp-and-Ballast Systems
f. Scaling to Other Product Classes
2. Cost Analysis
C. Energy Use Analysis
D. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
E. Shipments Analysis
F. National Impact Analysis
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. Final 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 Orders 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
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
M. Congressional Notification
VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Synopsis of the Final Determination
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, 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 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
final determination. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(14)), 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(3)-(5))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE is issuing this final determination pursuant to the EPCA
requirement that not later than 6 years after issuance of any final
rule establishing or amending a standard,
[[Page 9119]]
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 final determination, DOE analyzed GSFLs subject to
standards specified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 10 CFR
430.32(n)(1)-(3).
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 impacts analysis (NIA). DOE evaluated whether
higher standards would be cost effective by estimating 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 determined that current standards for GSFLs do not
need to be amended.
II. Introduction
The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority
underlying this final 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 rulemakings 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)) In
this analysis, DOE considers such energy use in its determination of
whether energy conservation standards need to be amended. 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 final determination.
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 (n)(2)) Additionally,
any new or amended 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)) 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 (o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE is publishing this final
determination 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
[[Page 9120]]
rule). These standards are set forth in DOE's regulations at 10 CFR
430.32(n)(3) and repeated in Table II.1.
Table II.1--Federal Energy Conservation Standards for GSFLs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum average
Correlated color lamp efficacy
Lamp type temperature lumens per watt
(``lm/W'')
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Four-Foot Medium Bipin (``MBP'') <=4,500 Kelvin 92.4
(``K'').
>4,500 K and 88.7
<=7,000 K.
Two-Foot U-Shaped............... <=4,500 K.......... 85.0
>4,500 K and 83.3
<=7,000 K.
Eight-Foot Single Pin (``SP'') <= ,500 K.......... 97.0
Slimline.
>4,500 K and 93.0
<=7,000 K.
Eight-Foot Recessed Double <=4,500 K.......... 92.0
Contact (``RDC'') High Output.
>4,500 K and 88.0
<=7,000 K.
Four-Foot Miniature Bipin <=4,500 K.......... 95.0
Standard Output.
>4,500 K and 89.3
<=7,000 K.
Four-Foot Miniature Bipin High <=4,500 K.......... 82.7
Output.
>4,500 K and 76.9
<=7,000 K.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 that final
rule, DOE amended standards for GSFLs and concluded that amending
standards for IRLs would not be economically justified. Id. Energy
conservation standards for GSFLs are set forth in 10 CFR 430.32(n). DOE
test procedures for GSFLs 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) on May 1,
2020, 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). On May 31, 2022, DOE
published a notice of proposed determination not to amend standards for
GSFLs. 87 FR 32329 (May 2022 NOPD). In the May 2022 NOPD, DOE stated
that it was only considering amending standards for GSFLs, and not
IRLs, because of two final rules recently published on May 9, 2022. The
first rule, among other things, expanded the definition of general
service lamps (``GSL'') to include IRLs. 87 FR 27461. The second rule,
published on that same day, implemented a statutory backstop
requirement for GSLs of 45 lumens per watt (lm/W). 87 FR 27439. Because
IRLs, a newly covered GSL, cannot meet the 45 lm/W backstop
requirement, DOE did not evaluate amended standards for IRLs in the May
2022 NOPD. Similarly, in this final determination, DOE evaluated
amended standards only for GSFLs.
DOE received comments in response to the May 2022 NOPD from the
interested parties listed in Table II.2.
Table II.2--May 2022 NOPD Written Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference in this Comment No. in
Commenter(s) final determination the docket Commenter type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appliance Standards Awareness ASAP et al.......... 19 Efficiency Organizations.
Project (``ASAP''), the American
Council for an Energy-Efficient
Economy (``ACEEE''), the New York
State Energy Research and
Development Authority
(``NYSERDA''), and the Northwest
Energy Efficiency Alliance
(``NEEA'').
National Electrical Manufacturers NEMA................ 18 Trade Association.
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, page
of that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. General Discussion
DOE developed this final determination after considering comments,
data, and information from interested parties that represent a variety
of interests. This final determination addresses issues raised by these
commenters.
A. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage
When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE
[[Page 9121]]
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 final determination are discussed in further detail in section
IV.A.4 of this document. This final 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.A.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 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. On August 31,
2022, DOE published a final rule adopting the proposed amendments. 87
FR 53618. In that final rule, with regard to GSFLs, DOE updated the
latest versions of the referenced industry test standards and provided
cites to specific sections of these standards; clarified definitions,
test conditions and methods, and measurement procedures; clarified test
frequency and inclusion of cathode power in measurements; allowed
manufacturers to make voluntary (optional) representations of GSFLs at
high frequency settings; revised the sampling requirements; and aligned
sampling and certification requirements with adopted test procedure
terminology and with the Federal Trade Commission's labeling program.
87 FR 53618, 53620-53621.
The current test procedures for GSFLs are codified in appendix R to
subpart B of 10 CFR part 430.
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 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A (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.A.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 final
determination. For further details on the screening analysis for this
final determination, see chapter 4 of the final determination 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 product, 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.B of this final determination and in chapter 5 of the
final determination 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 light-emitting diodes
(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.F 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,
[[Page 9122]]
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.F 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, 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. Accordingly, DOE evaluates the significance of energy
savings on a case-by-case basis.
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 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 covered
products, DOE generally conducts life-cycle cost (LCC) and payback
period (PBP) analyses that estimate the costs and benefits to users
from potential standards. Based on the rapidly declining shipments of
GSFLs, and limited and uncertain energy savings opportunity, as
discussed in sections IV.C, IV.E, and V.C of this final determination,
DOE did not conduct LCC and PBP analyses to evaluate the economic
impacts on individual consumers of amended GSFL energy conservation
standards. To further inform DOE's consideration of the cost
effectiveness of potential amended standards, DOE considered 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
final 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 NIA
uses a 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.
DOE received general comments on the May 2022 NOPD. NEMA stated
that it agreed with DOE's proposed determination to not amend current
energy conservation standards for GSFLs because the technology is
highly mature, and its market share is in sharp decline. (NEMA, No. 18
at p. 2)
ASAP et al. commented that in the May 2022 NOPD, DOE stated that
projected energy savings from more stringent standards are due to a
faster market shift to solid state lighting rather than reduction in
GSFL energy use. ASAP et al. stated that this conclusion indicates that
significant savings can be achieved by regulating linear lamps under a
technology-neutral standard, which would accelerate transition of the
market to light-emitting diodes (LEDs). ASAP et al. stated that NEMA's
lamp
[[Page 9123]]
sales index in the first quarter (Q1) of 2022 reported about two thirds
of linear lamp shipments were still fluorescent. Specifically, ASAP et
al. stated that because GSFLs and TLEDs provide the same utility for
consumers, it makes sense to subject them to the same standards. (ASAP
et al., No. 19 at pp. 1-2)
Further, ASAP et al. stated that replacing a linear fluorescent
lamp with the more efficient TLED can reduce power consumption by 50
percent. It also stated that a 2022 ASAP and American Council for an
Energy-Efficient Economy report estimated that a complete transition
from fluorescent to LED lighting would yield cumulative carbon dioxide
(CO2) emissions reductions of about 200 million metric tons
through 2050, the vast majority of which would come from linear lamps.
ASAP et al. acknowledged that in the May 2022 NOPD, DOE stated that
this rulemaking cannot address any product that does not meet the
definition of a GSFL. ASAP et al. encouraged DOE to explore the
possibility of setting a technology-neutral standard for all linear
lamps in a separate rulemaking. (ASAP et al., No. 19 at p. 2)
In the May 2022 NOPD, DOE stated that the proposed determination
addresses only GSFLs defined in 10 CFR 430.2, which do not include
TLEDs. DOE stated that it is not authorized to consider any product not
meeting this definition, such as TLEDs, as a part of this proposed
determination. 87 FR 32329, 32336. Hence in the May 2022 NOPD, DOE did
not conduct an analysis in which the scope of coverage included TLEDs.
For the same reasons as stated in the May 2022 NOPD, DOE did not
include TLEDs in the analysis of this final determination. However, as
in the May 2022 NOPD, DOE agrees with ASAP et al. that TLEDs have
gained market share at the expense of GSFLs and are suitable
substitutes for GSFLs. Certain types of TLEDs are included in the
definition of GSL in 10 CFR 430.2, and DOE is currently evaluating
amending standards for GSLs in a NOPR published on January 11, 2023. 88
FR 1638.
A. 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 final 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 final determination TSD for further discussion of the
market and technology assessment.
1. Scope of Coverage and Product Classes
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 straight-shaped, medium bipin lamp with a rated wattage of
25 or more; (2) any 2-foot U-shaped, medium bipin (MBP) lamp with a
rated wattage of 25 or more; (3) any 8-foot rapid start, recessed
double contact (RDC) base, high output (HO) lamp; (4) any 8-foot
instant start, single pin (SP) base, slimline lamp with a rated wattage
of 49 or more; (5) any 4-foot straight-shaped, miniature bipin (MiniBP)
standard output (SO) lamp with a rated wattage of 25 or more; and (6)
any 4-foot straight-shaped, MiniBP 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.
NEMA stated that there are energy saving opportunities in
regulating the currently exempt linear fluorescent lamps with CRI of 87
or greater (high CRI). NEMA further stated that over the past years
nine states (VT, CO, HI, WA, MA, OR, NV, NJ, MD) and the District of
Columbia have passed regulations requiring high CRI linear fluorescent
lamps meet current DOE efficiency standards. NEMA stated that these
regulations are inconsistent in terms of effective dates and types of
restriction (e.g., sell-by, install by, manufacture by) and therefore,
are administratively burdensome and increase risk of non-compliance and
enforcement confusion for manufacturers, distributors, and retailers.
NEMA further stated that in its April 2022 Forward Regulatory Plan,
Canada's Office of Energy Efficiency also proposed to remove the
exemption of high CRI fluorescent lamps from its energy efficiency
standards. Based on potential energy savings and to provide uniformity
in regulations at the national level and to continue to align with
Canada's appliance energy efficiency standards, NEMA recommended that
DOE expand the scope of this rulemaking to include high CRI linear
fluorescent lamps and subject them to current energy efficiency
standards. (NEMA, No. 18 at p. 2)
NEMA recommended a three-year implementation period of subjecting
the high CRI lamps to current energy efficiency standards based on a
manufacture by end-date. NEMA stated that three-year implementation
periods are common in DOE's lighting product rulemakings and industry
is familiar with the timeline. (NEMA, No. 18 at p. 2)
ASAP et al. also encouraged DOE to address energy savings
opportunities from exempt fluorescent lamps including high CRI lamps.
ASAP et al. stated that as standards for non-exempt GSFLs have been
implemented, use of certain exempt lamps has become more widespread as
the lamps are marketed for general use. In particular, ASAP et al.
commented that high CRI and impact resistant linear lamps have gained
in market share and will continue to do so. ASAP et al. stated that
this is particularly problematic as most high CRI and to a lesser
extent impact resistant lamps are being sold as T12 lamps, which are
generally the most inefficient. ASAP et al. stated that the 2015 U.S.
Lighting Market Characterization (LMC) report showed average efficacies
of T12 lamps to be 70 to 80 lumens per watt (lm/W) and a recent review
of the market showed a high CRI 4-foot medium bipin T12 lamp for sale
with an efficacy of 55 lm/W (i.e., almost 40 percent less efficacious
than a lamp that just meets current GSFL
[[Page 9124]]
energy efficiency standards). Further, ASAP et al. stated that the
shift to TLEDs is impacting T8 lamps while the market share of T12
lamps remains relatively steady and will continue to do so in the
absence of standards. ASAP et al. stated that according to NEMA lamp
sales indexes, in Q1 2022, T8, T12, and T5 lamps accounted for 49.6,
9.7, and 7.5 percent of the market of linear fluorescent lamps,
respectively. ASAP et al. also stated that a 2019 California Energy
Commission report estimated that replacing a 4-foot T12, 8-foot
standard output T12, and 8-foot high output T12 with a compliant T8
lamp yields energy savings of 45 kilowatt hour per year (kWh/yr), 83
kWh/yr, and 126 kWh/yr, respectively. (ASAP et al., No. 19 at pp. 2-3)
Finally, similar to comments provided by NEMA (see NEMA, No. 18 at
p. 2), ASAP et al. cited states that had adopted regulations for high
CRI lamps and additionally noted that in May 2022, New York state
passed legislation that would give the New York State Energy Research
and Development Authority the power to set standards for federally
exempt fluorescent lamps, and in July 2022, the California Energy
Commission announced ``Federally Exempted Linear Fluorescent Lamps'' as
an upcoming standards rulemaking. (ASAP et al., No. 19 at p. 3)
ASAP et al. acknowledged that DOE stated in the May 2022 NOPD that
it cannot modify the definition of GSFL to include statutorily exempt
lamps in this rulemaking. ASAP et al. encouraged DOE to pursue setting
standards for exempt lamps in a separate rulemaking. (ASAP et al., No.
19 at pp. 2-3)
In the May 2022 NOPD, DOE stated that exemptions for high CRI lamps
and impact resistant fluorescent lamps are included 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 statutory exemptions. Additionally, as
stated in the May 2022 NOPD, DOE finds no basis in the language of EPCA
to support assertions that the agency's authority to consider energy
conservation standards for ``additional'' GSFL under 42 U.S.C.
6295(i)(5) is unlimited. As discussed in the May 2022 NOPD, DOE
interprets section 6295(i)(5) to cover additional GSFL that are not one
of the lamps excluded from the definition of GSFL in 42 U.S.C.
6291(30)(B). 87 FR 32329, 32335-36. For these reasons, DOE did not
consider high CRI lamps to be in the scope of this rulemaking.
2. Technology Options
In the May 2022 NOPD, 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 and technical journals, and the
January 2015 final rule. In addition to the technology options
identified in the January 2015 final rule, 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. 87 FR 32329, 32336. For more detail on this technology
option, see chapter 3 of the final determination TSD.
NEMA stated that it agreed with DOE's assessment of technology
options. (NEMA, No. 18 at p. 2)
In summary, in this final determination, DOE considers the
technology options proposed in the May 2022 NOPD and shown in Table
IV.1. Detailed descriptions of these technology options can be found in
chapter 3 of the final determination 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 commercially viable, existing
prototypes will not be considered further.
(2) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If it is
determined that mass production of a technology in commercial products
and reliable installation and servicing of the technology could not be
achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the
time of the projected compliance date of the standard, then that
technology will not be considered further.
(3) Impacts on product utility. If a technology is determined to
have a significant adverse impact on the utility of the product to
subgroups of consumers, or 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) Safety of technologies. 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 technology has
proprietary protection and represents a unique pathway to achieving a
given efficiency level, it will not be considered further, due to the
potential for monopolistic concerns.
[[Page 9125]]
10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, sections 6(b)(3) and 7(b).
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 excluded from further consideration in the engineering
analysis. NEMA commented that it agreed with DOE's screening analysis
in the May 2022 NOPD. (NEMA, No. 18 at p. 2)
a. Screened-Out Technologies
In the May 2022 NOPD, DOE did not find that multi-photon phosphors
or mercury isotopes are being used in working prototypes or in
commercially available products. 87 FR 32329, 32337. Therefore, as in
the May 2022 NOPD, in this final determination DOE has screened out
multi-photon phosphors and mercury isotopes based on technological
feasibility. See chapter 4 of the final determination TSD for further
details on the GSFL screening analysis.
b. Remaining Technologies
After reviewing each technology, and consistent with the May 2022
NOPD (87 FR 32329, 32337), 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 final determination 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)).
b. Summary
Having received no comments on product classes, as proposed in the
May 2022 NOPD (87 FR 32329, 32337), DOE maintains the existing 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., SO versus HO). 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 (``MBP'')............................... <=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. Engineering and Cost Analysis
The purpose of the engineering analysis is to establish the
relationship between the efficiency and cost of 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 final determination, DOE is adopting an efficiency-level
approach for GSFLs. For GSFLs, efficiency levels (ELs) are determined
as lumens per watt, which is known as the lamp's efficacy. DOE derives
ELs 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 use in the LCC and
NIA. Section IV.B.2 discusses the cost analysis (see chapter 5 of the
final determination 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
ELs by directly analyzing representative product classes, and (5) scale
ELs to non-representative product classes. The
[[Page 9126]]
efficiency analysis is discussed in the sections following and further
details are provided in chapter 5 of the final determination TSD.
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. As in the May 2022 NOPD (87 FR
32329, 32338), in this final determination, 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 Efficiency
For each 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.
In the May 2022 NOPD, 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 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. 87 FR 32329, 32338. DOE utilized the same methodology in this
final determination as in the May 2022 NOPD. In this final
determination, as in the May 2022 NOPD (87 FR 32329, 32338), DOE
selected the GSFL baseline lamps specified in Table IV.4. See chapter 5
of the final determination TSD for more detail.
Table IV.4--GSFL Baseline Lamps
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nominal Efficacy ** Initial lumen Mean lumen Rated life ***
wattage ---------------- output output ----------------
Representative product class Lamp diameter ---------------- -------------------------------- CRI
W lm/W lm lm hr
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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. In the May 2022 NOPD, 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. 87 FR
32329, 32339.
NEMA commented that it agreed with DOE's assessment of potentially
more efficacious substitutes, in particular issues regarding
performance such as dimming and other inversely proportional
relationships between technology options and performance. (NEMA, No. 18
at p. 3)
DOE utilized the same methodology for identifying more efficacious
substitutes in this final determination as in the May 2022 NOPD. In
this final determination, as in the May 2022 NOPD (87 FR 32329, 32339),
DOE analyzed the more efficacious substitutes shown in Table IV.5 of
this document. See chapter 5 of the final determination TSD for more
detail.
[[Page 9127]]
Table IV.5--GSFL More Efficacious Substitutes
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nominal Efficacy ** Initial light Mean light Rated life ***
wattage ---------------- output output ----------------
Product classes EL Lamp diameter ---------------- -------------------------------- CRI
W lm/W lm 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 *........................... EL 1...................... 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 90.0 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.
d. Higher Efficiency Levels
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.
After identifying more efficacious substitutes for each of the
baseline lamps, in the May 2022 NOPD, DOE developed 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 analysis. DOE
acknowledges, however, that the energy consumption of fluorescent lamps
is related to the ballast on which they operate. Therefore, in the May
2022 NOPD, DOE paired each lamp with an appropriate ballast to better
approximate real-world conditions. 87 FR 32329, 32340. DOE utilized the
same methodology in this final determination as in the May 2022 NOPD
(see section IV.B.1.e of this document for more information).
In the May 2022 NOPD, 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. 87 FR 32329, 32340. DOE utilized the same
methodology in this final determination as in the May 2022 NOPD. In
this final determination, as in the May 2022 NOPD, DOE identified the
ELs summarized in Table IV.6 of this document. See chapter 5 of the
final determination TSD for more detail.
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, in the
May 2022 NOPD, 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. 87 FR
32329, 32340.
In the May 2022 NOPD, 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 \6\ (BF) or ballast luminous
[[Page 9128]]
efficiency \7\ (BLE). DOE only selected replacement systems that do not
have higher energy consumption than the baseline system. For both
substitution scenarios, DOE determined energy consumption by
calculating the system input power of the lamp-and-ballast system. 87
FR 32329, 32340.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 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 Energy Conservation Standards final determination
materials are available at www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2015-BT-STD-0006.
\7\ BLE is the ratio of the total lamp arc power to ballast
input power, multiplied by the appropriate frequency adjustment
factor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
DOE used the same methodology and determined the same results as in
the May 2022 NOPD for the energy consumption of the lamp and ballast
systems in this final determination. See chapter 5 of the final
determination TSD for more detail.
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.
In the May 2022 NOPD, 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. 87 FR 32329, 32340.
In the May 2022 NOPD, 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. 87 FR 32329, 32341.
DOE used the same methodology and determined the same results as in
the May 2022 NOPD for the scaled ELs of the non-representative product
classes in this final determination. See chapter 5 of the final
determination TSD for more detail. 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 product
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 May 2022 NOPD, DOE conducted the cost analysis using the
price survey approach. Typically, DOE develops manufacturer 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 derived end-user prices for the covered
lamps in the May 2022 NOPD. The end-
[[Page 9129]]
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 the
May 2022 NOPD. 87 FR 32329, 32341.
Because the range of end-user prices paid for a lamp depended on
distribution channel, DOE identified the following three main
distribution channels to analyze in the May 2022 NOPD: 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. 87 FR
32329, 32341.
In the May 2022 NOPD, 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. 87 FR 32329, 32341.
DOE used the same methodology and determined the same results as in
the May 2022 NOPD for end-user prices in this final determination.
Table IV.8 summarizes the weightings used for the GSFL main
distribution channels.
Table IV.9 summarizes the weightings within the large retail
distributors. See chapter 5 of the final determination TSD for more
detail.
Table IV.8--Weightings for GSFL Distribution Channels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighting
Main channels (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Procurement........................................... 10
Large retail distributors................................... 70
Online Retailers............................................ 20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IV.9--Weightings Within Large Retail Distributor Channel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GSFL
Main channels Description weighting
(%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large Retail Distributors........... Mass merchants and 11
Home centers.
Hardware stores....... 1
Electrical 88
distributors.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. 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.
DOE determined the annual energy consumption of GSFLs using
information on their power (i.e., the rate of energy they consume),
developed in the engineering analysis, and the way consumers use them
(i.e., their operating hours per year).
To estimate operating hours for linear lamps in the residential
sector, DOE utilized the same methods as in the May 2022 NOPD. DOE
estimated the national weighted-average hours-of-use (HOU) of linear
lamps to be 2.1 hours per day in the residential sector. The national
weighted-average HOU for linear lamps GSFLs in the commercial sector
were estimated at 8.1 hours per day.
Max-tech parameters, including system arc power, BF, and BLE have
not been updated for the max-tech levels described in section IV.B.1 of
this final determination.
Table 6.3.1 in section 6.3 of the final determination TSD presents
results of the energy use analysis for GSFL purchases in units of
kilowatt-hours per year (kWh/yr).
Chapter 6 of the final determination TSD provides details on DOE's
energy use analysis for GSFLs.
D. 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
covered products. 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, and limited and
uncertain energy savings opportunity, as discussed in sections IV.D,
IV.F, and V.C of this final determination, DOE did not conduct LCC and
PBP analyses to evaluate the economic impacts on individual consumers
of amended GSFL energy conservation standards. DOE received no comments
on its decision not to conduct LCC and PBP analyses.
E. 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.\8\
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
[[Page 9130]]
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-foot 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 RDC HO 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 SP 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 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 \9\ (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
7 of the final determination TSD for details). DOE assumed that in each
shipment's projection year, demand for replacements would be the only
source of demand for new lamp purchases. Demand for replacement 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 \10\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ https://www.nema.org/analytics/lamp-indices.
\10\ Steven Krull and Dan Freeman, ``Next Generation Light Bulb
Optimization'' (Pacific Gas and Electric Company, February 10,
2012), http://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 Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory report on the impact of the GSL backstop \11\). 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,\12\ 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 chapter 7 of the final determination TSD for
more details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 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.
\12\ 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.
The only comment DOE received on the shipments analysis was from
NEMA, referring DOE to the NEMA Lamp Index for GSFLs,\13\ consistent
with DOE's approach. (NEMA, No. 18 at p. 3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See footnote 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. National Impact Analysis
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.\14\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 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. For this projection, DOE considers historical trends in
efficiency and various forces that are likely to affect the mix of
efficiencies over time. 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, 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 an LCC 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 system input power derived in the
engineering analysis (described in section IV.B of this document) and
separate average HOU estimates for individual sectors.
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 lm/W, 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
[[Page 9131]]
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 chapter 7 and chapter 8 of the final determination 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 final determination. Discussion of these inputs and
methods follows the table. See chapter 8 of the final determination TSD
for details.
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 2026.
Standard.
Efficiency Trends................. Consumer choice model, assuming
increasing efficiency for max tech
linear LED lamp option and
decreasing LED prices over time.
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.
Repair and Maintenance Cost per Annual values do not change with
Unit. efficiency level.
Energy Prices..................... Energy Information Administration's
Annual Energy Outlook (``AEO'')
2022 projections (to 2050) and
extrapolation through 2095.
Energy Site-to-Primary and FFC A time-series conversion factor
Conversion. based on AEO2022.
Discount Rate..................... 3 percent and 7 percent.
Present Year...................... 2022.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 (EL) 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 AEO2022.
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 Energy Information
Administration's (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 \15\ 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 8B of the final determination TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 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 December 1, 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,
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 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 energy price
changes in the Reference case from AEO2022,
[[Page 9132]]
which has an end year of 2050. To estimate price trends after 2050, DOE
assumed that prices would remain constant after 2050. NIA results based
on these cases are presented in appendix 8C of the final determination
TSD.
In calculating the NPV, DOE multiplies the net savings in future
years by a discount factor to determine their present value. For this
final determination, 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.\16\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ United States Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-
4: Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 2003. Section E. Available at
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/legacy_drupal_files/omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf (last accessed December 1, 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 final determination 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.C and IV.E of this final
determination, 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 7 and 8 of the final determination TSD.
Table V.1 presents DOE's projections of the NES for the max-tech
standard level considered for GSFLs. The savings were calculated using
the approach described in section IV.F 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)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Energy............................... 0.02 0.03
FFC Energy.................................. 0.02 0.03
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMB Circular A-4 \17\ 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 final
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.\18\ 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 lifetime of
GSFLs purchased in 2026-2034.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ OMB. Circular A-4: Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 2003.
Available at obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4/
(last accessed March 4, 2022).
\18\ 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,\19\
DOE calculated NPV using both a 7-percent and a 3-percent real discount
rate. 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), shows the consumer NPV results with
impacts counted over the lifetime of products purchased in 2026-2055.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See footnote 17.
[[Page 9133]]
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................................... 0.15 0.20
7 percent................................... 0.11 0.14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NPV results based on the aforementioned 9-year analytical
period are also presented in 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). 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. Final Determination
In order to make a final determination that standards for GSFLs do
not need to be amended, EPCA requires that DOE analyze whether amended
standards for GSFLs would result in significant conservation of energy,
be technologically feasible, and be cost effective. (42 U.S.C.
6295(m)(1)(A) and (n)(2)) Any new or amended standards issued by the
Secretary would be required to comply with the economic justification
requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). The criteria considered under 42
U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and the additional analysis relating to economic
justification are discussed in this section V.C.
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 (n)(2)(B)) DOE has 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 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), (n)(2)(C), and (o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) In the absence of an
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.) As noted, 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 (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 no GSFL consumer must
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 RDC HO product class and the 8-foot SP 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 SP 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 are no potential
energy savings from more efficient GSFLs for the 8-foot product
classes.
The potential FFC energy savings from the remaining (4-foot T5
standard output 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
[[Page 9134]]
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,\20\
DOE has determined that energy conservation standards for GSFLs would
not be economically justified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ 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
determines that the energy conservation standards for GSFLs do not need
to be amended because amended standards would not be economically
justified.
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 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 final 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 final 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 and a
final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for any such rule that an
agency adopts as a final rule, 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 reviewed this final determination under the provisions of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act and the policies and procedures published on
February 19, 2003. Because DOE is not amending standards for GSFLs, the
determination will not amend any energy conservation standards. On the
basis of the foregoing, DOE certifies that the final determination will
have no significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared an FRFA for this final
determination. DOE has transmitted 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
This final determination, which concludes that no amended energy
conservation standards for GSFLs are needed, imposes no new information
or recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, OMB clearance is not
required under the Paperwork Reduction Act. (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
DOE has analyzed this final 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
has determined that this final determination qualifies for categorical
exclusion A4 because it is an interpretation or ruling in regard to an
existing regulation and otherwise meets the requirements for
application of a categorical exclusion. See 10 CFR 1021.410.
Accordingly, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental
impact statement is required.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
E.O. 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (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 E.O. 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 final determination and has tentatively determined that
it would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the National
[[Page 9135]]
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 final
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
E.O. 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 final 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 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 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 final determination according to UMRA and its
statement of policy and determined that the final 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 final determination would not have any impact on the autonomy or
integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has
concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking
Assessment.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
Pursuant to E.O. 12630, ``Governmental Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,'' 53 FR 8859 (Mar. 15,
1988), DOE has determined that this final determination would not
result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
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 final determination under the OMB and DOE guidelines and
has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those
guidelines.
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
E.O. 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly
Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355 (May 22,
2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to 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 E.O. 12866, or any successor
E.O.; 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
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 final determination, which does not amend energy conservation
standards for GSFLs, is not a significant regulatory action under E.O.
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''),
[[Page 9136]]
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.\21\
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.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ ``Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Peer Review
Report.'' 2007. Available at energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/energy-conservation-standards-rulemaking-peer-review-report-0 (last
accessed Nov. 7, 2022).
\22\ The report is available at www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/review-of-methods-for-setting-building-and-equipment-performance-standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
M. Congressional Notification
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the
promulgation of this final determination prior to its effective date.
The report will state that it has been determined that the final
determination is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final
determination.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on January 30,
2023, 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 February 7, 2023.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2023-02863 Filed 2-10-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P