[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 77 (Friday, April 19, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28856-28965]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-07831]



[[Page 28855]]

Vol. 89

Friday,

No. 77

April 19, 2024

Part II





Department of Energy





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





10 CFR Part 430





Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for General 
Service Lamps; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 77 / Friday, April 19, 2024 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 28856]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 430

[EERE-2022-BT-STD-0022]
RIN 1904-AF43


Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for 
General Service Lamps

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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 lamps (``GSLs''). EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of 
Energy (``DOE'') to periodically determine whether more stringent 
standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified 
and would result in significant energy savings. In this final rule, DOE 
is adopting amended energy conservation standards for GSLs. DOE has 
determined that the amended energy conservation standards for these 
products would result in significant conservation of energy and are 
technologically feasible and economically justified.

DATES: The effective date of this rule is July 3, 2024. Compliance with 
the amended standards established for GSLs in this final rule is 
required on and after July 25, 2028.
    The incorporation by reference of certain material listed in this 
rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register on July 3, 
2024. The incorporation by reference of certain other material listed 
in this rule was approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of 
September 30, 2022.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this rulemaking, which includes Federal 
Register notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts, 
comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for 
review at www.regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed 
in the www.regulations.gov index. However, not all documents listed in 
the index may be publicly available, such as information that is exempt 
from public disclosure.
    The docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2022-BT-STD-0022. 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. Telephone: (202) 586-0371. Email: 
[email protected].
    Ms. Laura Zuber, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General 
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. 
Telephone: (240) 306-7651. Email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE maintains a previously approved 
incorporation by reference for: ANSI C78.79-2014 (R2020) and 
incorporates by reference the following industry standard into 10 CFR 
part 430:
    UL 1598C, Standard for Safety for Light-Emitting Diode (LED) 
Retrofit Luminaire Conversion Kits, First edition, dated January 16, 
2014 (including revisions through November 17, 2016) (``UL 1598C-
2016'').
    A copy of UL 1598C may be obtained from the Underwriters 
Laboratories, Inc. (UL), 2600 NW Lake Rd., Camas, WA 98607-8542 
(www.UL.com).
    For a further discussion of this standard, see section VI.M of this 
document.

Table of Contents

I. Synopsis of the Final Rule
    A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers
    B. Impact on Manufacturers
    C. National Benefits and Costs
    D. Conclusion
II. Introduction
    A. Authority
    B. Background
    1. Current Standards
    2. History of Standards Rulemaking for GSLs
III. General Discussion
    A. General Comments
    B. Scope of Coverage
    C. Test Procedure
    D. Technological Feasibility
    1. General
    2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
    E. Energy Savings
    1. Determination of Savings
    2. Significance of Savings
    F. Economic Justification
    1. Specific Criteria
    a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
    b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price 
(Life-Cycle Cost (``LCC'') and Payback Period Analysis (``PBP''))
    c. Energy Savings
    d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
    e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
    f. Need for National Energy Conservation
    g. Other Factors
    2. Rebuttable Presumption
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments
    A. Scope of Coverage
    1. Supporting Definitions
    2. Definition of Circadian-Friendly Integrated Light-Emitting 
Diode (``LED'') Lamp
    3. Scope of Standards
    4. Scope of Metrics
    a. Lifetime
    b. Color Rendering Index (``CRI'')
    c. Power Factor
    d. Summary of Metrics
    5. Test Procedure
    B. Market and Technology Assessment
    1. Concerns Regarding LED Lamp Technology
    a. Health Impacts
    b. Lamp Attributes
    c. Application
    d. Consumer Costs and Manufacturer Impacts
    2. Product Classes
    a. Lamp Cover
    b. Lamp Dimensions
    c. Non-Integrated Standby Operation
    d. Tunability
    e. Non-Illumination Features
    f. Product Class Summary
    3. Technology Options
    C. Screening Analysis
    1. Screened-Out Technologies
    2. Remaining Technologies
    D. Engineering Analysis
    1. Efficiency Analysis
    a. Representative Product Classes
    b. Baseline Efficiency
    c. More Efficacious Substitutes
    d. Higher Efficiency Levels
    e. Scaling of Non-Representative Product Classes
    f. Summary of All Efficacy Levels
    2. Cost Analysis
    E. Energy Use Analysis
    1. Operating Hours
    a. Residential Sector
    b. Commercial Sector
    2. Input Power
    3. Lighting Controls
    F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
    1. Product Cost
    2. Installation Cost
    3. Annual Energy Consumption
    4. Energy Prices
    5. Product Lifetime
    6. Residual Value
    7. Disposal Cost
    8. Discount Rates
    a. Residential
    b. Commercial
    9. Efficacy Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case
    10. LCC Savings Calculation
    11. Payback Period Analysis

[[Page 28857]]

    G. Shipments Analysis
    1. Shipments Model
    a. Lamp Demand Module
    b. Price-Learning Module
    c. Market-Share Module
    H. National Impact Analysis
    1. National Energy Savings
    a. Smart Lamps
    b. Unit Energy Consumption Adjustment To Account for GSL Lumen 
Distribution for the Integrated Omnidirectional Short Product Class
    c. Unit Energy Consumption Adjustment To Account for Type A 
Integrated Omnidirectional Long Lamps
    2. Net Present Value Analysis
    I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
    J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
    1. Overview
    2. Government Regulatory Impact Model and Key Inputs
    a. Manufacturer Production Costs
    b. Shipments Projections
    c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs
    d. Manufacturer Markup Scenarios
    K. Emissions Analysis
    1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated in DOE's Analysis
    L. Monetizing Emissions Impacts
    1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
    a. Social Cost of Carbon
    b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous Oxide
    c. Sensitivity Analysis Using EPA's New SC-GHG Estimates
    2. Monetization of Other Emissions Impacts
    M. Utility Impact Analysis
    N. Employment Impact Analysis
V. Analytical Results and Conclusions
    A. Trial Standard Levels
    B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings
    1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers
    a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
    b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
    c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
    2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
    a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results
    b. Direct Impacts on Employment
    c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
    d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers
    e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
    3. National Impact Analysis
    a. Significance of Energy Savings
    b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits
    c. Indirect Impacts on Employment
    4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products
    5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
    6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy
    7. Other Factors
    8. Summary of Economic Impacts
    C. Conclusion
    1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for GSL Standards
    2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Adopted Standards
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094
    B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    1. Need for, and Objectives of, Rule
    2. Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to 
the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (``IRFA'')
    3. Description and Estimated Number of Small Entities Affected
    4. Description of Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements
    5. Significant Alternatives Considered and Steps Taken To 
Minimize Significant Economic Impacts on Small Entities
    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. Information Quality
    M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
    N. Congressional Notification
VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Synopsis of the Final Rule

    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 GSLs, the subject of this 
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This is the second rulemaking cycle for GSLs. As a result of the 
first rulemaking cycle initiated per 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A), on May 9, 
2022, DOE codified a prohibition on the sale of any GSLs that do not 
meet a minimum efficacy standard of 45 lumens per watt. (87 FR 27439) 
There are existing DOE energy conservation standards higher than 45 
lumens per watt for medium base compact fluorescent lamps (``MBCFLs''), 
which are types of GSLs. 70 FR 60407 (Oct. 18, 2005). DOE is issuing 
this final rule pursuant to multiple provisions in EPCA. First, EPCA 
requires that DOE initiate a second rulemaking cycle by January 1, 
2020, to determine whether standards in effect for general service 
incandescent lamps (``GSILs'') should be amended with more stringent 
energy conservation standards and if the exemptions for certain 
incandescent lamps should be maintained or discontinued. Consistent 
with the first review, this second review of energy conservation 
standards, the scope of rulemaking is not limited to incandescent 
technologies. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(B)(ii))
    Second, EPCA also provides that not later than 6 years after 
issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE 
must publish either a notice of determination that standards for the 
product do not need to be amended, or a notice of proposed rulemaking 
including new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a 
final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)) Third, pursuant to 
EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard must be designed 
to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that DOE 
determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the new or amended standard must 
result in a significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(3)(B)) Lastly, when DOE proposes to adopt an amended standard 
for a type or class of covered product, 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))
    In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed 
in this document, DOE analyzed the benefits and burdens of six trial 
standard levels (``TSLs'') for GSLs. The TSLs and their associated 
benefits and burdens are discussed in detail in sections V.A through 
V.C of this document. As discussed in section V.C of this document, DOE 
has determined that TSL 6 represents the maximum improvement in energy 
efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. 
The adopted standards, which are expressed in minimum lumens (``lm'') 
output per watt (``W'') of a lamp or lamp efficacy (``lm/W''), are 
shown in table I.1. These standards apply to all products listed in 
table I.1 and manufactured in, or imported into, the United States 
starting on July 25, 2028.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

[[Page 28858]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.000

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

    Table I.2 summarizes DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of 
the adopted standards on consumers of GSLs, as measured by the average 
life-cycle cost (``LCC'') savings and the simple payback period 
(``PBP'').\3\ The average LCC savings are positive for all product 
classes, and the PBP is less than the average lifetime of GSLs, which 
varies by product class and efficiency level (see section IV.F.5 of 
this document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The average LCC savings refer to consumers that are affected 
by a standard and are measured relative to the efficiency 
distribution in the no-new-standards case, which depicts the market 
in the first full compliance year in the absence of new or amended 
standards (see section IV.F.9 of this document). The simple PBP, 
which is designed to compare specific efficiency levels, is measured 
relative to the baseline product (see section IV.D of this 
document).

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

[[Page 28859]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.001

    DOE's analysis of the impacts of the adopted standards on consumers 
is described in section V.B.1 of this document.

B. Impact on Manufacturers

    The industry net present value (``INPV'') is the sum of the 
discounted cash flows to the industry from the base year through the 
end of the analysis period (2024-2058). Using a real discount rate of 
6.1 percent, DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of GSLs in 
the case without new and amended standards is $2,108 million in 2022$. 
Under the adopted standards, DOE estimates the change in INPV to range 
from -15.3 percent to -7.3 percent, which is approximately -$322 
million to -$155 million. In order to bring products into compliance 
with new and amended standards, it is estimated that industry will 
incur total conversion costs of $430 million.
    DOE's analysis of the impacts of the adopted standards on 
manufacturers is described in sections IV.J and V.B.2 of this document.

C. National Benefits and Costs 4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ All monetary values in this document are expressed in 2022 
dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE's analyses indicate that the adopted energy conservation 
standards for GSLs would save a significant amount of energy. Relative 
to the case without amended standards, the lifetime energy savings for 
GSLs purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the anticipated 
first full year of compliance with the amended standards (2029-2058) 
amount to 4.0 quadrillion British thermal units (``Btu''), or quads.\5\ 
This represents a savings of 17 percent relative to the energy use of 
these products in the case without amended standards (referred to as 
the ``no-new-standards case'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The quantity refers to full-fuel-cycle (``FFC'') energy 
savings. FFC energy savings 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 efficiency standards. For more 
information on the FFC metric, see section 0 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The cumulative net present value (``NPV'') of total consumer 
benefits of the standards for GSLs ranges from $8.5 billion (at a 7-
percent discount rate) to $22.2 billion (at a 3-percent discount rate). 
This NPV expresses the estimated total value of future operating-cost 
savings minus the estimated increased product costs for GSLs purchased 
during the period 2029-2058.
    In addition, the adopted standards for GSLs are projected to yield 
significant environmental benefits. DOE estimates that the standards 
will result in cumulative emission reductions (over the same period as 
for energy savings) of 70.3 million metric tons (``Mt'') \6\ of carbon 
dioxide (``CO2''), 22.1 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide 
(``SO2''), 133.3 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides 
(``NOX''), 608.1 thousand tons of methane 
(``CH4''), 0.70 thousand tons of nitrous oxide 
(``N2O''), and 0.15 tons of mercury (``Hg'').\7\ The 
estimated cumulative reduction in CO2 emissions through 2030 
amounts to 0.61 Mt, which is equivalent to the emissions resulting from 
the annual electricity use of more than one hundred thousand homes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for 
emissions other than CO2 are presented in short tons.
    \7\ DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to the no-new-
standards-case, which reflects key assumptions in the Annual Energy 
Outlook 2023 (``AEO2023''). AEO2023 reflects, to the extent 
possible, laws and regulations adopted through mid-November 2022, 
including the Inflation Reduction Act. See section IV.K of this 
document for further discussion of AEO2023 assumptions that affect 
air pollutant emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE estimates the value of climate benefits from a reduction in 
greenhouse gases (``GHG'') using four different estimates of the social 
cost of CO2 (``SC-CO2''), the social cost of 
methane (``SC-CH4''), and the social cost of nitrous oxide 
(``SC-N2O''). Together these represent the social cost of 
GHG (``SC-GHG''). DOE used interim SC-GHG values (in terms of benefit 
per ton of GHG avoided) developed by an Interagency Working Group on 
the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (``IWG'').\8\ The derivation of 
these values is discussed in section IV.L of this document. For 
presentational purposes, the climate benefits associated with the 
average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are estimated to be $3.8 
billion. DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate and 
it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits 
calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions this 
analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the Technical 
Support Documents: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide 
Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 published in February 
2021 by the IWG. (``February 2021 SC-GHG TSD''). Available at 
www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE estimated the monetary health benefits of SO2 and 
NOX emissions reductions, using benefit per ton estimates 
from the Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA''),\9\ as discussed in 
section IV.L of this document. DOE estimated the present value of the 
health benefits would be $2.9 billion using a 7-percent discount rate, 
and $7.5 billion using a 3-percent discount rate.\10\ DOE is currently 
only

[[Page 28860]]

monetizing health benefits from changes in ambient fine particulate 
matter (``PM2.5'') concentrations from two precursors 
(SO2 and NOX), and from changes in ambient ozone 
from one precursor (for NOX), but will continue to assess 
the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from 
reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Estimating the Benefit 
per Ton of Reducing Directly-Emitted PM2.5, 
PM2.5 Precursors and Ozone Precursors from 21 Sectors. 
Available at www.epa.gov/benmap/estimating-benefit-ton-reducing-pm25-precursors-21-sectors.
    \10\ DOE estimates the economic value of these emissions 
reductions resulting from the considered TSLs for the purpose of 
complying with the requirements of Executive Order 12866.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 1.3 summarizes the monetized benefits and costs expected to 
result from the amended standards for GSLs. There are other important 
unquantified effects, including certain unquantified climate benefits, 
unquantified public health benefits from the reduction of toxic air 
pollutants and other emissions, unquantified energy security benefits, 
and distributional effects among others.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

[[Page 28861]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.002


[[Page 28862]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.003

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
    The benefits and costs of the amended standards can also be 
expressed in terms of annualized values. The monetary values for the 
total annualized net benefits are (1) the reduced consumer operating 
costs, minus (2) the increase in product purchase prices and 
installation costs, plus (3) the value of climate and health benefits 
of emission reductions, all annualized.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ To convert the time-series of costs and benefits into 
annualized values, DOE calculated a present value in 2024, the year 
used for discounting the NPV of total consumer costs and savings. 
For the benefits, DOE calculated a present value associated with 
each year's shipments in the year in which the shipments occur 
(e.g., 2020 or 2030), and then discounted the present value from 
each year to 2024. Using the present value, DOE then calculated the 
fixed annual payment over a 30-year period, starting in the 
compliance year, that yields the same present value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The national operating cost savings are domestic private U.S. 
consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of purchasing the 
covered products and are measured for the lifetime of GSLs shipped 
during the period 2029-2058. The benefits associated with reduced 
emissions achieved as a result of the adopted standards are also 
calculated based on the lifetime of GSLs shipped during the period 
2029-2058. Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases 
are presented using the average GHG social costs with a 3-percent 
discount rate. Estimates of SC-GHG values are presented for all four 
discount rates in section V.B.8 of this document.
    Table I.4 presents the total estimated monetized benefits and costs 
associated with the amended standard, expressed in terms of annualized 
values. The results under the primary estimate are as follows.
    Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and 
health benefits from reduced NOX and SO2 
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits 
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated cost of the standards adopted 
in this rule is $301.4 million per year in increased equipment costs, 
while the estimated annual benefits are $1,193.6 million in reduced 
equipment operating costs, $217.7 million in climate benefits, and 
$303.2 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would 
amount to $1,413.1 million per year.
    Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the 
estimated cost of the standards is $292.2 million per year in increased 
equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $1,564.6 
million in reduced operating costs, $217.7 million in climate benefits, 
and $430.8 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit 
would amount to $1,920.9 million per year.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

[[Page 28863]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.004


[[Page 28864]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.005

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
    DOE's analysis of the national impacts of the adopted standards is 
described in sections IV.H, IV.K, and IV.L of this document.

D. Conclusion

    DOE concludes that the standards adopted in this final rule 
represent the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is 
technologically feasible and economically justified and would result in 
the significant conservation of energy. Specifically, with regard to 
technological feasibility, products achieving these standard levels are 
already commercially available for all product classes covered by this 
final rule. As for economic justification, DOE's analysis shows that 
the benefits of the standards exceed, to a great extent, the burdens of 
the standards.
    Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and 
NOX and SO2 reduction benefits, and a 3-percent 
discount rate case for GHG social costs, the estimated cost of the 
standards for GSLs is $301.4 million per year in increased GSL costs, 
while the estimated annual benefits are $1,193.6 million in reduced GSL 
operating costs, $217.7 million in climate benefits, and $303.2 million 
in health benefits. The net benefit amounts to $1,413.1 million per 
year. While DOE presents monetized climate benefits, DOE would reach 
the same conclusion presented in this rulemaking in the absence of the 
benefits of the social cost of greenhouse gases.
    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.\12\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for Consideration 
in New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures 
for Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial Equipment, 86 FR 
70892, 70901 (Dec. 13, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As previously mentioned, the standards are projected to result in 
estimated national energy savings of 4.0 quad full-fuel-cycle 
(``FFC''), the equivalent of the primary annual energy use of 261 
million homes. In addition, they are projected to reduce CO2 
emissions by 70.3 Mt. Based on these findings, DOE has determined the 
energy savings from the standard levels adopted in this final rule are 
``significant'' within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B). A more 
detailed discussion of the basis for these conclusions is contained in 
the remainder of this document and the accompanying TSD.

II. Introduction

    The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority 
underlying this final rule, as well as some of the relevant historical 
background related to the establishment of standards for GSLs.

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 GSLs, the 
subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6295 (i) (6)) EPCA directs DOE to 
conduct future rulemakings to determine whether to amend these

[[Page 28865]]

standards. Id. EPCA further provides that, not later than 6 years after 
the issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE 
must publish either a notice 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)(1))
    EPCA directs DOE to conduct two rulemaking cycles to evaluate 
energy conservation standards for GSLs. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)-(B)) 
For the first rulemaking cycle, EPCA directed DOE to initiate a 
rulemaking process prior to January 1, 2014, to determine whether: (1) 
to amend energy conservation standards for GSLs and (2) the exemptions 
for certain incandescent lamps should be maintained or discontinued. 
(42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)) That rulemaking was not to be limited to 
incandescent lamp technologies and was required to include a 
consideration of a minimum standard of 45 lm/W for GSLs. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(i)(6)(A)(ii)) EPCA required that if the Secretary determined that 
the standards in effect for GSILs should be amended, a final rule must 
be published by January 1, 2017, with a compliance date at least 3 
years after the date on which the final rule is published. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(i)(6)(A)(iii)) The Secretary was also required to consider phased-
in effective dates after considering certain manufacturer and retailer 
impacts. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(iv)) If DOE failed to complete a 
rulemaking in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)-(iv), or if a 
final rule from the first rulemaking cycle did not produce savings 
greater than or equal to the savings from a minimum efficacy standard 
of 45 lm/W, the statute provides a ``backstop'' under which DOE was 
required to prohibit sales of GSLs that do not meet a minimum 45 lm/W 
standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(v)). DOE did not complete a 
rulemaking in accordance with the statutory criteria, and so 
accordingly codified this backstop requirement in a rule issued on May 
9, 2022 (``May 2022 Backstop Final Rule''). 87 FR 27439.
    EPCA further directs DOE to initiate a second rulemaking cycle by 
January 1, 2020, to determine whether standards in effect for GSILs 
(which are a subset of GSLs) should be amended with more stringent 
maximum wattage requirements than EPCA specifies, and whether the 
exemptions for certain incandescent lamps should be maintained or 
discontinued. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(B)(i)) As in the first rulemaking 
cycle, the scope of the second rulemaking is not limited to 
incandescent lamp technologies. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(B)(ii)) As 
previously stated in section I of this document, DOE is publishing this 
final rule pursuant to this second cycle of rulemaking, as well as 
section (m) of 42 U.S.C. 6295.
    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).
    Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered products 
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations 
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 
U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c)) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal 
preemption in limited instances for particular State laws or 
regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions set 
forth under EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C. 6297(d).)
    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 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 GSLs appear at title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (``CFR'') part 430, subpart B, appendices R, W, BB, and DD.
    DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or 
amended standards for covered products, including GSLs. Any new or 
amended standard for a covered product must be designed to achieve the 
maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary of Energy 
determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any standard that 
would not result in the significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(3)) Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard (1) for certain 
products, including GSLs, if no test procedure has been established for 
the product, or (2) if DOE determines by rule that the standard is not 
technologically feasible or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(3)(A)-(B)) 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, or maintenance expenses for 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 of Energy (``Secretary'') considers 
relevant.

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))
    Further, EPCA, as codified, establishes a rebuttable presumption 
that a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that 
the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying 
with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three 
times the value of the energy savings during the first year that the 
consumer will receive as a result of the standard, as calculated under 
the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii))
    EPCA, as codified, also contains what is known as an ``anti-
backsliding'' provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing 
any amended standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy 
use or decreases the

[[Page 28866]]

minimum required energy efficiency of a covered product. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not prescribe an amended or new 
standard if interested persons have established by a preponderance of 
the evidence that the standard is likely to result in the 
unavailability in the United States in any covered product type (or 
class) of performance characteristics (including reliability), 
features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the 
same as those generally available in the United States. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(4))
    Additionally, EPCA specifies requirements when promulgating an 
energy conservation standard for a covered product that has two or more 
subcategories. DOE must specify a different standard level for a type 
or class of products that has the same function or intended use if DOE 
determines that products within such group (A) consume a different kind 
of energy from that consumed by other covered products within such type 
(or class); or (B) have a capacity or other performance-related feature 
which other products within such type (or class) do not have and such 
feature justifies a higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) In 
determining whether a performance-related feature justifies a different 
standard for a group of products, DOE must consider such factors as the 
utility to the consumer of such a feature and other factors DOE deems 
appropriate. Id. Any rule prescribing such a standard must include an 
explanation of the basis on which such higher or lower level was 
established. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2))
    Finally, pursuant to the amendments contained in the Energy 
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (``EISA''), Public Law 110-140, 
any final rule for new or amended energy conservation standards 
promulgated after July 1, 2010, is required to address standby mode and 
off mode energy use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) Specifically, when DOE 
adopts a standard for a covered product after that date, it must, if 
justified by the criteria for adoption of standards under EPCA (42 
U.S.C. 6295(o)), incorporate standby mode and off mode energy use into 
a single standard, or, if that is not feasible, adopt a separate 
standard for such energy use for that product. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(gg)(3)(A)-(B)) DOE determined that it is not feasible for GSLs 
included in the scope of this rulemaking to meet the off mode criteria 
because there is no condition in which a GSL connected to main power is 
not already in a mode accounted for in either active or standby mode. 
DOE notes the existence of commercially available GSLs that operate in 
standby mode. DOE's current test procedures and standards for GSLs 
address standby mode, as do the amended standards adopted in this final 
rule.

B. Background

1. Current Standards
    This is the second cycle of energy conservation standards 
rulemakings for GSLs. As noted in section II.B.2 of this document, DOE 
has codified the statutory backstop requirement prohibiting sales of 
GSLs that do not meet a 45 lm/W requirement. Because incandescent and 
halogen GSLs are not able to meet the 45 lm/W requirement, they are not 
being considered in this analysis. The analysis does take into 
consideration existing standards for MBCFLs by ensuring that the 
adopted levels do not decrease the existing minimum required energy 
efficiency of MBCFLs in violation of EPCA's anti-backsliding provision, 
which precludes DOE from amending an existing energy conservation 
standard to permit greater energy use or a lesser amount of energy 
efficiency (see 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)). The current standards for MBCFLs 
are summarized in table II.1. 10 CFR 430.32(u).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.006


[[Page 28867]]


    MBCFLs fall within the Integrated Omnidirectional Short product 
class (see section IV.B.2 of this document for further details on 
product classes). Because DOE determined that a lamp cover (i.e., bare 
or covered) is not a feature that justifies separate standards in this 
analysis, the baseline efficacy requirements are determined by lamp 
wattage. Therefore, for products with wattages less than 15 W that fall 
into the Integrated Omnidirectional Short product class, DOE set the 
baseline efficacy at 45 lm/W (the highest of the existing standards for 
that wattage range) to prevent increased energy usage in violation of 
EPCA's anti-backsliding provision. For products with wattages greater 
than or equal to 15 W that fall into the Integrated Omnidirectional 
Short product class, DOE set the baseline efficacy at 60 lm/W to 
prevent increased energy usage in violation of EPCA's anti-backsliding 
provision. Table II.2 shows the baseline efficacy requirements for the 
Integrated Omnidirectional Short product class.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.007

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for GSLs
    Pursuant to its statutory authority to complete the first cycle of 
rulemaking for GSLs, DOE published a NOPR on March 17, 2016 (``March 
2016 NOPR''), that addressed the first question that Congress directed 
it to consider--whether to amend energy conservation standards for 
GSLs. 81 FR 14528, 14629-14630 (Mar. 17, 2016). In the March 2016 NOPR, 
DOE stated that it would be unable to undertake any analysis regarding 
GSILs and other incandescent lamps because of a then-applicable 
congressional restriction (``the Appropriations Rider''). See 81 FR 
14528, 14540-14541. The Appropriations Rider prohibited expenditure of 
funds appropriated by that law to implement or enforce: (1) 10 CFR 
430.32(x), which includes maximum wattage and minimum rated lifetime 
requirements for GSILs; and (2) standards set forth in section 
325(i)(1)(B) of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(1)(B)), which sets minimum lamp 
efficiency ratings for incandescent reflector lamps (``IRLs''). Under 
the Appropriations Rider, DOE was restricted from undertaking the 
analysis required to address the first question presented by Congress, 
but was not so limited in addressing the second question--that is, DOE 
was not prevented from determining whether the exemptions for certain 
incandescent lamps should be maintained or discontinued. To address 
that second question, on October 18, 2016, DOE published a Notice of 
Proposed Definition and Data Availability (``October 2016 NOPDDA''), 
which proposed to amend the definitions of GSIL, GSL, and related 
terms. 81 FR 71794, 71815 (Oct. 18, 2016). The Appropriations Rider, 
which was originally adopted in 2011 and readopted and extended 
continuously in multiple subsequent legislative actions, expired on May 
5, 2017, when the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 was 
enacted.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2017 (Pub. L. 115-
31, div. D, tit. III); see also Consolidated Appropriations Act, 
2018 (Pub. L. 115-141).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 19, 2017, DOE published two final rules concerning the 
definitions of GSL, GSIL, and related terms (``January 2017 Definition 
Final Rules''). 82 FR 7276; 82 FR 7322. The January 2017 Definition 
Final Rules amended the definitions of GSIL and GSL by bringing certain 
categories of lamps that had been excluded by statute from the 
definition of GSIL within the definitions of GSIL and GSL. DOE 
determined to use two final rules in 2017 to amend the definitions of 
GSIL and GSLs in order to address the majority of the definition 
changes in one final rule and the exemption for IRLs in the second 
final rule. These two rules were issued simultaneously, with the first 
rule eschewing a determination regarding the existing exemption for 
IRLs in the definition of GSL and the second rulemaking discontinuing 
that exemption from the GSL definition. 82 FR 7276, 7312; 82 FR 7322, 
7323. As in the October 2016 NOPDDA, DOE stated that the January 2017 
Definition Final Rules related only to the second question that 
Congress directed DOE to consider, i.e., whether to maintain or 
discontinue ``exemptions'' for certain incandescent lamps. 82 FR 7276, 
7277; 82 FR 7322, 7324 (see 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)(II)). That is, 
neither of the two final rules issued on January 19, 2017, established 
energy conservation standards applicable to GSLs. DOE explained that 
the Appropriations Rider prevented it from establishing, or even 
analyzing, standards for GSILs. 82 FR 7276, 7278. Instead, DOE 
explained that it would either impose standards for GSLs in the future 
pursuant to its authority to develop GSL standards or apply the 
backstop standard prohibiting the sale of lamps not meeting a 45 lm/W 
efficacy standard. 82 FR 7276, 7277-7278. The two final rules were to 
become effective as of January 1, 2020.
    On March 17, 2017, the National Electrical Manufacturers 
Association (``NEMA'') filed a petition for review of the January 2017 
Definition Final Rules in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth 
Circuit. National Electrical Manufacturers Association v. United States 
Department of Energy, No. 17-1341. NEMA claimed that DOE ``amend[ed] 
the statutory definition of `general service lamp' to include lamps 
that Congress expressly stated were `not include[d]' in the 
definition'' and adopted an ``unreasonable and unlawful interpretation 
of the statutory definition.'' Pet. 2. Prior to merits briefing, the 
parties reached a settlement agreement under which DOE agreed, in part, 
to issue a notice of data availability requesting data for GSILs and 
other incandescent lamps to assist DOE in determining whether standards 
for GSILs should be amended (the first question of the rulemaking 
required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)).
    With the removal of the Appropriations Rider in the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, 2017, DOE was no longer restricted from undertaking 
the analysis and decision-

[[Page 28868]]

making required to address the first question presented by Congress, 
i.e., whether to amend energy conservation standards for GSLs, 
including GSILs. Thus, on August 15, 2017, DOE published a notice of 
data availability (``NODA'') and request for information seeking data 
for GSILs and other incandescent lamps (``August 2017 NODA''). 82 FR 
38613.
    The purpose of the August 2017 NODA was to assist DOE in 
determining whether standards for GSILs should be amended. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(i)(6)(A)(i)(I)) Comments submitted in response to the August 2017 
NODA also led DOE to reconsider the decisions it had already made with 
respect to the second question presented to DOE--whether the exemptions 
for certain incandescent lamps should be maintained or discontinued. 84 
FR 3120, 3122 (see 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)(II)). As a result of the 
comments received in response to the August 2017 NODA, DOE also 
reassessed the legal interpretations underlying certain decisions made 
in the January 2017 Definition Final Rules. Id.
    On February 11, 2019, DOE published a NOPR that proposed to 
withdraw the revised definitions of GSL, GSIL, and the new and revised 
definitions of related terms that were to go into effect on January 1, 
2020 (``February 2019 Definition NOPR''). 84 FR 3120. In a final rule 
published September 5, 2019, DOE finalized the withdrawal of the 
definitions in the January 2017 Definition Final Rules and maintained 
the existing regulatory definitions of GSL and GSIL, which are the same 
as the statutory definitions of those terms (``September 2019 
Withdrawal Rule''). 84 FR 46661. The September 2019 Withdrawal Rule 
revisited the same primary question addressed in the January 2017 
Definition Final Rules, namely, the statutory requirement for DOE to 
determine whether ``the exemptions for certain incandescent lamps 
should be maintained or discontinued.'' 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)(II) 
(see 84 FR 46661, 46667). In the rule, DOE also addressed its 
interpretation of the statutory backstop at 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(v) 
and concluded the backstop had not been triggered. 84 FR 46661, 46663-
46664. DOE reasoned that 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(iii) ``does not 
establish an absolute obligation on the Secretary to publish a rule by 
a date certain.'' 84 FR 46661, 46663. ``Rather, the obligation to issue 
a final rule prescribing standards by a date certain applies if, and 
only if, the Secretary makes a determination that standards in effect 
for GSILs need to be amended.'' Id. DOE further stated that, since it 
had not yet made the predicate determination on whether to amend 
standards for GSILs, the obligation to issue a final rule by a date 
certain did not yet exist and, as a result, the condition precedent to 
the potential imposition of the backstop requirement did not yet exist 
and no backstop requirement had yet been triggered. 84 FR 46661, 46664.
    Similar to the January 2017 Definition Final Rules, the September 
2019 Withdrawal Rule clarified that DOE was not determining whether 
standards for GSLs, including GSILs, should be amended. DOE stated it 
would make that determination in a separate rulemaking. 84 FR 46661, 
46662. DOE initiated that separate rulemaking by publishing a notice of 
proposed definition (``NOPD'') on September 5, 2019 (``September 2019 
NOPD''), regarding whether standards for GSILs should be amended. 84 FR 
46830. In conducting its analysis for that notice, DOE used the data 
and comments received in response to the August 2017 NODA and relevant 
data and comments received in response to the February 2019 Definition 
NOPR, and DOE tentatively determined that the current standards for 
GSILs do not need to be amended because more stringent standards are 
not economically justified. 84 FR 46830, 46831. DOE finalized that 
tentative determination on December 27, 2019 (``December 2019 Final 
Determination''). 84 FR 71626. DOE also concluded in the December 2019 
Final Determination that because it had made the predicate 
determination not to amend standards for GSILs, there was no obligation 
to issue a final rule by January 1, 2017, and, as a result, the 
backstop requirement had not been triggered. 84 FR 71626, 71636.
    Two petitions for review were filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals 
for the Second Circuit challenging the September 2019 Withdrawal Rule. 
The first petition was filed by 15 States,\14\ New York City, and the 
District of Columbia. See New York v. U.S. Department of Energy, No. 
19-3652 (2d Cir., filed Nov. 4, 2019). The second petition was filed by 
six organizations \15\ that included environmental, consumer, and 
public housing tenant groups. See Natural Resources Defense Council v. 
U.S. Department of Energy, No. 19-3658 (2d Cir., filed Nov. 4, 2019). 
The petitions were subsequently consolidated. On May 9, 2022, DOE 
published a final rule that revised the determination at issue in these 
consolidated cases and adopted new regulations in accordance with that 
revision. 87 FR 27439. In August 2022, the petitioners moved the court 
to dismiss the petitions for review, which the court granted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The petitioning States are the States of New York, 
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Maine, 
Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, and 
Washington and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
    \15\ The petitioning organizations are the Natural Resources 
Defense Council, Sierra Club, Consumer Federation of America, 
Massachusetts Union of Public Housing Tenants, Environment America, 
and U.S. Public Interest Research Group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, in two separate petitions also filed in the Second 
Circuit, groups of petitioners that were essentially identical to those 
that filed the lawsuit challenging the September 2019 Withdrawal Rule 
challenged the December 2019 Final Determination. See Natural Resources 
Defense Council v. U.S. Department of Energy, No. 20-699 (2d Cir., 
filed Feb. 25, 2020); New York v. U.S. Department of Energy, No. 20-743 
(2d Cir., filed Feb. 28, 2020). These petitions were also dismissed in 
August 2022.
    On January 20, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 
(``E.O.'') 13990, ``Protecting Public Health and the Environment and 
Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis.'' 86 FR 7037. Section 1 
of E.O. 13990 lists a number of policies related to the protection of 
public health and the environment, including reducing greenhouse gas 
emissions and bolstering the Nation's resilience to climate change. 86 
FR 7037, 7041. Section 2 of E.O. 13990 instructs all agencies to review 
``existing regulations, orders, guidance documents, policies, and any 
other similar agency actions promulgated, issued, or adopted between 
January 20, 2017, and January 20, 2021, that are or may be inconsistent 
with, or present obstacles to, [these policies].'' Id. Agencies are 
then directed, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to 
consider suspending, revising, or rescinding these agency actions and 
to immediately commence work to confront the climate crisis. Id.
    In accordance with E.O. 13990, DOE published a request for 
information (``RFI'') on May 25, 2021, initiating a reevaluation of its 
prior determination that the Secretary was not required to implement 
the statutory backstop requirement for GSLs (``May 2021 Backstop 
RFI''). 86 FR 28001. DOE solicited information regarding the 
availability of lamps that would satisfy a minimum efficacy standard of 
45 lm/W, as well as other information that may be relevant to a 
possible implementation of the statutory backstop. Id. On December 13, 
2021, DOE published a NOPR proposing to codify in the CFR the 45 lm/W 
backstop requirement for GSLs (``December 2021 Backstop

[[Page 28869]]

NOPR''). 86 FR 70755. On May 9, 2022, DOE published a final rule 
codifying the 45 lm/W backstop requirement (``May 2022 Backstop Final 
Rule''). 87 FR 27439. In the May 2022 Backstop Final Rule, DOE 
determined the backstop requirement applies because DOE failed to 
complete a rulemaking for GSLs in accordance with certain statutory 
criteria in 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A). When DOE published the May 2022 
Backstop Final Rule, it also released an enforcement policy statement 
for GSLs.\16\ In response to lead-in time concerns raised by members of 
the industry and comments supporting immediate enforcement, DOE 
outlined a progressive enforcement model where it would exercise its 
discretion when taking enforcement action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Enforcement Policy Statement--General Service Lamps, April 
26, 2022, available at: www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-04/GSL_EnforcementPolicy_4_25_22.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 19, 2021, DOE published a NOPR to amend the current 
definitions of GSL and GSIL and adopt associated supplemental 
definitions to be defined as previously set forth in the January 2017 
Definition Final Rules (``August 2021 Definition NOPR''). 86 FR 46611. 
On May 9, 2022, DOE published a final rule adopting definitions of GSL 
and GSIL and associated supplemental definitions as set forth in the 
August 2021 Definition NOPR (``May 2022 Definition Final Rule''). 87 FR 
27461.
    Upon issuance of the May 2022 Backstop Final Rule and the May 2022 
Definition Final Rule, DOE concluded the first cycle of GSL rulemaking 
required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A). EPCA directs DOE to initiate this 
second cycle of rulemaking procedure no later than January 1, 2020. 42 
U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(B) However, DOE is delayed in initiating this second 
cycle because of the Appropriations Rider, DOE's evolving position 
under the first rulemaking cycle, and the associated delays that 
resulted in DOE certifying the backstop requirement for GSLs two years 
after the January 1, 2020, date specified in the statute.
    On January 11, 2023, DOE published a NOPR (``January 2023 NOPR''), 
pursuant to this second cycle of rulemaking as well as 42 U.S.C. 
6295(m). 88 FR 1638 (Jan. 11, 2023).
    DOE received 17 comments in response to the January 2023 NOPR from 
the interested parties listed in table II.3. DOE also received 158 
comments from private citizens.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

[[Page 28870]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.008

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
    A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or 
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\17\ 
To the extent that interested parties have provided written comments 
that are substantively consistent with any oral comments provided 
during the February 1, 2023, public meeting, DOE cites the written 
comments throughout this final rule. Any oral comments provided during 
the webinar that are not substantively addressed by written comments 
are summarized and cited separately throughout this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for 
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop 
energy conservation standards for GSLs. (Docket No. EERE-2022-BT-
STD-0022, 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 rule after considering oral and written 
comments, data, and information from interested parties that represent 
a variety of interests. The following discussion addresses issues 
raised by these commenters.

A. General Comments

    This section summarizes and discusses general comments received 
from interested parties. As specified in section I, the adopted 
standards in this final rule are expressed as lumens per watt (``lm/
W'') of a lamp or lamp efficacy. In this document the terms efficacy 
and efficiency both refer to lm/W of the lamp.
    NEMA supported DOE's statements in the January 2023 NOPR regarding 
EPCA's preemption provisions to state regulation. NEMA stated that in 
the final rule, DOE clearly specified the preemptive effect on all 
covered products that meet the Federal definition of a GSL in 
accordance with E.O. 13132 as well as the timing of the effect in 
accordance with E.O. 12988. NEMA stated that this clarification will 
prevent confusion that may otherwise arise due to a patchwork of 
differing State regulations that had previously been implemented prior 
to May 9, 2022, when DOE published the May 2022 Backstop Final Rule. 
(NEMA, No. 183 at p. 21)
    Regarding comments received on Federal preemption, in the January 
2023 NOPR (88 FR 1638, 1644) and in this final rule (see section II.A 
of this

[[Page 28871]]

document), DOE specifies that Federal energy efficiency requirements 
for covered products established under EPCA generally supersede State 
laws and regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, 
and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c)) DOE may, however, grant waivers 
of Federal preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in 
accordance with the procedures and other provisions set forth under 
EPCA (see 42 U.S.C. 6297(d)). For the first cycle of the GSL 
rulemaking, EPCA provided California and Nevada with certain preemption 
allowances (see 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(vi)). However, these allowances 
do not apply to this second cycle of GSL rulemaking (see 42 U.S.C. 
6295(i)(6)(B)).
    CLASP recommended that DOE, in partnership with the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'') and the Consumer Product 
Safety Commission (``CPSC''), implement a national policy banning 
fluorescent lighting on the basis of toxicity due to the mercury 
content contained in all fluorescent lamps, which is already adopted in 
California and Vermont and is under consideration in several other 
States. CLASP commented that such a national regulation would help to 
accelerate market shift to LED lamps and promote even more cost-
effective energy savings in the United States. CLASP recommended that 
DOE prioritize an advanced schedule for the phase-out of fluorescent 
lighting at increased rates of efficacy, as it would yield several 
benefits across various DOE objectives. CLASP stated that replacing 
fluorescent bulbs with retrofittable LED bulbs (i.e., plug-and-play, 
drop-in replacements that require no rewiring) will eliminate mercury 
and cut lighting-related power consumption in half and will reduce 
CO2 and Hg emissions from power stations. CLASP also noted 
that LED bulbs last 2-3 times longer than fluorescent bulbs, reducing 
the volume of municipal waste generated. CLASP further stated that LCC 
studies had shown LED bulbs to have the lowest associated energy 
utilization and lowest environmental impact compared to other lighting 
technologies. (CLASP, No. 177 at pp. 4-5)
    CLASP also recommended that DOE work with EPA to update ENERGY STAR 
requirements for lamp efficacy levels to at least double the current 
level of 80 lm/W in an effort to further support this GSL regulation by 
creating a market `pull' for higher efficacy lamps. CLASP stated that 
an update to ENERGY STAR is necessary to discontinue the inclusion of 
CFLs in the program, as seven fluorescent lamps are currently 
recognized by ENERGY STAR while Africa, Europe, and India are phasing 
out fluorescent lighting. (CLASP, No. 177 at p. 5) NEMA noted EPA's 
intention to sunset all ENERGY STAR lighting programs except for a new 
program for recessed lighting, recognizing its significant energy 
savings. NEMA supported the more focused continuation of this ENERGY 
STAR program to maintain minimum levels of quality and performance. 
(NEMA, No. 183 at p. 19)
    The scope of this rule is to evaluate energy conservation standards 
for GSLs (see section II.A of this document) which does not include 
general service fluorescent lamps or other fluorescent lamps (see 
definition of GSLs at 10 CFR 430.2). DOE considers out-of-scope lamps 
such as fluorescent lamps in the shipment and NIA analyses (see 
respectively, sections IV.G and IV.H of this document). Additionally, 
the scope of this rule does not include updating requirements set by 
EPA's ENERGY STAR program. Note that on March 13, 2023, EPA announced 
it will be sunsetting ENERGY STAR specifications for lamps and 
luminaires effective December 31, 2024, with the exception of recessed 
downlights, which would be covered by a new specification.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ ENERGY STAR Lighting Sunset--March 13, 2023. Available at: 
www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/asset/document/ENERGY%20STAR%20Lighting%20Sunset%20Memo.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted in section II.A of this document and in the January 2023 
NOPR per 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(B)(iv)(I)-(II), the Secretary shall 
consider phased-in effective dates after considering certain 
manufacturer and retailer impacts. In the January 2023 NOPR, DOE 
requested comments on whether phased-in effective dates were necessary 
for the proposed GSL standards. 88 FR 1638, 1656. Westinghouse stated 
its preference for a single effective date for the standard, as phased-
in effective dates would make things more complicated. (Westinghouse, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 27 at p. 13). NEMA stated its support 
for the implementation of one effective date versus phased-in effective 
dates. (NEMA, No. 183 at p. 5) DOE did not receive any requests for a 
phased-in effective date approach. Regarding the standards being 
adopted in this final rule, DOE does not find any particular reason(s) 
that phased-in effective dates would be of value for manufacturers or 
retailers and thus has determined the adopted standards will become 
effective on one date. Specifically, DOE reviewed the market and did 
not find impacts on manufacturers and retailers would differ by product 
class.
    Several comments from private citizens stated that free-market 
forces should direct the lighting market instead of government 
regulation and that there should be less government interference with 
consumer choices. Additionally, EEI commented that if the proposed 
standard is not revised, many consumers will realize direct economic 
losses, and that by setting the standard at near maximum TSLs, DOE will 
make it very difficult for electric companies to justify investments in 
future lighting efficiency rebate programs. EEI stated that according 
to a recent EEI report, electric companies spent nearly $7 billion on 
efficiency programs in 2021, saving 237 billion kWh of electricity--
enough to power 33 million U.S. homes for one year. Citing a meta-
analysis by the Lawerence Berkeley National Laboratory, from 2010 
through 2018, EEI stated that residential lighting programs were 
responsible for 48 percent of all residential program savings (i.e., 
14.8 percent of all market sectors). EEI added that the levelized cost 
to save a kWh of electricity through residential lighting programs is 
extremely cost-effective at just over 1 cent per kWh. (EEI, No. 181 at 
pp. 2-3)
    When evaluating energy conservation standards for products, DOE 
determines whether a standard is economically justified based on 
several factors, including consumer impacts and lessening of the 
utility or the performance likely to result from the imposition of the 
standard, as it did in this rulemaking. 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). 
Therefore, DOE's analysis accounts for the impacts on consumers. 
Additionally, E.O. 12866 directs DOE to assess potentially effective 
and reasonably feasible alternatives to the planned regulation, and an 
explanation why the planned regulatory action is preferable to the 
identified potential alternatives (see chapter 16 of the final rule 
TSD).
    In response to the January 2023 NOPR, DOE received several comments 
in support of the proposed rule including the proposed TSL. 88 FR 1638, 
1706-1708. CLASP stated that it agreed with DOE's finding that setting 
new energy conservation standards for GSLs would benefit the United 
States by delivering significant, cost-effective energy savings that 
are both technologically feasible and economically justified. (CLASP, 
No. 177 at p. 1) Earthjustice commented that the January 2023 NOPR 
demonstrates that even with DOE's recent implementation of the EPCA 
statutory backstop

[[Page 28872]]

standard, GSLs continue to hold significant potential for additional 
cost-effective energy savings and air pollutant emissions reductions. 
(Earthjustice, No. 179 at p. 1) The CA IOUs stated that after DOE ends 
its enforcement discretion of the 45 lm/W backstop standard, all GSLs 
on the market will be light-emitting diode (``LED'') lamps or compact 
fluorescent lamps (``CFLs''), with LED GSLs offering many efficacies. 
The CA IOUs encouraged DOE to finalize this rule before June 2024 to 
ensure the legal durability of this and future GSL standards. (CA IOUs, 
No. 167 at p. 2) The CEC also stated its general support for DOE's 
efforts to improve the minimum efficacy for GSLs, which they stated 
will move the market to high-efficacy LED lighting. The CEC commented 
that California has been able to provide a test market as the world's 
fourth-largest economy for high-quality and high-efficacy LEDs since 
January 1, 2018. The CEC commented that the success of California's 
standards demonstrates the technological feasibility and economic 
justification of pursuing minimum efficacy standards for GSLs. (CEC, 
No. 176 at pp. 1-2)
    NYSERDA stated its support for TSL 6 as proposed in the NOPR, as 
this TSL represents all product categories at their maximum 
technologically feasible (``max-tech'') standard efficiencies. 
(NYSERDA, No. 166 at pp. 1-2) NEMA stated that with the exception of 
the new product classes it had suggested, for all other product classes 
DOE should adopt TSL 5, because TSL 5 represents the maximum NPV and 
maintains design flexibility for lamps of varying lengths to produce 
sufficient light while meeting various application requirements. 
Specifically, NEMA stated that TSL 6 would require max-tech performance 
for linear LED lamps designed to replace fluorescent tubes. NEMA stated 
that linear LED lamps provide lower lumens, which may hinder 
manufacturers from producing lamps able to provide the appropriate 
amount of light to meet the max-tech performance standard of efficiency 
or efficacy level (``EL'') 7 (see section IV.D.1.d of this document for 
full comment and response). Finally, NEMA stated that because TSL 5 and 
TSL 6 save energy, have similar payback periods, and represent the 
maximum NPV, NEMA members believe DOE should adopt TSL 5 to best 
balance consumer cost and benefit. (NEMA, No. 183 at p. 20) ASAP et al. 
commented that DOE should not adopt TSL 5 as an alternative to TSL 6, 
as DOE should adopt the standard that represents the maximum 
improvement in energy efficiency that is technically feasible and 
economically justified, which is TSL 6. ASAP et al. commented that 
adopting a lower level would not fulfill DOE's statutory obligations 
and would needlessly result in additional energy waste and greenhouse 
gas and other emissions. (ASAP et al., No. 174 at p. 5)
    In this final rule DOE is adopting TSL 6 as proposed in the January 
2023 NOPR. 88 FR 1638, 1708. DOE discusses the benefits and burdens of 
each TSL considered and DOE's conclusion in section V.C of this 
document. As discussed in that section, TSL 6 represents the maximum 
energy savings that are technically feasible and economically 
justified, as required by EPCA. Regarding requiring the max-tech level 
for linear LED lamps at TSL 6, all max-tech efficiency levels in this 
analysis are based on existing products available on the market.

B. Scope of Coverage

    This rulemaking covers all consumer products that meet the 
definition of ``general service lamp'' as codified at 10 CFR 430.2. 
While all GSLs are subject to the 45 lm/W sales prohibition at 10 CFR 
430.32(dd), not all GSLs are subject to the amended standards adopted 
in this final rule, though DOE may consider amended standards for them 
in a future rulemaking (see section IV.A.3 of this document).

C. 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. DOE's 
current energy conservation standards for GSLs are expressed in terms 
of lumens per watt (``lm/W''). GSILs and certain IRLs, CFLs, and LED 
lamps are GSLs. DOE's test procedures for GSILs and IRLs are set forth 
at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix R. DOE's test procedure for 
CFLs is set forth at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix W. DOE's test 
procedure for integrated LED lamps is set forth at 10 CFR part 430, 
subpart B, appendix BB. DOE's test procedure for GSLs that are not 
GSILs, IRLs, CFLs, or integrated LED lamps is set forth at 10 CFR part 
430, subpart B, appendix DD.

D. Technological Feasibility

1. General
    In each energy conservation standards rulemaking, 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 
rulemaking. 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. See sections 6(b)(3)(i) and 7(b)(1) of 
appendix A to 10 CFR part 430, subpart C (``Process Rule'').
    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. See 
section 7(b)(2)-(5) of the Process Rule. Section IV.C of this document 
discusses the results of the screening analysis for GSLs, particularly 
the designs DOE considered, those it screened out, and those that are 
the basis for the standards considered in this rulemaking. For further 
details on the screening analysis for this rulemaking, see chapter 4 of 
the final rule technical support document (``TSD'').
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
    When DOE proposes to adopt a new or amended standard for a type or 
class of covered product, it must determine the maximum improvement in 
energy efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is 
technologically feasible for such 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 GSLs, 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 rulemaking are described in section 
IV.D.1.c of this final rule and in chapter 5 of the final rule TSD.

[[Page 28873]]

E. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings
    For each trial standard level (``TSL''), DOE projected energy 
savings from application of the TSL to GSLs purchased in the 30-year 
period that begins in the first full year of compliance with the 
amended standards (2029-2058).\19\ The savings are measured over the 
entire lifetime of GSLs purchased in the 30-year analysis period, i.e., 
including savings until the longest-lifetime GSL purchased in 2058 is 
retired from service in 2091. DOE quantified the energy savings 
attributable to each TSL as the difference in energy consumption 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ DOE also presents a sensitivity analysis that considers 
impacts for products shipped in a 9-year period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE used its national impact analysis (``NIA'') spreadsheet models 
to estimate national energy savings (``NES'') from potential amended 
standards for GSLs. The NIA model (described in section IV.H of this 
document) calculates energy savings in terms of site energy, which is 
the energy directly consumed by products at the locations where they 
are used. For electricity, DOE reports national energy savings in terms 
of primary energy savings, which is the savings in the energy that is 
used to generate and transmit the site electricity. For natural gas, 
the primary energy savings are considered to be equal to the site 
energy savings. DOE also calculates NES in terms of 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.\20\ 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.H.1 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 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
    To adopt any new or amended standards for a covered product, DOE 
must determine that such action would result in significant energy 
savings. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)).
    The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended 
energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of 
the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.\21\ 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, taking into 
account the significance of cumulative FFC national energy savings, the 
cumulative FFC emissions reductions, and the need to confront the 
global climate crisis, among other factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The numeric threshold for determining the significance of 
energy savings established in a final rule published on February 14, 
2020 (85 FR 8626, 8670), was subsequently eliminated in a final rule 
published on Dec. 13, 2021 (86 FR 70892).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated, the standard levels adopted in this final rule are 
projected to result in national energy savings of 4.0 quad, the 
equivalent of the primary annual energy use of 261 million homes. Based 
on the amount of FFC savings, the corresponding reduction in emissions, 
and the need to confront the global climate crisis, DOE has determined 
the energy savings from the standard levels adopted in this final rule 
are ``significant'' within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B).

F. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria
    As noted previously, EPCA provides seven factors to be evaluated in 
determining whether a potential energy conservation standard is 
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII)) The 
following sections discuss how DOE has addressed each of those seven 
factors in this rulemaking.
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
    In determining the impacts of potential new or amended standards on 
manufacturers, DOE conducts an MIA, as discussed in section IV.J of 
this document. DOE first uses an annual cash-flow approach to determine 
the quantitative impacts. This step includes both a short-term 
assessment--based on the cost and capital requirements during the 
period between when a regulation is issued and when entities must 
comply with the regulation--and a long-term assessment over a 30-year 
period. The industry-wide impacts analyzed include (1) INPV, which 
values the industry on the basis of expected future cash flows; (2) 
cash flows by year; (3) changes in revenue and income; and (4) other 
measures of impact, as appropriate. Second, DOE analyzes and reports 
the impacts on different types of manufacturers, including impacts on 
small manufacturers. Third, DOE considers the impact of standards on 
domestic manufacturer employment and manufacturing capacity, as well as 
the potential for standards to result in plant closures and loss of 
capital investment. Finally, DOE takes into account cumulative impacts 
of various DOE regulations and other regulatory requirements on 
manufacturers.
    For individual consumers, measures of economic impact include the 
changes in LCC and payback period (``PBP'') associated with new or 
amended standards. These measures are discussed further in the 
following section. For consumers in the aggregate, DOE also calculates 
the national net present value of the consumer costs and benefits 
expected to result from particular standards. DOE also evaluates the 
impacts of potential standards on identifiable subgroups of consumers 
that may be affected disproportionately by a standard.
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared To Increase in Price (Life-Cycle 
Cost (``LCC'') and Payback Period Analysis (``PBP''))
    EPCA requires DOE to consider the savings in operating costs 
throughout the estimated average life of the covered product in the 
type (or class) compared to any increase in the price of, or in the 
initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered product 
that are likely to result from a standard. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducts this comparison in its LCC and PBP 
analysis.
    The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of a product (including 
its installation) and the operating cost (including energy, 
maintenance, and repair expenditures) discounted over the lifetime of 
the product. The LCC analysis requires a variety of inputs, such as 
product prices, product energy consumption, energy prices, maintenance 
and repair costs, product lifetime, and discount rates appropriate for 
consumers. To account for uncertainty and variability in specific 
inputs, such as product lifetime and discount rate, DOE uses a 
distribution of values, with probabilities attached to each value.
    The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it takes 
consumers to

[[Page 28874]]

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 due to a more stringent 
standard by the change in annual operating cost for the year that 
standards are assumed to take effect.
    For its LCC and PBP analysis, DOE assumes that consumers will 
purchase the covered products in the first full year of compliance with 
new or amended standards. The LCC savings for the considered efficiency 
levels are calculated relative to the case that reflects projected 
market trends in the absence of new or amended standards. DOE's LCC and 
PBP analysis is discussed in further detail in section IV.F of this 
document.
c. Energy Savings
    Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory 
requirement for adopting an energy conservation standard, EPCA requires 
DOE, in determining the economic justification of a standard, to 
consider the total projected energy savings that are expected to result 
directly from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) As 
discussed in section IV.H of this document, DOE uses the NIA 
spreadsheet models to project national energy savings.
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
    In establishing product classes, and in evaluating design options 
and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE evaluates potential 
standards that would not lessen the utility or performance of the 
considered products. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) Based on data 
available to DOE, the standards adopted in this document would not 
reduce the utility or performance of the products under consideration 
in this rulemaking.
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
    EPCA directs DOE to consider the impact of any lessening of 
competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is 
likely to result from a standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) It 
also directs the Attorney General to determine the impact, if any, of 
any lessening of competition likely to result from a standard and to 
transmit such determination to the Secretary within 60 days of the 
publication of a proposed rule, together with an analysis of the nature 
and extent of the impact. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) To assist the 
Department of Justice (``DOJ'') in making such a determination, DOE 
transmitted copies of its proposed rule and the NOPR TSD to the 
Attorney General for review, with a request that the DOJ provide its 
determination on this issue. In its assessment letter responding to 
DOE, DOJ concluded that it does not have evidence that the new proposed 
energy conservation standards for GSLs are substantially likely to 
adversely impact competition. DOE is publishing the Attorney General's 
assessment at the end of this final rule.
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
    DOE also considers the need for national energy and water 
conservation in determining whether a new or amended standard is 
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)) The energy 
savings from the adopted standards are likely to provide improvements 
to the security and reliability of the Nation's energy system. 
Reductions in the demand for electricity also may result in reduced 
costs for maintaining the reliability of the Nation's electricity 
system. DOE conducts a utility impact analysis to estimate how 
standards may affect the Nation's needed power generation capacity, as 
discussed in section IV.M of this document.
    DOE maintains that environmental and public health benefits 
associated with the more efficient use of energy are important to take 
into account when considering the need for national energy 
conservation. The adopted standards are likely to result in 
environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air 
pollutants and greenhouse gases (``GHGs'') associated with energy 
production and use. DOE conducts an emissions analysis to estimate how 
potential standards may affect these emissions, as discussed in section 
IV.K of this document; the estimated emissions impacts are reported in 
section V.B.6 of this document. DOE also estimates the economic value 
of emissions reductions resulting from the considered TSLs, as 
discussed in section IV.L of this document.
g. Other Factors
    In determining whether an energy conservation standard is 
economically justified, DOE may consider any other factors that the 
Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) To 
the extent DOE identifies any relevant information regarding economic 
justification that does not fit into the other categories described 
previously, DOE could consider such information under ``other 
factors.''
2. Rebuttable Presumption
    As set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii), EPCA creates a 
rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is 
economically justified if the additional cost to the consumer of a 
product that meets the standard is less than three times the value of 
the first year's energy savings resulting from the standard, as 
calculated under the applicable DOE test procedure. DOE's LCC and PBP 
analyses generate values used to calculate the effect potential amended 
energy conservation standards would have on the payback period for 
consumers. These analyses include, but are not limited to, the 3-year 
payback period contemplated under the rebuttable-presumption test. In 
addition, DOE routinely conducts an economic analysis that considers 
the full range of impacts to consumers, manufacturers, the Nation, and 
the environment, as required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The 
results of this analysis serve as the basis for DOE's evaluation of the 
economic justification for a potential standard level (thereby 
supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of 
economic justification). The rebuttable presumption payback calculation 
is discussed in section IV.F of this final rule.

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments

    This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this 
rulemaking with regard to GSLs. Separate subsections address each 
component of DOE's analyses.
    DOE used several analytical tools to estimate the impact of the 
standards considered in this document. The first tool is a spreadsheet 
that calculates the LCC savings and PBP of potential amended or new 
energy conservation standards. The national impact analysis uses a 
second spreadsheet set that provides shipments projections and 
calculates national energy savings and net present value of total 
consumer costs and savings expected to result from potential energy 
conservation standards. DOE uses the third spreadsheet tool, the 
Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM), to assess manufacturer 
impacts of potential standards. These three spreadsheet tools are 
available on the DOE website for this rulemaking: www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=4. Additionally, 
DOE used output from the latest version of the Energy Information 
Administration's (``EIA's'') Annual

[[Page 28875]]

Energy Outlook (``AEO'') for the emissions and utility impact analyses.

A. Scope of Coverage

    This rulemaking covers all consumer products that meet the 
definition of ``general service lamps'' as codified at 10 CFR 430.2. 
While all GSLs are subject to the 45 lm/W sales prohibition at 10 CFR 
430.32(dd), DOE is not adopting amended energy conservation standards 
in this final rule for all GSLs, though DOE may consider amended 
standards for them in a future rulemaking. In this rulemaking, DOE is 
analyzing and adopting amended standards for CFLs and general service 
LED lamps that have a lumen output within the range of 310-3,300 
lumens; have an input voltage of 12 volts or 24 volts, at or between 
100 to 130 volts, at or between 220 to 240 volts, or of 277 volts for 
integrated lamps, or are able to operate at any voltage for non-
integrated lamps; and do not fall into any exclusion from the GSL 
definition at 10 CFR 430.2. In this rulemaking as specified in Sec.  
430.32(dd)(1)(iv)(C), DOE is not analyzing and adopting amended 
standards for general service organic LED lamps and any GSL that (1) is 
a non-integrated lamp that is capable of operating in standby mode and 
is sold in packages of two lamps or less; (2) is designed and marketed 
as a lamp that has at least one setting that allows the user to change 
the lamp's CCT and has no setting in which the lamp meets the 
definition of a colored lamp (as defined in 10 CFR 430.2); and is sold 
in packages of two lamps or less; (3) is designed and marketed as a 
lamp that has at least one setting in which the lamp meets the 
definition of a colored lamp (as defined in 10 CFR 430.2) and at least 
one other setting in which it does not meet the definition of colored 
lamp (as defined in 10 CFR 430.2) and is sold in packages of two lamps 
or less; or (4) is designed and marketed as a lamp that has one or more 
component(s) offering a completely different functionality (e.g., a 
speaker, a camera, an air purifier, etc.) where each component is 
integrated into the lamp but does not affect the light output of the 
lamp (e.g., does not turn the light on/off, dim the light, change the 
color of the light, etc.), is capable of operating in standby mode, and 
is sold in packages of two lamps or less. See section IV.A.3 of this 
document for further details. 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(B)(ii) of EPCA 
provides that this rulemaking's scope shall not be limited to 
incandescent technologies. In accordance with this provision, the scope 
of this rulemaking encompasses other GSLs in addition to GSILs.
    General service lamp means a lamp that has an American National 
Standards Institute (``ANSI'') base; is able to operate at a voltage of 
12 volts or 24 volts, at or between 100 to 130 volts, at or between 220 
to 240 volts, or at 277 volts for integrated lamps, or is able to 
operate at any voltage for non-integrated lamps; has an initial lumen 
output of greater than or equal to 310 lumens (or 232 lumens for 
modified spectrum general service incandescent lamps) and less than or 
equal to 3,300 lumens; is not a light fixture; is not an LED downlight 
retrofit kit; and is used in general lighting applications. General 
service lamps include, but are not limited to, general service 
incandescent lamps, compact fluorescent lamps, general service light-
emitting diode lamps, and general service organic light emitting diode 
lamps. General service lamps do not include: (1) Appliance lamps; (2) 
Black light lamps; (3) Bug lamps; (4) Colored lamps; (5) G shape lamps 
with a diameter of 5 inches or more as defined in ANSI C79.1-2002; (6) 
General service fluorescent lamps; (7) High intensity discharge lamps; 
(8) Infrared lamps; (9) J, JC, JCD, JCS, JCV, JCX, JD, JS, and JT shape 
lamps that do not have Edison screw bases; (10) Lamps that have a wedge 
base or prefocus base; (11) Left-hand thread lamps; (12) Marine lamps; 
(13) Marine signal service lamps; (14) Mine service lamps; (15) MR 
shape lamps that have a first number symbol equal to 16 (diameter equal 
to 2 inches) as defined in ANSI C79.1-2002, operate at 12 volts, and 
have a lumen output greater than or equal to 800; (16) Other 
fluorescent lamps; (17) Plant light lamps; (18) R20 short lamps; (19) 
Reflector lamps that have a first number symbol less than 16 (diameter 
less than 2 inches) as defined in ANSI C79.1-2002 and that do not have 
E26/E24, E26d, E26/50x39, E26/53x39, E29/28, E29/53x39, E39, E39d, 
EP39, or EX39 bases; (20) S shape or G shape lamps that have a first 
number symbol less than or equal to 12.5 (diameter less than or equal 
to 1.5625 inches) as defined in ANSI C79.1-2002; (21) Sign service 
lamps; (22) Silver bowl lamps; (23) Showcase lamps; (24) Specialty MR 
lamps; (25) T shape lamps that have a first number symbol less than or 
equal to 8 (diameter less than or equal to 1 inch) as defined in ANSI 
C79.1-2002, nominal overall length less than 12 inches, and that are 
not compact fluorescent lamps; and (26) Traffic signal lamps. 10 CFR 
430.2.
    The definitions for compact fluorescent lamps, general service 
light-emitting diode lamps, and general service organic light emitting 
diode lamps, and other terms used in the GSL definition are also 
specified in 10 CFR 430.2.
    Additionally, 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(B)(i)(II) directs DOE to 
consider whether the exemptions for certain incandescent lamps should 
be maintained or discontinued. In the January 2023 NOPR, DOE reviewed 
the regulatory definitions of GSL, GSIL, and supporting definitions 
adopted in the May 2022 Definition Final Rule and determined that no 
amendments are needed with regards to the maintenance or 
discontinuation of exemptions for certain incandescent lamps. 88 FR 
1638, 1651. DOE received no comments regarding this assessment. DOE 
maintains this assessment in this final rule.
1. Supporting Definitions
    In the January 2023 NOPR, DOE proposed minor updates to clarify 
certain supplemental definitions adopted in the May 2022 Definition 
Final Rule. In the January 2023 NOPR, DOE proposed to amend the 
existing definition of LED downlight retrofit kit to specify that it 
must be a retrofit kit classified or certified to Underwriters 
Laboratories (``UL'') 1598C-2014.\22\ 88 FR 1638, 1652.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ UL, UL1598C Standard for Safety Light-Emitting Diode (LED) 
Retrofit Luminaire Conversion Kits. Approved November 17, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NEMA requested that DOE reference UL 1598C generally, without 
reference to a specific publication year. NEMA noted that American 
National Standards publications (e.g., ANSI/UL 1598C) are dynamic with 
revisions continuously evaluated, refined, voted upon, published, and 
implemented by subject matter experts seeking to improve the utility of 
these publications in the market. NEMA stated that by specifying a 
publication year, DOE would be unnecessarily forgoing the benefit of 
revisions to this important consumer safety standard and working 
against the standards' adoption in the broader market. (NEMA, No. 183 
at p. 3).
    The GSL definition states that a GSL is not an LED downlight 
retrofit kit. 10 CFR 430.2. Therefore, the definition of LED downlight 
retrofit kit informs what is or is not a GSL. DOE reviewed UL 1598C-
2014 before proposing that a LED downlight retrofit kit be classified 
or certified to the standard. 88 FR 1638, 1652. DOE would need to 
review updates in any new version of the standard to assess any impacts 
on the LED downlight retrofit kit definition and subsequently on the 
GSL definition. If DOE does not specify the version of the UL 1598C 
standard, it may result in

[[Page 28876]]

changes to these definitions that have not been reviewed by DOE and/or 
put forth for public comment. Therefore, in this final rule, DOE is 
adopting the definition for LED downlight retrofit kit with reference 
to UL 1598C-2014 as proposed in the January 2023 NOPR. Further, note 
that the edition of UL 1598C DOE reviewed and proposed for 
incorporation in the January 2023 NOPR was the first edition dated 
January 16, 2014, including revisions through November 17, 2016. To 
ensure the appropriate version is being referenced and to align with 
the referencing of industry standards in other definitions, DOE is 
specifying the year when referencing UL 1598C in the LED downlight 
retrofit kit definition as UL 1598C-2016 in this final rule.
    In the January 2023 NOPR, DOE also proposed to update the industry 
standards referenced in the definitions of ``Reflector lamp'' and 
``Showcase lamp.'' Specifically, DOE proposed to remove the reference 
to ANSI C78.20-2003 \23\ from the definitions of ``Showcase lamp'' and 
``Reflector lamp.'' ANSI C78.20-2003 is an industry standard for A, G, 
PS, and similar shapes with E26 bases and therefore is not relevant to 
these lamp types. Further, ANSI has replaced another industry standard, 
ANSI C79.1-2002,\24\ with ANSI C78.79-2014 (R2020).\25\ Accordingly, 
DOE proposed to update the following supporting definitions that 
currently reference ANSI C79.1-2002 to reference ANSI C78.79-2014 
(R2020): (1) ``Specialty MR lamp'' definition; (2) ``Reflector lamp'' 
definition; (3) ``General service incandescent lamp'' definition with 
respect to a G shape lamp with a diameter of 5 inches or more; and (4) 
``General service lamp'' definition with respect to G shape lamps with 
a diameter of 5 inches or more; MR shape lamps that have a first number 
symbol equal to 16; Reflector lamps that have a first number symbol 
less than 16; S shape or G shape lamps that have a first number symbol 
less than or equal to 12.5; T shape lamps that have a first number 
symbol less than or equal to 8. 88 FR 1638, 1652. DOE received no 
comments on this proposal. Therefore, in this final rule, DOE adopts 
the updates to industry standards referenced in these supporting 
definitions as proposed in the January 2023 NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ American National Standards Institute, ANSI C78.20-2003 
American National Standard for Electric Lamps--A, G, PS, and Similar 
Shapes with E26 Medium Screw Bases. Approved Oct. 30, 2003.
    \24\ American National Standards Institute, ANSI C79.1-2002 
American National Standard For Electric Lamps--Nomenclature for 
Glass Bulbs Intended for Use with Electric Lamps. Approved Sept. 16, 
2002.
    \25\ American National Standards Institute, ANSI C 78.79-2014 
(R2020) American National Standard for Electric Lamps--Nomenclature 
for Envelope Shapes Intended for Use with Electric Lamps. Approved 
Jan. 17, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE received a comment regarding the term ``general service.'' 
Seasonal Specialties commented that there does not seem to be a 
definition for ``general service'', and it is unclear what ``general 
service'' includes and excludes. (Seasonal Specialties, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 27 at pp. 18-19)
    As noted previously in section IV.A of this document, the 
definition of GSL in 10 CFR 430.2 specifies a GSL must have an ANSI 
base, operate in certain voltage ranges, and have lumens in certain 
lumens ranges. It also identifies lamp types that are GSLs as well as 
26 lamp types that are exempt from the GSL definition. Hence, DOE finds 
that the GSL definition in 10 CFR 430.2 clearly specifies what is or is 
not a GSL and no other definitions are necessary.
    Additionally, DOE received comments on the definition of standby 
power. NEMA recommended that DOE revise the definition of ``Standby 
mode,'' because the current definition focuses only on the energy 
consumption of a lamp's standby mode condition and not the reason that 
it operates on standby (i.e., a lamp's functional capabilities). NEMA 
stated that the definition of ``Standby mode'' in the January 2023 NOPR 
TSD could become problematic and restrictive as the category more fully 
develops. NEMA recommended that DOE instead replace the term ``Standby 
mode'' with ``Lamp capable of operating in standby mode'' and to denote 
it as an ``an energy-using product.'' (NEMA, No. 183 at p. 9) Lutron 
commented that it supports NEMA's revisions to the January 2023 NOPR 
definition of ``standby mode.'' (Lutron, No. 182 at p. 8)
    The definition of ``standby mode'' is a statutory definition 
specified in 42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(1)(iii). In appendix A of the January 
2023 NOPR TSD, DOE repeated this definition as it appears in 42 U.S.C. 
6295(gg)(1)(iii) and is codified in 10 CFR 430.2. This definition 
specifies that standby mode means the condition in which an energy-
using product is connected to a main power source; and offers certain 
user-oriented or protective functions. (see 42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(1)(iii), 
10 CFR 430.2)
    NEMA's suggested changes would add language that states, ``Lamps 
capable of operating in standby mode.'' However, this definition 
applies to all covered products, not only lamps. Further, in the 
January 2023 NOPR, DOE proposed a table to codify the proposed GSL 
standards in the CFR. This table included the column ``Standby Mode 
Operation'' indicating the lamps that are capable of standby mode 
operation and those that are not and the standards to which they would 
be subject. 88 FR 1638, 1718. Therefore, proposed GSL standards and 
those adopted in this rulemaking would clearly indicate the difference 
between lamps capable of operating in standby mode and those that are 
not. NEMA also suggested adding language that specifies the product in 
standby mode as ``an energy-using product.'' This language is already 
present in the existing definition. Finally, NEMA's concern that the 
definition does not focus on the lamp's functional capabilities that 
require it to operate in standby mode is addressed in paragraph 2 of 
the definition, which describes the additional user-oriented or 
protective functions the product offers. Hence, because it is a 
statutory definition and changing it would not have a substantive 
impact on clarity or accuracy, DOE is not amending the definition of 
``Standby mode'' in this final rule.
2. Definition of Circadian-Friendly Integrated Light-Emitting Diode 
(``LED'') Lamp
    In the January 2023 NOPR, DOE proposed a definition for 
``circadian-friendly integrated LED lamp'' and proposed that lamps 
meeting that definition be excluded from the GSL definition. DOE 
identified commercially available integrated LED lamps that are 
marketed as aiding in the human sleep-wake (i.e., circadian) cycle by 
changing the light spectrum and also observed that their efficacies 
ranged from 47.8 lm/W to 85.7 lm/W. Specifically, DOE proposed to 
define ``circadian-friendly integrated LED lamp'' as an integrated LED 
lamp that (1) is designed and marketed for use in the human sleep-wake 
(circadian) cycle; (2) is designed and marketed as an equivalent 
replacement for a 40 W or 60 W incandescent lamp; (3) has at least one 
setting that decreases or removes standard spectrum radiation emission 
in the 440 nm to 490 nm wavelength range; and (4) is sold in packages 
of two lamps or less. 88 FR 1638, 1652. In addition, based on the 
potential utility they offer and DOE's tentative findings that such 
lamps did not have high efficacy values, DOE proposed to exclude them 
from meeting the definition of GSLs.
    DOE received several comments regarding the proposed definition and 
exemption of the circadian-friendly integrated LED lamp, including

[[Page 28877]]

comments questioning DOE's authority to exempt them from the GSL 
definition.
    Earthjustice and ASAP et al. stated that DOE lacks the legal 
authority to exempt these lamps and doing so would violate the anti-
backsliding provision. (Earthjustice, No. 179 at pp. 1-3; ASAP et al., 
No. 174 at pp. 1-2) Earthjustice commented that the proposed GSL 
exemption for circadian-friendly LED lamps would mean that these lamps 
would no longer be subject to the 45 lm/W backstop standard level or 
any standard, an action EPCA's anti-backsliding provision explicitly 
forbids. Regarding authority, Earthjustice commented that the January 
2023 NOPR cited no EPCA provision for excluding circadian-friendly 
integrated LED lamps from the GSL definition, indicating that such 
authority does not exist. Earthjustice commented that EPCA grants DOE 
explicit authority to enlarge the scope of GSLs to encompass any lamps 
``used to satisfy lighting applications traditionally served by general 
service incandescent lamps'' but offers limited authority to grant 
exemptions. Further, Earthjustice stated that the requirement per EPCA 
that DOE complete a rulemaking to consider whether ``the exemptions for 
certain incandescent lamps should be maintained or discontinued'' (see 
42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)(II)) is not applicable in this case. 
Earthjustice stated that EPCA authorizes DOE to exclude: (1) from the 
term ``medium base compact fluorescent lamp'' any lamp that is 
``designed for special applications'' and ``unlikely to be used in 
general purpose applications'' (see 42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(S)(ii)(II)); and 
(2) from the terms ``fluorescent lamp'' and ``incandescent lamp'' any 
lamp to which DOE makes ``a determination that standards for such lamp 
would not result in significant energy savings because such lamp is 
designed for special applications or has special characteristics not 
available in reasonably substitutable lamp types'' (see 42 U.S.C. 
6291(30)(E)). Earthjustice stated that neither of these two provisions 
authorizes DOE to exclude products from the definition of GSLs because 
GSLs need not meet the definitions of MBCFL, fluorescent lamp, or 
incandescent lamp to be covered as GSLs. Earthjustice concluded by 
stating that because the proposed action for circadian-friendly LED 
lamps does not fit into one of the categories of exemptions DOE is 
statutorily authorized to create, the proposed action is unlawful, and 
that where a statute confers authority on an agency to create specific 
exemptions, broader authority to create other types of exemptions 
cannot be inferred. (Earthjustice, No. 179 at pp. 1-3)
    NEMA stated that the proposed circadian-friendly integrated LED 
lamp exemption could lead to standards being set at the State level, 
resulting in a patchwork of product regulations. NEMA recommended that 
DOE finalize a rule that creates no exemptions and sets minimum ELs for 
all GSLs, regardless of product claims. NEMA recommended that DOE work 
with stakeholders to develop better, more useful definitions, and to 
set minimum ELs for energy conservation standards that will allow the 
market to develop and mature. (NEMA, No. 183 at p. 4).
    Based on the comment received, DOE does not have sufficient 
information to establish a separate product class for circadian-
friendly integrated LED lamps. (See 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) Therefore, DOE 
is not exempting circadian-friendly integrated LED lamps from the GSL 
definition in this final rule. As a result, these lamps will be subject 
to the standards for GSLs.
    With regards to the specific definition of circadian-friendly 
lamps, CLASP, NYSERDA, and the CEC commented that DOE's proposed 
definition of circadian-friendly integrated LED lamps is too broad and 
recommended that DOE include more specific requirements. (CEC, No. 176 
at p. 3; NYSERDA, No. 166 at pp. 2-3; CLASP, No. 177 at pp. 3-4) 
Specifically, NYSERDA stated that the proposed definition called only 
for a ``decrease'' in blue light without providing more strict specific 
guidance (i.e., ``decreasing by 90 percent'') or requiring removal of 
blue light. NYSERDA commented that the definition could be met by 
minimal design modifications targeting blue wavelengths, with the 
result that inefficient LED lamps in popular form factors could 
continue to be available without producing positive health outcomes. 
(NYSERDA, No. 166 at pp. 2-3) CLASP also recommended that DOE not 
include language like ``one setting that decreases or removes standard 
spectrum radiation'' and rather specify that such lamps should only--
and always--operate in this modified mode. CLASP offered the example of 
DOE subjecting ``modified-spectrum'' GSLs which had a neodymium coating 
on the glass to an adjusted efficacy level because of the modified-
spectrum feature. (CLASP, No. 177 at pp. 3-4) NYSERDA also stated that 
the other criteria in DOE's proposed definition (i.e., marketing, 
replacement wattage, and packaging) could also be easily adjusted to 
meet the definition through minimal manufacturer changes. (NYSERDA, No. 
166 at pp. 2-3) EEI stated that it was unclear how efficiency connected 
to DOE's proposed criteria that circadian-friendly integrated LED lamps 
be sold in packages of two lamps or less. Regarding the criteria that 
the lamp be designed and marketed as an equivalent replacement for a 40 
W or 60 W incandescent lamp, EEI stated that there could be 
replacements for other wattage equivalents such as 100 W incandescent 
or 72 W halogen. (EEI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 27 at pp. 19-20)
    DOE believes at this time that circadian friendly integrated LED 
lamps do not possess unique attributes compared to other GSLs. There is 
no consensus on specific lamp attributes that meaningfully impact the 
human circadian cycle. The human circadian system's response curves are 
not yet fully understood and the proper dosing of light to achieve 
circadian effects has not been standardized. Therefore, DOE finds that 
an accurate definition of a circadian-friendly integrated LED lamp is 
not possible and the claim that these lamps provide unique utility is 
not accurate at this time. Accordingly, DOE is declining to adopt a 
definition of circadian-friendly integrated LED lamp at this time, 
which is consistent with comments on the proposed rule. As noted above, 
DOE is not exempting circadian-friendly integrated LED lamps from the 
GSL definition in this final rule and as a result, these lamps will be 
subject to the standards for GSLs.
3. Scope of Standards
    In the January 2023 NOPR, DOE stated that it was not assessing 
standards for general service organic light-emitting diode (``OLED'') 
lamps, a type of GSL, in this rulemaking. 88 FR 1638, 1653. Due to the 
lack of commercially available GSLs that use OLED technology, in the 
January 2023 NOPR DOE determined that it is unclear whether the 
efficacy of these products can be increased. DOE tentatively determined 
that standards for these lamps would not be technologically feasible 
and did not evaluate them in the January 2023 NOPR. DOE did not receive 
any comments on this proposal. In this final rule, DOE continues to not 
evaluate standards for general service OLED lamps for the reasons 
stated previously.
    DOE received comments that it should create separate product 
classes and thereby standards for each of the following lamp types: (1) 
lamps that change the lamp's correlated color temperature (``CCT''); 
(2) lamps that change the lamp to be a colored lamp; (3) lamps that are 
capable of operating

[[Page 28878]]

in standby mode and have at least one additional feature that does not 
control light output; and (4) lamps that are non-integrated and capable 
of operating in standby mode. In this rulemaking, DOE did not analyze 
amended standards for these lamp categories because DOE lacks 
sufficient information about the performance of these lamps given the 
rapidly evolving market. DOE has carefully reviewed the lamp categories 
and determined that because the markets for these lamps are rapidly 
developing, DOE is unable to make a clear and accurate determination 
regarding the consumer utility, how various technology options would 
affect the efficiency, and the maximum technologically feasible 
efficiency of these lamps, which prevents DOE from determining whether 
a specific standard for these lamps would be economically justified at 
this time. Accordingly, DOE did not consider standards for these lamps 
in this rulemaking. DOE may evaluate amended standards for these lamps 
in a future rulemaking. DOE notes that these lamps are still subject to 
the 45 lm/W sales prohibition at 10 CFR 430.32(dd). For a full 
discussion of these comments and DOE's responses, see section IV.B.2 of 
this document.
    In the January 2023 NOPR, DOE proposed to exempt circadian-friendly 
integrated LED lamp (see section IV.A.2 of this document) from amended 
standards because these lamps offered a utility to consumers in the 
form of aiding in the human sleep-wake (i.e., circadian) cycle and also 
these lamps did not have high efficacies. 88 FR 1638, 1652. DOE 
received several comments citing concerns regarding potential loopholes 
resulting from such an exemption from standards. ASAP et al., CLASP, 
NYSERDA, and the CEC commented that DOE's proposal to exclude 
circadian-friendly integrated LED lamps from GSL regulation would risk 
creating a loophole and allow inefficient lamps on the market. (CEC, 
No. 176 at p. 3; NYSERDA, No. 166 at pp. 2-3; CLASP, No. 177 at pp. 3-
4; ASAP et al., No. 174 at pp. 1-2) NEMA stated that the circadian-
friendly integrated lamp definition and exemption could provide 
manufacturers an opportunity to evade regulations. (NEMA, No. 183 at p. 
4) DOE also received comments on the utility of circadian-friendly 
integrated LED lamps. NYSERDA commented that these lamps provide 
general illumination and found no clear evidence of a utility that 
justified exempting the lamps. (NYSERDA, No. 166 at p. 2) NEMA stated 
that the human circadian system's response curves are not yet fully 
understood and the proper dosing of light to achieve circadian effects 
has not been standardized. NEMA noted that IES RP-46 Recommended 
Practice: Supporting the Physiological and Behavioral Effects of 
Lighting in Interior Daytime Environments is still in development. NEMA 
commented some spectrally tunable lamps are marketed with ``circadian 
features'' entrainment but there are reasons to dismiss such claims 
because the ability to affect circadian entrainment is not a product 
attribute but a matter of proper lighting product application (i.e., 
attention to timing, intensity, spectrum and duration of the applied 
light). Further NEMA commented that the two circadian-friendly 
integrated LED lamps cited in the January 2023 NOPR could be applied in 
such a way as to not produce the claimed circadian effects and offer a 
limited representation of the circadian entrainment potential as they 
only decrease or remove blue light to promote better sleep while other 
products can be programmed to provide more or less blue light by time 
of day. (NEMA, No. 183 at pp. 3-4)
    DOE also received comments addressing DOE's observed lower efficacy 
of the circadian-friendly integrated LED lamps and suggestions to 
establish appropriate standards for these lamps instead of exempting 
them from standards. ASAP et al. commented that DOE's proposal to 
exempt circadian-friendly integrated LED lamps because it had observed 
an efficacy range of 47.8 lm/W to 85.7 lm/W suggested DOE assumed that 
the lower efficacy is representative of this technology. ASAP et al. 
stated that this may not be the case, as many common integrated 
omnidirectional short lamps on the market today have efficacies of 80-
90 lm/W, which is similar to those of some of the circadian-friendly 
lamps identified by DOE. (ASAP et al., No. 174 at pp. 1-2) CLASP and 
ASAP et al. commented that circadian-friendly lamps are based on the 
same design principles as other LED lamps (e.g., improved drivers and 
LED chips) and therefore can be made more efficient in the same way. 
CLASP and ASAP et al. commented that, rather than exempting the lamps, 
DOE should determine the technologically justified efficacy adjustment 
for these lamps. (ASAP et al., No. 174 at pp. 1-2; CLASP, No. 177 at 
pp. 3-4)
    Similarly, NYSERDA, the CEC, and the CA IOUs recommended that DOE 
consider establishing a separate product class targeting circadian-
friendly products at a level slightly lower than currently proposed for 
most product classes of GSLs. (NYSERDA, No. 166 at pp. 2-3; CA IOUs, 
No. 167 at p. 3; CEC, No. 176 at p. 3-4) NYSERDA commented that such a 
product class should include a clear definition and serve a specific 
health utility. (NYSERDA, No. 166 at pp. 2-3) The CEC also stated that 
the definition should include specific and objective features, such as 
color shifting, that can provide a basis for determining the additional 
power required to efficiently provide one or more specific circadian 
benefits. (CEC, No. 176 at p. 3-4) NYSERDA and the CEC stated that the 
product class approach based on a well-defined lamp type would achieve 
DOE's intent to preserve the circadian-friendly integrated LED lamps 
while limiting a loophole that would result in inefficient LED lamps on 
the market. (NYSERDA, No. 166 at pp. 2-3; CEC, No. 176 at p. 3-4) The 
CA IOUs commented that circadian-friendly integrated LED lamps are in 
early stages of development and there is no industry-wide definition of 
``circadian-friendly'' lighting. The CA IOUs recommended that 
circadian-friendly integrated LED lamps be defined as proposed in the 
January 2023 NOPR but be subjected to a reasonable minimum luminous 
efficacy requirement. Additionally, the CA IOUs recommended that DOE 
require manufacturers to report shipments of circadian-friendly 
integrated LED lamps and issue public reports on shipment growth. The 
CA IOUs added that DOE could then make informed adjustments to the 
definition and standards as necessary for circadian-friendly integrated 
LED lamps in a future GSL rulemaking. (CA IOUs, No. 167 at p. 3)
    Based on the comments received, there is no clear consensus on 
specific lamp attributes that meaningfully impact the human circadian 
cycle. The human circadian system's response curves are not yet fully 
understood and the proper dosing of light to achieve circadian effects 
has not been standardized. Further, as pointed out by the commenters, 
there are circadian-friendly integrated LED lamps with comparable 
efficacies to other GSLs. As a result, DOE does not have sufficient 
information to establish a separate product class for circadian-
friendly integrated LED lamps. (See 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) And as 
Earthjustice noted, DOE agrees that the proposed GSL exemption for 
circadian-friendly LED lamps would mean that these lamps would no 
longer be subject to the 45 lm/W backstop standard level or any 
standard, an action EPCA's anti-backsliding provision explicitly 
forbids. Consistent with these and the above comments, DOE is including 
circadian-friendly

[[Page 28879]]

integrated LED lamps within the scope of amended standards. DOE notes, 
however, that it could decide not to amend existing standards for 
circadian-friendly integrated LED lamps in a future rulemaking if so 
warranted by a product class designation.
    Relatedly, while all GSLs are subject to the 45 lm/W sales 
prohibition at 10 CFR 430.32(dd), not all GSLs are subject to the 
amended standards adopted in this final rule, though DOE may consider 
amended standards for them in a future rulemaking. In this rulemaking, 
DOE is analyzing and adopting amended standards for CFLs and general 
service LED lamps that have a lumen output within the range of 310-
3,300 lumens; have an input voltage of 12 volts or 24 volts, at or 
between 100 to 130 volts, at or between 220 to 240 volts, or of 277 
volts for integrated lamps, or are able to operate at any voltage for 
non-integrated lamps; and do not fall into any exclusion from the GSL 
definition at 10 CFR 430.2. In this rulemaking as specified in Sec.  
430.32(dd)(1)(iv)(C), DOE is not analyzing and adopting amended 
standards for general service organic LED lamps and any GSL that:
    (1) Is a non-integrated lamp that is capable of operating in 
standby mode and is sold in packages of two lamps or less;
    (2) Is designed and marketed as a lamp that has at least one 
setting that allows the user to change the lamp's CCT and has no 
setting in which the lamp meets the definition of a colored lamp (as 
defined in 10 CFR 430.2); and is sold in packages of two lamps or less;
    (3) Is designed and marketed as a lamp that has at least one 
setting in which the lamp meets the definition of a colored lamp (as 
defined in 10 CFR 430.2) and at least one other setting in which it 
does not meet the definition of colored lamp (as defined in 10 CFR 
430.2) and is sold in packages of two lamps or less; or
    (4) Is designed and marketed as a lamp that has one or more 
component(s) offering a completely different functionality (e.g., a 
speaker, a camera, an air purifier, etc.) where each component is 
integrated into the lamp but does not affect the light output of the 
lamp (e.g., does not turn the light on/off, dim the light, change the 
color of the light, etc.), is capable of operating in standby mode, and 
is sold in packages of two lamps or less. Lamps that would not meet 
these criteria and therefore would not be exempt from standards would 
be lamps that have integrated motion sensors that affect light output, 
lamps with internal battery backup used for light output, and lamps 
designed and marketed as dusk to dawn lamps.
    Please note that DOE is not exempting circadian-friendly integrated 
LED lamps from the GSL definition or the scope of standards in this 
final rule. As a result, these lamps will be subject to the standards 
for GSLs.
4. Scope of Metrics
    As stated in section II.A, this rulemaking is being conducted 
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(B) and (m). Under 42 U.S.C. 
6295(i)(6)(B)(i)(I), DOE is required to determine whether standards in 
effect for GSILs should be amended to reflect lumen ranges with more 
stringent maximum wattage than the standards specified in paragraph 
(1)(A) (i.e., standards enacted by section 321(a)(3)(A)(ii) of EISA 
\26\). The scope of this analysis is not limited to incandescent lamp 
technologies and thus encompasses all GSLs. In the January 2023 NOPR, 
DOE explained that the May 2022 Backstop Final Rule codified the 
statutory backstop requirement in 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(v) 
prohibiting sales of GSLs that do not meet a 45 lm/W efficacy standard. 
Because incandescent and halogen GSLs would not be able to meet the 45 
lm/W requirement, they are not considered in the analysis for this 
rulemaking. In the January 2023 NOPR, DOE discussed its decision to use 
minimum lumens per watt as the metric for measuring lamp efficiency for 
GSLs rather than maximum wattage of a lamp. 88 FR 1638, 1653. DOE did 
not receive comments on this decision. In this final rule, DOE 
continues to use minimum lumens per watt as the metric for measuring 
lamp efficiency for GSLs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ This provision was to be codified as an amendment to 42 
U.S.C. 6295(i)(1)(A). But because of an apparent conflict with 
section 322(b) of EISA, which purported to ``strik[e] paragraph 
(1)'' of section 6295(i) and replace it with a new paragraph (1), 
neither this provision nor other provisions of section 
321(a)(3)(A)(ii) of EISA that were to be codified in 42 U.S.C. 
6295(i)(1) were ever codified in the U.S. Code. Compare EISA, 
section 321(a)(3)(A)(ii), with 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(1). It appears, 
however, that Congress's intention in section 322(b) of EISA was to 
replace the existing paragraph (1), not paragraph (1) as amended in 
section 321(a)(3). Indeed, there is no reason to believe that 
Congress intended to strike these new standards for GSILs. DOE has 
thus issued regulations implementing these uncodified provisions. 
See, e.g., 10 CFR 430.32(x) (implementing standards for GSILs, as 
set forth in section 321(a)(3)(A)(ii) of EISA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the January 2023 NOPR, DOE also discussed proposed updates to 
existing metrics and the proposed addition of new metrics for GSLs. 
These included updating the existing lumen maintenance at 1,000 hours 
and at 40 percent of lifetime, rapid cycle stress test, lifetime 
requirements, and adding a power factor and start time requirement for 
MBCFLs. DOE also proposed adding a power factor requirement for 
integrated LED lamps. Finally, DOE proposed codifying color rendering 
index (``CRI'') requirements for lamps that are intended for a general 
service or general illumination application (whether incandescent or 
not); have a medium screw base or any other screw base not defined in 
ANSI C81.61-2006 \27\; are capable of being operated at a voltage at 
least partially within the range of 110 to 130 volts; and are 
manufactured or imported after December 31, 2011 as specified in 
section 321(a) of EISA. 88 FR 1638, 1653. The following sections 
discuss the comments received on these proposals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ American National Standards, ``for electrical lamp bases--
Specifications for Bases (Caps) for Electric Lamps,'' approved 
August 25, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Lifetime
    NYSERDA commented that it supports DOE's proposed increase to a 
10,000-hour lifetime for MBCFLs and recommended DOE consider adding a 
10,000-hour-minimum requirement for LED lamps to ensure consumer needs 
are met. (NYSERDA, No. 166 at p. 3)
    DOE only has authority to amend the lifetime requirement for 
MBCFLs, not LED lamps. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (``EPAct 2005'') 
amended EPCA by establishing energy conservation standards for MBCFLs, 
which were codified by DOE in an October 2005 final rule. 70 FR 60413. 
Performance requirements were specified for five metrics: (1) minimum 
initial efficacy; (2) lumen maintenance at 1,000 hours; (3) lumen 
maintenance at 40 percent of lifetime; (4) rapid cycle stress; and (5) 
lamp life. (42 U.S.C. 6295(bb)(1)) In addition to revising the existing 
requirements for MBCFLs, DOE has the authority to establish 
requirements for additional metrics including CRI, power factor, 
operating frequency, and maximum allowable start time based on the 
requirements prescribed by the August 9, 2001 ENERGY STAR[supreg] 
Program Requirements for CFLs Version 2.0, or establish other 
requirements after considering energy savings, cost effectiveness, and 
consumer satisfaction. (42 U.S.C. 6295(bb)(2)-(3)) Based on this 
authority, in the January 2023 NOPR, DOE proposed to update the 
existing lifetime requirement for MBCFLs. The only metric that DOE 
proposed for LED lamps was a minimum power factor for integrated LED 
lamps. DOE finds that it has the authority to set this metric because 
power factor impacts energy use. A low power factor product is 
inefficient and

[[Page 28880]]

requires an increase in an electric utility's generation and 
transmission capacity. (See further details on the power factor 
requirement for integrated LED lamps in section IV.A.4.c of this 
document.)
b. Color Rendering Index (``CRI'')
    NYSERDA stated its support for the inclusion of a minimum of 80 CRI 
for non-modified-spectrum GSLs, noting that an 80 CRI or above has been 
demonstrated to ensure sufficient visual acuity for general 
illumination situations. (NYSERDA, No. 166 at p. 3) EEI stated that 
while a CRI of 80 was adequate, a higher CRI is always better and a CRI 
of 90 would be preferable, if possible. (EEI, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 27 at pp. 24-26) NEMA stated its support for DOE's 
proposal to codify a minimum CRI of 80 but requested the requirement 
apply to all GSLs within the scope of the rulemaking rather than only 
to those with medium screw bases or any other screw base not defined in 
ANSI C81.61-2006, as specified in the January 2023 NOPR. NEMA stated 
that the proposed CRI requirement excludes many lamps in the scope of 
this regulation that are already normalized at a minimum CRI of 80 due 
to consumer preference and therefore their inclusion in the requirement 
would pose no regulatory burden for manufacturers. Further, NEMA stated 
its concern that as an offset to the new efficacy and performance 
requirements, the removal of a consistent regulated threshold will 
incentivize market introduction of lower CRI products. Additionally, 
NEMA stated that to its knowledge, there are no modified-spectrum 
incandescent lamps in the U.S. market today and recommended that all 
mentions of ``modified spectrum'' be excluded from the final rule. In 
the event that regulatory requirements for this product category must 
be maintained, NEMA recommended that all requirements for modified 
spectrum lamps be made identical to those of the non-modified spectrum 
lamps. (NEMA, No. 183 at p. 5)
    These CRI requirements are from section 321(a) of EISA, which 
amended 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(1). But because of an apparent conflict with 
section 322(b) of EISA, which purported to strike paragraph (1) of 42 
U.S.C. 6295(i) and replace it with a new paragraph (1), neither this 
provision nor other provisions of section 321(a)(3)(A)(ii) of EISA that 
were to be codified in 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(1) were ever codified in the 
U.S. Code. It has been DOE's position that Congress's intention in 
section 322(b) of EISA was to replace the existing paragraph (1), not 
the newly amended paragraph (1). There is no reason to believe that 
Congress intended to amend 42 U.S.C. 6295(i) to include requirements 
for CRI only to delete those the requirements in the same Act. See 88 
FR 1638, 1653. In the January 2023 NOPR, DOE proposed to codify the CRI 
requirements in section 321(a) of EISA and mistakenly included a 2028 
compliance date for CRI requirements. 88 FR 1638, 1654, 1719. However, 
section 321(a)(3)(A)(ii) of EISA and 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(1) specify that 
these CRI requirements apply to lamps manufactured or imported after 
December 31, 2011. Because DOE lacks the legal authority to change the 
compliance date of CRI requirements established in EISA, DOE is 
declining to codify the CRI requirements in this rulemaking and will, 
instead, conduct a separate rulemaking to codify these requirements.
c. Power Factor
    In the January 2023 NOPR, DOE proposed a minimum power factor 
requirement of 0.5 for MBCFLs and 0.7 for integrated LED lamps. 88 FR 
1638, 1654. The CEC stated its support for DOE's proposal to include a 
minimum power factor for MBCFLs and integrated LED lamps. The CEC 
stated that as the number of LED lamps increases, harmonic waves sent 
over the power grid can cause issues, requiring expensive equipment to 
correct such issues and if uncorrected, harmonic waves will reduce the 
quality of power delivered to all electrical loads, including lamps, 
and the grid will experience avoidable losses. (CEC, No. 176 at pp. 4-
5) NYSERDA stated its support for a power factor requirement of 0.7 for 
integrated LED lamps as established by ENERGY STAR. (NYSERDA, No. 166 
at p. 3)
    Hawaii State Energy Office (``HSEO'') stated that it supported a 
minimum power factor of 0.9 with certain exemptions for specialty 
lamps. HSEO further stated that regarding lamps of less than 5 W, given 
the efficacy of CFLs and LED lamps, 0.7 would be an appropriate minimum 
power factor. (HSEO, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 27 at p. 36) EEI 
also stated that both CFLs and LED lamps should have power factors over 
0.9 as low power factors are not good for the grid and there are 
commercial customers that face financial penalties if their power 
factors go below 0.9. (EEI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 27 at pp. 
24-26)
    NEMA recommended that DOE specify minimum power factors by wattage 
rather than setting a minimum power factor for all integrated LED 
lamps. NEMA stated that DOE should adopt the power factor requirements 
set forth in ANSI C82.77-10 without modification. Specifically, in its 
comment NEMA provides a table from ANSI C82.77-10 with the following 
power factor requirements: no minimum power factor for lamps less than 
or equal to 5 W, a minimum power factor of 0.57 for lamps 5 W to 25 W 
inclusive, and a minimum power factor of 0.86 for lamps greater than 
25W. (Note: The table also specifies requirements for the minimum 
displacement factor, but it is not clear from NEMA's statements whether 
it is recommending DOE should require this additional requirement.) 
NEMA also noted that ENERGY STAR requirements are similarly less strict 
for low power lamps--i.e., no minimum power factor for lamps less than 
or equal to 5 W, a minimum power factor of 0.6 for lamps greater than 
5W to less than or equal to 10 W, and a minimum power factor of 0.7 for 
lamps greater than 10W. (NEMA, No. 183 at pp. 4-5, 40-41)
    NEMA provided several reasons for using the wattage-tiered approach 
to power factor requirements specified in ANSI C82.77-10. NEMA stated 
that these requirements align with the International Electrotechnical 
Commission (``IEC'') standard and Global Lighting Association 
recommendations. NEMA stated that any reduction of imaginary current 
(which causes electrical losses in the equipment of the power company) 
from the proposed increase in power factor will be minimal compared to 
that due to the proposed increases in efficacy. NEMA stated that a 
single higher power factor requirement for products of all wattages 
will increase the amount of electronics in lamps and thereby the size 
of the lamps, especially posing a problem for small, low power lamps, 
and increasing the manufacturing burden to achieve the regulated 
efficacies. NEMA also stated that additional electronics required to 
achieve the higher power factor causes a small, unavoidable decrease in 
efficacy. Further, NEMA stated that there is a correlation between low 
power lamps and low power factor. (NEMA, No. 183 at pp. 4-5)
    Regarding data available for determining an appropriate power 
factor requirement, Signify and Westinghouse stated that databases from 
sources such as ENERGY STAR contain a limited number of products that 
are not always representative of the entire market and DOE should be 
cautious of using them to develop requirements that apply to all lamps 
on the market. (Signify, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 27 at p. 29;

[[Page 28881]]

Westinghouse, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 27 at pp. 30-31)
    In the January 2023 NOPR and in this final rule, DOE considered 
ENERGY STAR Lamps Specification V2.1 requirements,\28\ industry 
standards, and characteristics of lamps in the current market when 
selecting power factor requirements for MBCFL and integrated LED lamps. 
88 FR 1638, 1654. The assessment of lamps in the current market was 
based on the lamps database developed for the NOPR analysis and this 
final rule analysis (see section IV.D of this document). This lamps 
database is a comprehensive accounting of lamps on the market as it 
includes data from manufacturer catalogs, DOE's compliance 
certification database, retailer websites, and the ENERGY STAR 
Certified Light Bulbs database. Hence, DOE considered power factor 
requirements based on data that is representative of all lamps on the 
market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ ENERGY STAR Lamps Specification V2.1, ENERGY STAR Program 
Requirements for Lamps
    (Light Bulbs), January 2, 2017. Available at: 
www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/ENERGY%20STAR%20Lamps%20V2.1%20Final%20Specification.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Passive and active technologies that can correct power factors in 
lamps are commercially available and the circuitry used in power factor 
correction is made to be very efficient, while consuming small amounts 
of power. DOE reviewed the current U.S. market via its lamps database 
used in this analysis (see section IV.D of this document) and found 
that about 98 percent of integrated LED lamps have power factors of 0.7 
or greater. DOE also found numerous low-wattage LED lamps from 2 to 5 
W, on the market, that are within the covered lumen range of GSLs, have 
a power factor of 0.7 or greater, and meet the max tech levels for 
integrated LED lamps. Hence, DOE finds that a power factor requirement 
of 0.7 for integrated LED lamps is achievable for lamps across all 
wattages and does not prevent these lamps from meeting or exceeding the 
max-tech levels across the full lumen range. Therefore, in this final 
rule, DOE is adopting the power factor requirements as proposed in the 
January 2023 NOPR for MBCFLs and integrated LED lamps.
d. Summary of Metrics
    Table IV.1 summarizes the non-efficacy metrics being adopted in 
this rulemaking (efficacy metrics are discussed in the engineering 
analysis; see section IV.D of this document). For MBCFLs, performance 
requirements were specified for five metrics: (1) minimum initial 
efficacy; (2) lumen maintenance at 1,000 hours; (3) lumen maintenance 
at 40 percent of lifetime; (4) rapid cycle stress; and (5) lamp life. 
(42 U.S.C. 6295(bb)(1)) In addition to revising the existing 
requirements for MBCFLs, DOE has the authority to establish 
requirements for additional metrics including CRI, power factor, 
operating frequency, and maximum allowable start time based on the 
requirements prescribed by the August 9, 2001 ENERGY STAR[supreg] 
Program Requirements for CFLs Version 2.0, or establish other 
requirements after considering energy savings, cost effectiveness, and 
consumer satisfaction. (42 U.S.C. 6295(bb)(2)-(3)) DOE is also 
establishing a minimum power factor for integrated LED lamps. DOE finds 
that it has the authority to set this metric because power factor 
impacts energy use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(bb)(3)(B)) A low power factor 
product is inefficient and requires an increase in an electric 
utility's generation and transmission capacity. DOE has determined that 
these new metrics for MBCFLs and integrated LED lamps will provide 
consumers with increased energy savings and/or consumer satisfaction 
for those products capable of achieving the adopted standard levels. 
DOE has existing test procedures for the metrics being proposed. (See 
sections III.C and IV.A.5 of this document for more information on test 
procedures for GSLs.) Further, DOE has concluded that the new metrics 
being adopted in this rule will not result in substantial testing 
burden, as many manufacturers already test their products according to 
these metrics.

[[Page 28882]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.009

5. Test Procedure
    As noted in section III.C of this document, GSILs and certain IRLs, 
CFLs, and LED lamps are GSLs. DOE's test procedures for GSILs and IRLs 
are set forth at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix R. DOE's test 
procedure for CFLs is set forth at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix 
W. DOE's test procedure for integrated LED lamps is set forth at 10 CFR 
part 430, subpart B, appendix BB. DOE's test procedure for GSLs that 
are not GSILs, IRLs, CFLs, or integrated LED lamps is set forth at 10 
CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix DD.
    DOE received comments on some of DOE's test procedures applicable 
to GSLs. NEMA stated that section 3.1.4 in appendix BB and section 3.5 
in appendix DD specifies testing be done at the ``maximum input power'' 
and for a color-tunable (multi-primary) lamp this will typically occur 
when all LED packages within are driven at 100-percent output. NEMA 
stated that when all primary color sources (e.g., R, G, B, and W) are 
at full output, the chromaticity coordinates of the whole lamp may not 
be on or even close to the blackbody locus, about which white light 
chromaticities are standardized. Further, NEMA stated that depending on 
the exact parameters of the LED packages within, the chromaticity 
coordinates for this operating condition may not be in the range for 
which the color-rendering index, as defined in International Commission 
on Illumination 13.3, is a valid metric. NEMA stated that at the 
maximum input power condition, the lamp may not be operating as a GSL, 
but as a colored lamp. NEMA further commented that section 5.1 of the 
ENERGY STAR lamps V2.1 specification states that testing is to be done 
at the most consumptive white light setting covered by the 
specification. NEMA stated that this approach guarantees a tested lamp 
will operate in the GSL region with a chromaticity defined by ANSI 
C78.377 and accepted as ``white'' light. NEMA stated that DOE should 
amend its test procedures to require testing for color-tunable lamps at 
the highest input power nominal white chromaticity as defined in ANSI 
C78.377. (NEMA, No. 183 at pp. 21-22)
    NEMA further stated that lamps with four or more primary colors 
exhibit a wider gamut area and will be able to produce a consumer-
selected chromaticity with many different settings of those primaries. 
NEMA commented that, for example, a lamp may have one mode to maximize 
light output and another to maximize color rendering, and that the 
input power is likely to differ among modes. NEMA recommended that 
where the same chromaticity can be achieved with multiple primary 
settings, DOE should allow the manufacturer to determine the test 
conditions and provide instruction for how to repeat the condition for 
the highest input power white light chromaticity as per ANSI C78.377. 
(NEMA, No. 183 at pp. 21-22)
    DOE is exempting from standards adopted in this final rule lamps 
that allow consumers to change the lamp from a non-colored lamp to a 
colored lamp (as defined in 10 CFR 430.2), which is referred to in 
NEMA's comment as a color tunable lamp. DOE appreciates NEMA's comments 
on how the test procedure might be amended to better address these 
products and encourages NEMA to submit them during an active rulemaking 
to amend the test procedure for integrated LED lamps and other GSLs. 
DOE is not amending any test procedure in this final rule.
    NEMA stated that section 3.4 of appendix DD states to operate non-
integrated LED lamps at the

[[Page 28883]]

manufacturer declared input voltage and current, which only provides a 
partial description of the testing conditions and does not represent a 
repeatable test condition for Type A or Type C linear LED lamps 
(``TLEDs''). NEMA stated it is repeating the point made in the 2016 GSL 
test procedure rulemaking that frequency and waveform are important 
parameters that vary among LED lamps. NEMA stated that DOE should amend 
the test procedure to allow testing with a manufacturer-designated 
commercial ballast in alignment with ANSI C78.53, and DOE should accept 
ANSI C78.53 testing for compliance with this rule. NEMA stated that 
manufacturers would specify performance ratings, indicate a ballast 
factor associated with those ratings, and identify the compatible 
ballast type and model. (NEMA, No. 183 at p. 21)
    In the January 2023 NOPR, DOE did not propose amendments to the GSL 
test procedures. DOE cannot amend a test procedure without allowing 
opportunity for comment on proposed changes. DOE notes that it received 
similar comments regarding testing non-integrated LED lamps in response 
to the test procedure rulemaking for GSLs that culminated in a final 
rule published on October 20, 2016 (``October 2016 TP Final Rule''). 81 
FR 72493. In that final rule, DOE concluded that requiring 
manufacturers to specify input voltage and current and operate the lamp 
at full light output resulted in a repeatable test procedure that 
allows for performance to be more fairly compared. 81 FR 72493, 72496. 
DOE will consider the comments including new information regarding 
testing of non-integrated LED lamps provided in this rulemaking in a 
future test procedure rulemaking.

B. Market and Technology Assessment

    DOE develops information in the market and technology assessment 
that provides an overall picture of the market for the products 
concerned, including the purpose of the products, the industry 
structure, manufacturers, market characteristics, and technologies used 
in the products. This activity includes both quantitative and 
qualitative assessments, based primarily on publicly available 
information. The subjects addressed in the market and technology 
assessment for this rulemaking include (1) a determination of the scope 
of the rulemaking 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 GSLs. The key findings of 
DOE's market assessment are summarized in the following sections. See 
chapter 3 of the final rule TSD for further discussion of the market 
and technology assessment.
1. Concerns Regarding LED Lamp Technology
    DOE received 158 comments from private citizens.\29\ The comments, 
along with those from Soft Lights and Friends of Merrymeeting Bay, 
focused on various concerns regarding LED lamp technology including 
health impacts, lamp attributes, application, consumer costs, and 
manufacturer impacts. In this rulemaking, LED lamp technology is 
considered as a means for improving the energy efficiency of GSLs (see 
section IV.C of this document) and will be needed to achieve the 
standards being adopted in this final rule (see section V.C of this 
document). DOE has reviewed the concerns expressed in comments from 
private citizens and continues to consider LED lamp technology as a 
means for improving energy efficiency of GSLs in this rulemaking. The 
sections below provide a general summary of the comments received from 
private citizens and DOE responses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Comments submitted in response to the January 2023 NOPR, 
including comments from private citizens can be found in the docket 
of DOE's rulemaking to develop energy conservation standards for 
GSLs at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2022-BT-STD-0022/comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Health Impacts
    DOE received comments from private citizens that LED lamps can lead 
to adverse health effects (e.g., headaches, eye strain, sleep issues, 
seizures). Commenters stated that this was due to the blue light that 
LED lamps emit and their overall brightness, which are issues that do 
not occur with incandescent or halogen lamps. In the May 2022 Backstop 
Final Rule and May 2022 Definition Final Rule DOE also received 
comments on potential adverse health effects of LED lamps. In the May 
2022 Backstop Rule, DOE responded to these comments, stating that DOE 
researched studies and other publications to ascertain any known 
impacts of LED lamps on human health and has not found any evidence 
concluding that LED lighting used for general lighting applications 
directly results in adverse health effects. 87 FR 27439, 27457. In the 
May 2022 Definition Final Rule, DOE also stated it had considered the 
comments. DOE further stated it had considered the potential for health 
benefits of emissions reductions from reducing energy use by the 
covered products. In that rule, DOE maintained that the final rule's 
definitional changes appropriately promote EPCA's goals for increasing 
the energy efficiency of covered products through the establishment and 
amendment of energy conservation standards and promoting conservation 
measures when feasible. 42 U.S.C. 6291 et seq., as amended. 87 FR 
27461, 27468. (See May 2022 Backstop Final Rule and May 2022 Definition 
Final Rule for full comments and responses.) Additionally, Soft Lights 
filed a petition requesting DOE withdraw the May 2022 Backstop Final 
Rule and May 2022 Definition Final Rule. Soft Lights' petition asserted 
that LED lamps do not provide uniform illumination, do not emit light 
that disperses following the inverse square law, and are not regulated 
with regards to comfort, health or safety by the U.S. Food and Drug 
Administration (``FDA''). DOE denied the petition stating that granting 
Soft Light's request would be inconsistent with statutory law. Further, 
DOE declined to comment on Soft Light's assertion that the FDA has 
failed to publish comfort, health, or safety regulations for LEDs, 
stating these arguments are not for consideration by DOE. DOE also 
stated it is not aware of any prohibition on the use of LED lighting 
that would have impacted its rulemakings. 88 FR 16869, 16870. DOE notes 
that the FDA has authority to regulate certain aspects of LED products 
as radiation-emitting devices and has issued performance standards for 
certain types of light-emitting products.\30\ Currently, there are no 
FDA performance standard for LED products in part 1040. DOE is not 
currently aware or any prohibition on the use of LED lighting that 
would impact this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See, the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act section 531 et 
seq.; 21 U.S.C. 360KK; and 21 CFR part 1040.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this final rule, DOE maintains its responses in previous 
rulemakings and petition denials regarding potential adverse health 
impacts of LED lamps.
    DOE also received comments that LED lamps have adverse health 
effects on animal and plant life. Commenters stated that LED lamps 
contain toxic waste, plastic waste, and substances that pollute the 
land and water. DOE has not found any information or data indicating 
LED lamps contain toxic waste. In reviewing general guidelines for 
disposing of LED lamps, DOE found that either there is no guidance, or 
the guidance is to recycle them as electronic products. Hence DOE finds 
that LED lamps are similar in terms of the waste

[[Page 28884]]

produced by any other electronic products. Given LED lamp lifetime, 
most LED lamps will last longer and therefore not need to be replaced 
as frequently as other lamp technologies, leading to less waste. 
Further, DOE's research found no sources indicating that LED lamps 
covered under the GSL definition have adverse impacts on animal or 
plant life.
    Based on the previous assessments, DOE continues to consider LED 
lamp technology as a means for improving energy efficiency of GSLs in 
this rulemaking (see section IV.C of this document).
b. Lamp Attributes
    DOE received comments that LED lamps are failing prematurely (e.g., 
burning out or changing color) before their marketed lifetime (e.g., 
failure at 6 months, at 10 percent of marketed lifetime). Commenters 
attributed this to overheating of components. DOE reviewed the latest 
industry articles, journals, and research reports on this topic. DOE's 
research indicates that premature LED lamp failure can be attributable 
to factors including poorly designed lamps, power surges, or 
incompatible fixtures, among others. However, DOE has not found data or 
reports indicating that premature LED lamp failure is a significant 
problem with lamps offered on the market.
    Flicker in LED lamps was also cited as an issue by commenters. 
Commenters stated that this could be due to installing LED lamps on 
existing dimmers. DOE reviewed the latest industry articles, journals, 
and research reports on this topic. While flicker was an issue in the 
early stages of LED lamp technology development, DOE's research has 
indicated no evidence that it remains a prevalent issue with lamps 
currently on the market. Flicker in LED lamps can occur due to use with 
an incompatible dimmer switch. Not all incandescent/halogen dimmers 
(i.e., phase-cut control dimmers) are incompatible with LED technology. 
NEMA's Solid State Lighting (``SSL'') 7A, which provides basic 
requirements for phase-cut dimming of LED light sources, includes a 
list of forward phase-cut dimmers and scenarios in which they can be 
compatible with LED technology (e.g., up to 125 W LED load). Further, 
in response to the May 2022 Definition Final Rule, NEMA had estimated 
520 million out of 665 million decorative lamps on mostly switch-
controlled sockets have already been converted to LED technology. DOE 
finds that NEMA's comment indicates that almost 80 percent of 
decorative lamps on switch-controlled sockets have already been 
converted to LED technology without a significant negative market 
reaction. 87 FR 27461, 27468. Further, manufacturers such as Signify, 
Green Creative, and Waveform Lighting are developing LED lamps that are 
compatible with a wider range of dimmer switches.
    DOE also received comments that LED lamps emit unnatural blueish 
light that is too bright for regular use making them an inadequate 
replacement for incandescent and halogen lamps which emit light that 
mimics natural sunlight more closely. However, LED lamps are sold in a 
variety of color temperatures including the traditional 2700 K warm 
white CCT typically found in incandescent lamps. DOE's review of the 
market, including offerings at major retailers, indicates that these 
LED lamps are widely available on the market.
    DOE received comments that LED lamps should be labeled with their 
peak luminance and this metric should be regulated. Commenters stated 
that the correct metric for measuring LED visible radiation is 
luminance (candela per square meter). Commenters further stated that 
the metric of lumens per watts can eliminate innovation with 
ultraviolet (``UV'') and infrared (``IR'') wavelengths that are used 
for color rendering and health benefits. Regarding labeling, the 
Federal Trade Commission specifies labeling requirements for products 
including GSLs (see 16 CFR 305.5(c)). As noted in section IV.A.4, this 
rulemaking uses lumens per watt as the metric to measure efficiency of 
GSLs. Lumens do include the measure of candela as they are the luminous 
flux emitted within a unit solid angle (one steradian) by a point 
source having a uniform luminous intensity of one candela.\31\ 
Additionally, lumens are the measure by which lamp manufacturers 
specify light output on lamp specification sheets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Illuminating Engineering Society, ``Lumens.'' Available at 
www.ies.org/definitions/lumen/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE also received comments that the owner's manuals for garage door 
openers state that they are designed for incandescent lamps and LED 
lamps can cause interference with the remote door openers. DOE reviewed 
the websites of manufacturers of the garage door openers mentioned in 
these comments. The websites cite universal LED lamps that can be used 
with garage door openers and would not cause interference. Further, 
Lighting Supply, a distributor of lamps for garages, states on its 
website that interference is primarily an issue with LED lamps from 
unknown manufacturers as most known brands are certified by the Federal 
Communications Commission, which requires lamps to have shielding 
within them to mitigate any radio frequency interference.
    Additionally, DOE received comments that the use of LEDs in vehicle 
lights makes these lights bright and strenuous to eyes, creating 
hazardous driving conditions. In the analysis for the January 2017 
Definition Final Rules, DOE determined that certain voltages and/or 
base types are typical for specialty lighting applications and excluded 
them from the GSL definition. 82 FR 7267, 7306, 7310. Typical specialty 
lighting applications include lamps used in vehicles.
    Finally, DOE received comments that LED streetlights are too bright 
and when they degrade, the lights turn purple, flash on and off, and 
eventually burn out after a couple of years. DOE also received comments 
that LED lamps contribute to light pollution in the night sky. In 
response to similar comments received, in the May 2022 Backstop Final 
Rule DOE noted that the GSL definition excludes lamps with lumens 
greater than 3,300 and stated that streetlamps and lighting for 
construction applications are generally 5,000 lumens or greater. 87 FR 
27439, 27457. Further, DOE's research of street lighting products shows 
that most products are sold as complete fixtures rather than as 
individual lamps and, therefore, would not fall within the GSL 
definition. As such, the lamps relevant to these comments are generally 
not covered as GSLs and therefore, not within the scope of the 
rulemaking.
    Based on the above assessments, DOE does not find that there are 
issues with the lamp attributes of GSL LED lamps and continues to 
consider LED lamp technology as a means for improving the energy 
efficiency of GSLs (see section IV.C of this document).
c. Application
    DOE received comments that LED lamps are too large to replace 
incandescent lamps in preexisting fixtures. Some commenters provided 
specifics--i.e., B10 shape, E12 base LED lamps are 4 to 4.8 inches in 
length and 1.4 to 1.6 inches in width whereas their incandescent 
counterparts measure 3.8 inches in length and 1.25 inches in width. DOE 
reviewed several major manufacturer catalog and retailer websites and 
compared the specifications of the incandescent and LED version of B10 
shape, E12 base lamps and found that the difference in width ranges 
from 0 to 0.05 inches and the difference in length ranges is 0.0 to 0.1 
inches. DOE finds that these

[[Page 28885]]

differences in width and length are not as large as cited by the 
commenters and therefore, would likely not affect the usability of 
these lamps within existing fixtures. Hence, DOE does not find the size 
of LED lamps to be prohibitive of being used in existing fixtures.
    DOE also received comments that LED lamps are inaccurately marketed 
to be used in enclosed fixtures and the comments further stated that 
LED lamp components are more sensitive to overheating so they are prone 
to premature failure due to the increased heat inside enclosed 
fixtures. DOE reviewed the latest industry articles, journals, and 
research reports on this topic. DOE's research found no evidence that 
lamps specifically rated for use in an enclosed fixture are failing due 
to use in an enclosed fixture; nor has it found this to be a reported 
issue within the lighting industry.
    DOE received comments that the CRI of LED lamps is worse than 
incandescent lamps and high-CRI and red-rendering (R9) LED lamps cannot 
meet the proposed standards and would eliminate innovation of better 
color rendering LED lamps. DOE's analysis ensures that a range of lamp 
characteristics such as lumens, CCT, and CRI are available at the 
highest levels of efficacy. This includes products with high CRIs 
(i.e., 90 or above). (See section IV.D.1.d of this document for more 
details.)
    For the concerns noted above by commentators DOE did a thorough 
assessment of products and reviewed the latest industry articles, 
journals, and research reports on these topics. DOE was unable to find 
data or evidence showing that these concerns are being cited as 
prevalent and/or significant issues in the lamp market. Based on the 
assessments above, DOE does not find that there are issues with the use 
and application of GSL LED lamps and therefore continues to consider 
LED lamp technology as a means for improving the energy efficiency of 
GSLs (see section IV.C of this document).
d. Consumer Costs and Manufacturer Impacts
    DOE received comments that LED lamps are not as cost efficient 
compared to incandescent and halogen lamps. Commenters stated that 
incandescent lamps are 100-percent energy efficient and pay for 
themselves when the outside temperature is below room temperature by 
reducing the need for heat systems. Commenters also stated that due to 
the cost of the LED lamps as well as the cost of upgrading to an 
appropriate dimmer, the final costs end up being more than the 
projected savings. Commenters stated DOE's estimate that switching to 
LED lamps could save $3 billion per year equates to around $2 per month 
per household, which should not be considered significant. DOE also 
received comments that the best way to conserve energy is to use lights 
less often regardless of lamp technology. DOE notes that May 2022 
Backstop Final Rule codified a 45 lm/W requirement that incandescent 
and halogen lamps are unable to meet. Therefore, incandescent and 
halogen lamps were not analyzed as options available to consumers 
during the analysis period for this final rule. DOE does not anticipate 
that consumers will need to upgrade their dimmer under a standard 
compared to the dimmers that would be used with CFLs and LED lamps 
available in the no-new-standards case. With respect to the 
significance of savings, DOE notes that most households own a 
significant number of GSLs (the 2015 U.S. Lighting Market 
Characterization report estimates an average of over 50 lamps per 
household \32\). The household-level savings will be significantly 
higher than the savings associated with a single purchase. For details 
on consumer cost savings from these standards being adopted in this 
final rule, see sections V.B.1 and V.B.3.b. of this document. DOE 
agrees that energy savings can be had from a reduction in operating 
hours but notes this is also the case under a standard, and DOE does 
not estimate a change in operating hours under a standard. (See section 
IV.H.1 of this document for discussion.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Navigant Consulting, Inc. 2015 U.S. Lighting Market 
Characterization. 2017. U.S. Department of Energy: Washington, DC 
Report No. DOE/EE-1719. (Last accessed August 10, 2023.) 
www.energy.gov/eere/ssl/downloads/2015-us-lighting-market-characterization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Product Classes
    When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE 
may establish separate standards for a group of covered products (i.e., 
establish a separate product class) if DOE determines that separate 
standards are justified based on the type of energy used, or if DOE 
determines that a product's capacity or other performance-related 
feature justifies a different standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) 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. (Id.)
    In the January 2023 NOPR, DOE proposed product class divisions 
based on lamp component location (i.e., location of ballast/driver); 
capability of operating in standby mode; directionality (i.e., 
omnidirectional versus directional); and lamp length (i.e., 45 inches 
or longer [``long''] or less than 45 inches [``short'']) as product 
class setting factors. 88 FR 1638, 1656. In chapter 3 of the final rule 
TSD, DOE discusses factors it ultimately determined were not 
performance-related features that justify different standard levels; 
including lamp technology, lumen package, lamp cover, dimmability, base 
type, lamp spectrum, CRI, and CCT. See chapter 3 of the final rule TSD 
for further discussion.
    DOE received several comments on product class setting factors 
including lamp cover, lamp length, tunability, and non-illumination 
features. These comments are discussed in the following sections.
a. Lamp Cover
    In the January 2023 NOPR, DOE considered lamp cover as a 
performance-related feature that justified a different standard level 
but determined that it was not such a feature (see chapter 3 of the 
January 2023 NOPR TSD). NEMA stated that when visible, frosted lamps 
reduce glare, although they are slightly less efficient. While max-tech 
performance may be achievable with clear lamps, they represent only a 
portion of the GSL market. (NEMA, No. 183 at p. 20)
    In the January 2023 NOPR, DOE considered the impact of a lamp cover 
(e.g., added glass, silicone coating) over the main light source, which 
can reduce the lumen output of the lamp. The lamp cover adds a white 
finish to these lamps, and they are sometimes referred to as frosted 
lamps. By contrast, lamps without a cover are sometimes referred to as 
bare or clear. In some cases, covered lamps may offer utility to 
consumers as they more closely resemble traditional lighting 
technologies and are frequently utilized where a lamp is visible (e.g., 
without a lamp shade). DOE examined the difference in efficacies of 
lamps that have a cover versus those that do not. DOE found that while 
a cover could generally decrease efficacy, it could also increase it, 
such as when a phosphor coating transforms light emitted from LEDs into 
visible light. DOE also determined that many LED lamps that have covers 
have high efficacies. GSLs without a cover (i.e., clear, bare) are 
mainly in the Integrated Omnidirectional Short product class. This 
product class also has lamps with covers (i.e., frosted lamps). DOE's 
analysis shows that both the frosted and

[[Page 28886]]

clear lamps in this product class can meet the max-tech EL identified 
in the January 2023 GSL NOPR and in this analysis. Hence, for the 
reasons provided in the January 2023 NOPR and above, DOE is not 
creating a product class for covered versus bare products in this final 
rule.
b. Lamp Dimensions
    In the January 2023 NOPR, DOE stated it observed that pin base LED 
lamp replacements with 2G11 bases and lengths close to 2 feet are less 
efficacious than 2-foot linear LED lamps. To further understand this 
observation on lamp length, DOE requested comments on, assuming all 
other attributes are the same, how the efficacy of pin base LED lamp 
replacements compares to that of linear LED lamps. 88 FR 1638, 1657. 
NEMA commented that DOE should avoid assuming that pin base LED 
retrofit lamps and linear LED retrofit lamps have similar luminous 
efficacy because they differ in shape, size, directionality, and 
operating environments. NEMA stated that pin base retrofit lamps and 
linear LED retrofit lamps differ in the following ways: (1) pin base 
LED lamps designed to replace legacy CFLs either do not have the same 
single straight tube shape or are designed to take advantage of LED 
package directionality to provide more directional illumination; (2) 
pin base LED lamps must fit within a much smaller, shorter, and 
narrower luminaire type and application than linear LED retrofit lamps 
and are designed to direct light output either horizontally or 
vertically, depending on the luminaire type and application; and (3) 
typically, the thermal environment differs greatly between these 
applications, resulting in different efficiency expectations. NEMA 
stated that only in limited cases when the lamps have the same shape 
and directionality of light output is the luminous efficacy of a pin 
base LED retrofit lamp and linear LED retrofit lamp directly 
comparable. (NEMA, No. 183 at p. 6)
    In the January 2023 NOPR, DOE requested comment on the observed 
lower pin base LED lamps with 2G11 base and close to 2-feet length 
(typically used as replacements for pin base CFLs) having a lower 
efficacy than linear LED lamps 2 feet in length (88 FR 1638, 1657), as 
DOE expected them to achieve similar levels of efficacy due to 
similarity in length. DOE appreciates NEMA's comments, which help 
inform the differences between these two lamp configurations and 
potential impacts on efficacy. Because they are both less than 45 
inches in length, DOE groups them in the same product class (i.e., 
either the Integrated Omnidirectional Short product class or the Non-
integrated Omnidirectional Short product class) (see table IV.2 for 
product class division summary). In the January 2023 NOPR and in this 
final rule, DOE did not observe that the difference in efficacy between 
these two lamp configurations is substantial enough to result in a loss 
of the consumer utility provided by each lamp. DOE's analysis indicates 
that both pin base LED lamps with a 2G11 base close to 2 feet in length 
and linear LED lamps that are 2 feet can meet the max-tech ELs 
considered for the Non-integrated Omnidirectional Short product class 
(see section IV.D.1.d of this document). Therefore, DOE does not find 
that adjustments to product class setting factors are necessary.
    In the January 2023 NOPR, DOE observed that 4-foot T5 and 8-foot T8 
linear LED lamps were not reaching the same efficacies as 4-foot T8 
linear LED lamps. DOE tentatively concluded that this is not due to a 
technical constraint due to diameter but rather lack of product 
development of 4-foot T5 and 8-foot T8 linear LED lamps. DOE requested 
comments and data on the impact of diameter on efficacy for linear LED 
lamps. 88 FR 1638, 1656-1657.
    Westinghouse stated that for linear fluorescent tubes a smaller 
diameter means higher efficacy, for LED lamps it is the inverse as a 
smaller diameter means less space for electronics and thermal 
management. (Westinghouse, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 27 at pp. 42-
43) DOE appreciates Westinghouse's comments, which help inform the 
impact of diameter on linear LED lamps. Linear LED lamps of both T5 and 
T8 diameters are grouped in the Integrated Omnidirectional Long product 
class (see table IV.2 for product class division summary) and both can 
meet the max-tech ELs. Hence, adjustments to product class setting 
factors are not necessary.
c. Non-Integrated Standby Operation
    NEMA commented that none of DOE's proposed product classes included 
LED smart and connected lamps that are also non-integrated. To account 
for these products, NEMA recommended the following product classes: (1) 
Non-integrated Omnidirectional short (with standby) capturing the low 
voltage LED retrofit lamps less than 45 inches in length, (2) Non-
integrated Omnidirectional long (with standby) capturing lamps 
operating on non-building mains 45 inches or more in length, and (3) 
Non-integrated Directional (with standby) capturing LED lamps designed 
to replace legacy CFLs. NEMA specified that all of these lamps would 
require operating on a remote driver or legacy fluorescent or high-
intensity discharge (``HID'') ballast. (NEMA, No. 183 at p. 6)
    In the January 2023 NOPR, DOE proposed only standby mode operation 
as a product class setting factor for integrated lamps. At the time of 
the January 2023 NOPR analysis, DOE did not observe non-integrated GSLs 
with standby mode power consumption. 88 FR 1638, 1657, 1667. Based on a 
review of the market for this final rule analysis, DOE identified non-
integrated LED lamps that have standby mode power operation capability 
allowing the lamp to have dimming controls. For example, DOE identified 
a linear LED lamp that is designed to operate on fluorescent lamp 
ballast (i.e., Type B), to have additional circuitry contained within 
the lamp that interprets the signal from the ballast and changes the 
light output accordingly. Hence, because the standby mode operation of 
this lamp is not solely external to the lamp (i.e., in the ballast or 
driver) but also part of the lamp itself, DOE considers it as having 
standby mode operation capability and therefore standby mode power 
consumption.
    Because the market for these non-integrated LED lamps that have 
standby mode power operation capability is rapidly developing, DOE is 
unable to make a clear and accurate determination regarding the 
consumer utility, how various technology options would affect the 
efficiency, and maximum technologically feasible efficiency of these 
lamps, which prevents DOE from determining whether a specific standard 
for these lamps would be economically justified at this time. 
Accordingly, DOE did not consider amended standards for these lamps in 
this rulemaking. DOE may evaluate amended standards for these products 
in a future rulemaking. DOE notes that these lamps are still subject to 
the 45 lm/W sales prohibition at 10 CFR 430.32(dd). The criteria that 
non-integrated GSLs with standby mode power operation capability must 
meet to be exempt from amended standards adopted in this final rule is 
specified in section IV.A.3 of this document.
d. Tunability
    NEMA and Lutron stated that DOE incorrectly assumed that all lamps 
capable of operating in standby mode are fundamentally the same as 
lamps without standby functionality but with the addition of wireless 
communication components. NEMA and Lutron stated that because of this 
assumption, DOE did not create product classes for tunable white lamps 
and color tunable lamps. (NEMA, No. 183 at p. 8; Lutron,

[[Page 28887]]

No. 182 at p. 2) NEMA stated that including these additional categories 
will allow for a thorough analysis of lamps capable of operating in 
standby mode by the next rulemaking in 2028--which may result in the 
need for separate categories, different efficacy curves, and amended 
test procedures--and will allow DOE to set efficacy levels without 
restricting innovation in the coming years. (NEMA, No. 183 at pp. 13-
14) Lutron stated that the product classes and scaling approach for 
standby mode proposed in the January 2023 NOPR would limit innovation 
and potentially regulate out of the market many lamps capable of 
dynamic color tuning and dynamic spectral tuning. (Lutron, No. 182 at 
pp. 2-3)
    NEMA and Lutron stated that for these lamps DOE should set separate 
product classes and adopt ELs proposed in the January 2023 NOPR as 
follows: (1) Tunable white integrated omnidirectional lamps capable of 
operating in standby mode subject to EL 6; (2) Tunable white integrated 
directional lamps capable of operating in standby mode subject to EL 4; 
(3) Full-color tunable integrated omnidirectional lamps capable of 
operating in standby mode subject to EL 4; and (4) Full-color tunable 
integrated directional lamps capable of operating in standby mode 
subject to EL 4. (NEMA, No. 183 at p. 8; Lutron, No. 182 at p. 3)
    NEMA and Lutron defined ``tunable white'' as a feature allowing the 
end user to adjust the light output to create different colors of white 
light; in which tuning must be capable of altering the color appearance 
along the black body curve from two or more LED colors, where each LED 
color is inside one of those defined by ANSI-defined (ANSI C78.377) 
white correlated color temperature ranges (i.e., between 2700 K and 
6500 K) inside of the seven-step MacAdam ellipse or the ANSI 
quadrangles. NEMA and Lutron defined ``full color tunable'' as a 
feature allowing the end user to adjust the light output to create 
white or colored white; in which tuning must include white light that 
can alter the color appearance along the black body curve by 
dynamically tuning color from three of more colors of LEDs where at 
least one LED extends to colors beyond the ANSI-defined (ANSI C78.377) 
white correlated color temperature ranges (i.e., between 2700 K and 
6500 K) outside of the seven-step MacAdam ellipse or the ANSI 
quadrangles. (NEMA, No. 183 at p. 14; Lutron, No. 182 at p. 2)
    Lutron and NEMA provided comments on the impact on efficacy due to 
the tunable features of these lamps. Lutron commented that tunable 
lamps are less efficacious than a single-chromaticity lamp \33\ because 
tunable lamps require: (1) effective LED color mixing on a small light-
emitting surface, which leads to higher LED current densities; (2) a 
control system to vary intensity of each LED color; and (3) optics to 
mix LED colors into the appropriate beam pattern. Lutron estimated a 
10-percent efficacy loss independent from the power consumed in standby 
mode. (Lutron, No. 182 at p. 6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Commenters use ``static'' white lamps and single 
chromaticity lamps interchangeably and DOE assumes these terms 
identify lamps that are non-tunable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lutron stated it is possible for static white lamps to meet the 
proposed EL requirement by employing highly efficacious white LEDs in 
efficient configurations. Lutron stated, in contrast, tunable white 
lamps employ a second color LED close to the blackbody locus at a 
different CCT and color tunable lamps employ three or more colors of 
LEDs where at least one LED is far from the blackbody locus. Lutron 
stated that these additional color LEDs are less efficacious because 
the human eye is insensitive to light radiated from LEDs at colors far 
from green (555 nm), such as red (620 nm) or blue (470 nm). (Lutron, 
No. 182 at pp. 4-5, 6) NEMA provided the example that having the 
functionality of selecting ``warm white'' (i.e., a setting 
corresponding to nominally 2700 K on the blackbody locus) may require 
both white LEDs and lower efficacy LEDs, such as red and blue, to 
achieve the precise color point. NEMA stated primary color LEDs are 
placed farther out in the color space, expanding the gamut area, which 
represents the number of colors, including shades of white, the lamp 
can produce. NEMA stated that the result is a loss in efficacy compared 
to a single chromaticity lamp containing only 2700 K LEDs and that this 
loss is in addition to the efficacy reduction caused by the lamp's 
standby power functionality. (NEMA, No. 183 at p. 10)
    Lutron also stated that, compared to tunable white lamps, full-
color-tunable lamps introduce at least one color far from the blackbody 
locus to achieve the desired utility, and because the human eye is less 
sensitive to wavelengths far from green, there is an impact on efficacy 
beyond the impacts described for white tunable lamps. As an example, 
Lutron stated that 1400 K or lower, which is a setting that may provide 
more consumer comfort, can't be achieved without a higher intensity of 
red LEDs. Lutron commented that greater control of color variation and 
accuracy, color quality, beam angle, and other aspects can require 
higher-end LEDs, more sophisticated designs, and innovative 
constructions that prevent the lamps from achieving high efficacy 
levels. (Lutron, No. 182 at p. 5-6)
    Lutron and NEMA also provided comments on the utility of tunable 
lamps. Lutron and NEMA stated that tunable white lamps and color 
tunable lamps are a growing sector of the market. (Lutron, No. 182 at 
pp. 7-8; NEMA, No. 183 at p. 10) Lutron stated that tunable lamps offer 
capabilities such as dimming, scene selection, geo-fencing, event 
scheduling, programmability and demand response to further achieve 
energy savings. (Lutron, No. 182 at p. 7) Lutron and NEMA stated that 
sectors such as retail, hospitality, restaurants, bars, entertainment, 
museums, theme parks, and architectural use lighting with deep dimming, 
warm dimming, CCT control, and color saturation to create unique 
consumer experiences. (Lutron, No. 182 at p. 7; NEMA, No. 183 at p. 10)
    Lutron cited DOE's web page on ``Understanding LED Color-Tunable 
Products'' as noting that offices using white light during work hours 
could shift to evening get-togethers with saturated mood-setting colors 
without using additional color lamps that are exempted from DOE 
standards and therefore may not be efficacious. (Lutron, No. 182 at pp. 
6-7) Lutron stated that one of the key benefits of all color tunable 
lamps is the ability to control colors and match chromaticity and also 
manipulate light and color intensities to affect moods and create 
effects. Lutron commented that tunable white lamps offer users multiple 
similar benefits as color tunable lamps, such as simulating daylight or 
candlelight to set a mood without the use of additional lighting or to 
match existing light to provide light consistency in a space. Lutron 
also stated that the ability to change the intensity and color of white 
light has been incorporated into green building and healthy building 
standards, particularly the WELL standard, operated by the 
International WELL Building Institute. (Lutron, No. 182 at p. 7)
    NEMA also raised concerns regarding the DOE test procedure and its 
applicability for color tunable GSLs. Specifically, NEMA stated that 
DOE's test procedure for GSLs requires testing at maximum input power 
at which setting a color tunable lamp may not be operating as a GSL, 
but as a colored lamp. NEMA further noted that a lamp may have one mode 
to maximize light output and another to maximize color

[[Page 28888]]

rendering, and that the input power is likely to differ among modes. 
(NEMA, No. 183 at pp. 21-22) (See further discussion of these comments 
in section IV.A.5 of this document).
    Because the market for these tunable lamps is rapidly developing, 
DOE is unable to make a clear and accurate determination regarding the 
consumer utility, how various technology options would affect the 
efficiency, and maximum technologically feasible efficiency of these 
lamps, which prevents DOE from determining whether a specific standard 
for these lamps would be economically justified at this time. 
Accordingly, DOE did not consider amended standards for these lamps in 
this rulemaking. DOE may evaluate amended standards for these products 
in a future rulemaking. DOE notes that these lamps are still subject to 
the 45 lm/W sales prohibition at 10 CFR 430.32(dd). The criteria that 
tunable white GSLs and color tunable GSLs must meet to be exempt from 
amended standards adopted in this final rule is specified in section 
IV.A.3 of this document.
e. Non-Illumination Features
    NEMA stated that there are multi-functional lighting products 
without wireless communication components that include power-consuming 
non-lighting features when the product is not generating light. NEMA 
gave examples of outdoor lamps with motion sensors for home security, 
outdoor dusk-to-dawn lamps with ambient light sensors, and indoor lamps 
with an internal battery backup to be used as a flashlight for use 
during a power outage. NEMA stated that the January 2023 NOPR did not 
accommodate these products and elimination of their security/safety 
features would be a mistake and impede further innovation and 
development for future generations of similar products. NEMA stated 
that for these lamps, DOE's approach of determining ELs for lamps with 
standby mode power by adding 0.5 W to ELs for similar non-standby mode 
lamps, assuming all else being equal, was not correct. NEMA stated that 
for these lamps DOE should set separate product classes and adopt ELs 
proposed in the January 2023 NOPR as follows: (1) Omnidirectional lamps 
capable of operating on standby mode, incorporating energy-consuming 
non-illumination feature(s) subject to EL 4 and (2) Directional lamps 
capable of operating on standby mode, incorporating energy-consuming 
non-illumination feature(s) subject to EL 4. (NEMA, No. 183 at pp. 13-
14)
    NEMA provided comments on the impact on efficacy due to the non-
illumination features of these lamps. As an example, NEMA stated that a 
lamp with a speaker has unavoidably lower efficacy than lamps with no 
additional features. NEMA stated that a lamp with Bluetooth speaker 
functionality would be roughly 30 percent lower in efficacy compared to 
the equivalent light output single-chromaticity lamp without integrated 
speakers. NEMA stated that these lamps provide desirable features for 
consumers, who will often purchase and install several of the lamps in 
a room. (NEMA, No. 183 at pp. 11-12) Additionally, NEMA stated that 
unless a lamp offers a physical switch or an app-based method for 
disabling the power from non-illumination features, the only way to 
measure the lamp's luminous efficacy independent of the non-
illumination features is to disassemble the product and identify the 
appropriate solder traces to cut. (NEMA, No. 183 at p. 12)
    NEMA stated that many smart lamps offer additional functionality 
and added consumer benefit while providing energy-saving features such 
as dimming, scheduling, high end trim, and demand response via digital 
programming or manual setting of these features. NEMA stated the 
International Energy Agency (``IEA'') SSL Annex Task 7, notes a large 
market potential for internet-connected lighting systems in the 
residential sector, including illumination and non-illumination 
functionality such as: on/off control; changing CCT; dimming; motion 
detection; daylight sensing to trigger automated lighting changes; 
temperature and humidity sensing to control heating and air 
conditioning; Wi-Fi signal boosting; smoke detection; security systems 
including cameras; security-initiated lighting response; integrated 
audio; baby monitoring; and energy consumption monitoring. NEMA, 
however, disagreed with the assumption in the IEA report that smart 
lamp penetration is limited to the residential sector and cited 
applications in retail and hospitals. NEMA gave the example of the 
usefulness of circadian entrainment smart lamp features in nursing 
homes, congregate care, and independent living facilities, etc. (NEMA, 
No. 183 at pp. 9, 12-13)
    The CA IOUs commented that DOE's proposal may inadvertently 
restrict the development of new types of lighting products that offer 
additional capabilities that consumers desire, such as light sensors, 
Wi-Fi or Bluetooth, speakers, cameras, or LAN links. The CA IOUs 
commented these additional features often require standby energy 
consumption that is higher than would be allowed in DOE's proposed 
standards and to not eliminate them recommended DOE consider different 
luminous efficacy requirements for GSLs with only lighting-related 
features and for combination GSLs with non-lighting-related features. 
(CA IOUs, No. 167 at p. 2)
    Because the market for lamps with non-illumination features (i.e., 
features that do not control light output) is rapidly developing, DOE 
is unable to make a clear and accurate determination regarding the 
consumer utility, how various technology options would affect the 
efficiency, and maximum technologically feasible efficiency of these 
lamps, which prevents DOE from determining whether a specific standard 
for these lamps would be economically justified. Accordingly, DOE did 
not consider amended standards for these lamps in this rulemaking. DOE 
may evaluate amended standards for these products in a future 
rulemaking. DOE notes that these lamps are still subject to the 45 lm/W 
sales prohibition at 10 CFR 430.32(dd) The criteria that GSLs with a 
non-illumination feature and standby mode power operation capability 
must meet to be exempt from amended standards adopted in this final 
rule is specified in section IV.A.3 of this document.
f. Product Class Summary
    In summary, in this final rule analysis, DOE is considering the 
same product class setting factors as those considered in the January 
2023 NOPR, as shown in table IV.2. To avoid any confusion as to what 
lamp types are included in these product classes and therefore subject 
to the amended standards being adopted in this final rule, DOE is 
adding two clarifications to the GSL standards table being codified in 
the CFR by this final rule. Firstly, for all Directional product 
classes, DOE is specifying in the GSL standards table in the CFR that a 
directional lamp is a lamp that meets the definition of reflector lamp 
as defined in 10 CFR 430.2. Secondly, for the Non-integrated 
Omnidirectional Short product class, DOE is specifying in the GSL 
standards table in the CFR that this product class comprises, but is 
not limited to, lamps that are pin base CFLs and pin base LED lamps 
designed and marketed as replacements of pin base CFLs.

[[Page 28889]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.010

3. Technology Options
    In the technology assessment, DOE identifies technology options 
that are feasible means of improving lamp efficacy. This assessment 
provides the technical background and structure on which DOE bases its 
screening and engineering analyses. To develop a list of technology 
options, DOE reviewed manufacturer catalogs, recent trade publications 
and technical journals, and consulted with technical experts. In the 
January 2023 NOPR, DOE identified 21 technology options that would be 
expected to improve GSL efficacy, as measured by the applicable DOE 
test procedure. The technology options were differentiated by those 
that improve the efficacy of CFLs versus those that improve the 
efficacy of LED lamps. 88 FR 1638, 1657.
    With regards to the technology option of improved secondary optics 
for LED lamp technology, NEMA stated it is important to note that 
frosted bulbs, while slightly reducing light output, mitigate glare in 
LED lamp designs and in doing so provide consumer-desired utility. 
(NEMA, No. 183 at p. 7) DOE reviewed the utility and efficacy of 
frosted lamps when evaluating lamp cover as a potential product class 
setting factor (see IV.B.2.a of this document for the detailed 
discussion). Additionally, NEMA requested that DOE adopt the 
standardized terminology from ANSI/IES LS-1-22 \34\ to ensure clarity 
in rulemaking discussions. NEMA noted that the term ``LED chip,'' as 
used in the January 2023 NOPR, is a non-standardized term with ample 
room for interpretation. (NEMA, No. 183 at p. 7). DOE appreciates 
NEMA's comment. In chapter 3 of the January 2023 NOPR TSD DOE had 
specified that the LED die, along with its electrode contacts and any 
optional additional layers, is referred to as the ``LED chip.'' This 
description of the LED chip aligns with the definition of LED package 
\35\ specified in ANSI/IES LS-1-22. For further clarity and consistency 
with industry definitions (i.e., ANSI/IES LS-1-22), DOE has replaced 
references to ``LED chip'' with ``LED package'' in this final rule 
notice and TSD. Additionally, in review of the nomenclature used in the 
January 2023 NOPR and TSD to describe the technology option of reduced 
current density, DOE stated that the LED package is driven at lower 
currents. 88 FR 1638, 1657-1658 (see chapter 3 of January 2023 NOPR 
TSD). Because ANSI/IES LS-1-22 defines LED array or module \36\ as an 
assembly of LED packages intended to be connected to the LED driver, 
DOE finds that it is more appropriate to phrase this technology option 
as the LED array or module being driven at lower currents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ American National Standards Institute/Illuminating 
Engineering Society, ANSI/IES LS-1-22, ``Lighting Science: 
Nomenclature and Definitions for Illuminating Engineering.'' 
Approved Nov. 2, 2021.
    \35\ ANSI/IES LS-1-22 defines ``LED package'' as an assembly of 
one or more light emitting diode (LED) dies that includes wire bond 
or other type of electrical connections, possibly with an optical 
element and thermal, mechanical, and electrical interfaces. Power 
source and ANSI standardized base are not incorporated into the 
device. The device cannot be connected directly to the branch 
circuit. Available at www.ies.org/definitions/led-package/.
    \36\ ANSI/IES LS-1-22 defines ``LED array or module'' as an 
assembly of light emitting diode (LED) packages (components), or 
dies on a printed circuit board or substrate, possibly with optical 
elements and additional thermal, mechanical, and electrical 
interfaces that are intended to connect to the load side of an LED 
driver. Power source and ANSI standard base are not incorporated 
into the device. The device cannot be connected directly to the 
branch circuit. Available at www.ies.org/definitions/led-array-or-module/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this final rule as in the January 2023 NOPR, DOE is considering 
the technology options as shown in table IV.3.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

[[Page 28890]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.011


[[Page 28891]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.012


[[Page 28892]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.013

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C

C. Screening Analysis

    DOE uses the following four 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.

10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, sections 6(b)(3) and 7(b).
    In sum, 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. The reasons for eliminating any technology are discussed in 
the following sections.
    The subsequent sections include comments from interested parties 
pertinent to the screening criteria, DOE's evaluation of each 
technology option against the screening analysis criteria, and whether 
DOE determined that a technology option should be excluded (``screened 
out'') based on the screening criteria.
1. Screened-Out Technologies
    In the January 2023 NOPR, DOE proposed to screen out multi-photon 
phosphors for CFLs, and quantum dots and improved emitter materials for 
LED lamps based on the first criterion on technological feasibility. 
DOE did not find evidence that multi-photon phosphors, quantum dots, or 
improved emitter materials are being used in commercially available 
products or prototypes. DOE also proposed to screen out AC LEDs based 
on the second and third criteria: respectively, practicability to 
manufacture, install, and service and adverse impacts on product 
utility or product. The only commercially available AC LED lamps that 
DOE found were G-shapes between 330 and 360 lumens or candle shapes 
between 220 and 400 lumens. Therefore, it is unclear whether the 
technology could be made for a wide range of products on a commercial 
scale and in particular for those being considered in this document. 88 
FR 1638, 1658.
    NEMA stated that it agrees with DOE's proposal to screen out AC 
LEDs as well as quantum dots and improved emitter materials for LED 
lamps. (NEMA, No. 183 at p. 7)
    In this final rule as in the January 2023 NOPR, for reasons stated 
above, DOE continues to screen out the technologies of multi-photon 
phosphors for CFLs and quantum dots, improved emitter materials, and AC 
LEDs for LED lamps.
2. Remaining Technologies
    In the January 2023 NOPR, DOE considered active thermal management 
for LED lamp technology as a design option, among others. 88 FR 1638, 
1658. NEMA commented that active thermal management is not typically 
required or beneficial for products included in the GSL definition and 
therefore should not be factored in when providing a deviation from the 
GSL requirements without standby power. NEMA stated that products 
outside the scope of the GSL definition, namely small size devices with 
a lumen output of greater than 3,300 lumens, can be dependent upon and 
benefit from active thermal management, but that this should not be 
taken into consideration for this rulemaking. NEMA added that 
manufacturers should not be constrained from utilizing their design 
freedom to add active thermal management to a product covered by the 
scope of this rule if the final product meets the requirements and 
includes the full impacts of the thermal management. (NEMA, No. 183 at 
pp. 7-8) DOE has not found evidence that the design option of active 
thermal management is limited to lamps with lumen outputs greater than 
3,300 lumens. Additionally, DOE identifies all possible technology 
options and subsequently design options that manufacturers can utilize 
to increase the efficacy of their lamps. DOE is not specifying the 
design options manufacturers must or must not use to achieve higher 
efficacies for their lamps. Therefore, in this final rule, DOE 
continues to consider active thermal management as a valid design 
option.
    Through a review of each technology, DOE concludes that all of the 
other identified technologies listed in section IV.B.3 of this document 
met all five screening criteria to be examined further as design 
options in DOE's final rule analysis. In summary, DOE did not screen 
out the following technology options:
CFL Design Options
 Highly Emissive Electrode Coatings
 Higher Efficiency Lamp Fill Gas Composition
 Higher Efficiency Phosphors
 Glass Coatings
 Cold Spot Optimization
 Improved Ballast Components
 Improved Ballast Circuit Design
 Higher Efficiency Reflector Coatings
 Change to LEDs
LED Design Options
 Efficient Down Converters (with the exception of quantum dot 
technologies)
 Improved Package Architectures
 Alternative Substrate Materials
 Improved Thermal Interface Materials

[[Page 28893]]

 Improved LED Device Architectures
 Optimized Heat Sink Design
 Active Thermal Management Systems
 Improved Primary Optics
 Improved Secondary Optics
 Improved Driver Design
 Reduced Current Density

    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 rule TSD.

D. Engineering Analysis

    The purpose of the engineering analysis is to establish the 
relationship between the efficiency and cost of GSLs. 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 rulemaking, DOE applied an efficiency-level approach. For 
GSLs, ELs are determined as lumens per watt which is also referred to 
as the lamp's efficacy (see section IV.A.4 of this document). DOE 
derives ELs in the engineering analysis and end-user prices in the cost 
analysis. DOE estimates the end-user price of GSLs directly because 
reverse-engineering a lamp is impractical as the lamps are not easily 
disassembled. By combining the results of the engineering analysis and 
the cost analysis, DOE derives typical inputs for use in the LCC and 
NIA. Section IV.D.2 of this document discusses the cost analysis (see 
chapter 5 of the final rule TSD for further details).
    The engineering analysis is generally based on commercially 
available lamps that incorporate the design options identified in the 
technology assessment and screening analysis. See chapters 3 and 4 of 
the final rule TSD for further information on technology and design 
options. For the January 2023 NOPR engineering analysis, DOE developed 
a lamps database using data from manufacturer catalogs, ENERGY STAR 
Certified Light Bulbs database,\37\ DOE's compliance certification 
database,\38\ and retailer websites. DOE used performance data of lamps 
from these sources in the following general order of priority: DOE's 
compliance certification database, manufacturer catalog, ENERGY STAR 
database, and retailer websites. In addition, DOE reviewed applicable 
lamps in the CEC's Appliance Efficiency Database.\39\ 88 FR 1638, 1659. 
For this final rule analysis, DOE updated this database in mid-2022 
with the most recent data available from these data sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ The most recent ENERGY STAR Certified Light Bulbs database 
can be found at www.energystar.gov/productfinder/product/certified-light-bulbs/results (last accessed June 17, 2020).
    \38\ DOE's compliance certification database can be found at 
www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/#q=Product_Group_s%3A* 
(last accessed June 17, 2020).
    \39\ The most recent CEC Appliance Efficiency Database can be 
found at www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/ (last accessed June 17, 
2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The methodology consists of the following steps: (1) selecting 
representative product classes, (2) selecting baseline lamps, (3) 
identifying more efficacious substitutes, and (4) developing efficiency 
levels by directly analyzing representative product classes and then 
scaling those efficiency levels to non-representative product classes. 
The details of the engineering analysis are discussed in chapter 5 of 
the final rule 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 and/or unique characteristics. DOE 
then scales its analytical findings for those representative product 
classes to other product classes that are not directly analyzed.
    In the January 2023 NOPR, DOE proposed to establish eight product 
classes: (1) Integrated Omnidirectional Short Standby Mode, (2) 
Integrated Omnidirectional Short Non-standby Mode, (3) Integrated 
Directional Standby Mode, (4) Integrated Directional Non-standby Mode, 
(5) Integrated Omnidirectional Long, (6) Non-integrated Omnidirectional 
Short, (7) Non-integrated Omnidirectional Long, and (8) Non-integrated 
Directional. Because of the distinctive difference in design, the 
Directional and Omnidirectional product classes cannot be scaled from 
each other and were directly analyzed. For the same reasons, Long (45 
inches or longer) and Short (shorter than 45 inches) product classes as 
well as Integrated (all components within lamp) and Non-integrated 
(ballast/driver external to lamp) were directly analyzed. The exception 
was that DOE scaled the Non-integrated Omnidirectional Long product 
class from the Integrated Omnidirectional Long product class. DOE 
determined that lamps in both these product classes are same in shape 
and size, and tentatively concluded the internal versus external 
components would not preclude them from being scaled from or to one 
another. 88 FR 1638, 1659-1660.
    DOE did not receive any comments on the product classes chosen to 
be representative. In this final rule, DOE continues to directly 
analyze (i.e., consider as representative) the product

[[Page 28894]]

classes in the January 2023 NOPR and shown in grey shading in table 
IV.4. See details in chapter 5 of this final rule TSD.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.014

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.
    Because certain products within the scope of this rulemaking have 
existing standards, GSLs that fall within the same product class as 
these lamps must meet the existing standard in order to prevent 
backsliding of current standards in violation of EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(1)) Specifically, the Integrated Omnidirectional Short product 
class consists of MBCFLs for which there are existing DOE standards. 
The other product classes do not have existing DOE standards but are 
subject to the statutory backstop requirement of 45 lm/W. In the 
January 2023 NOPR, DOE selected baseline lamps that are the most 
common, least efficacious lamps that meet existing energy conservation 
standards. Specific lamp characteristics were used to characterize the 
most common lamps purchased by consumers (e.g., wattage, CCT, CRI, and 
lumen output). 88 FR 1638, 1660-1661. Because incandescent and halogen 
lamps cannot meet the 45 lm/W backstop requirement for GSLs, DOE did 
not analyze these lamps at the baseline or at higher ELs in the January 
2023 NOPR.
    NEMA stated that its member companies have noted for years that 
DOE's analyses do not account for the ongoing importation of non-
compliant outlawed lamps that NEMA members will not manufacture. NEMA 
commented that, by its estimation, there are hundreds of GSL 
manufacturers globally who do not follow DOE regulations and instead 
circumvent legal challenges by closing and reopening their businesses 
under a variety of names. NEMA stated that it would be much closer to 
agreeing with DOE's baseline lamp selections if the selections 
reflected the market impact of these illicit offerings. (NEMA, No. 183 
at p. 8)
    DOE does not find that the baseline lamp characteristics identified 
in the January 2023 NOPR are invalid. DOE's analyses for rulemakings 
assume compliance with current applicable standards. DOE's Office of 
Enforcement leads DOE's efforts to ensure manufacturers deliver 
products that meet energy conservation standards.\40\ DOE also provides 
information on its website on how to report on any regulation 
violations (see www.energy.gov/gc/report-appliance-regulation-violation). DOE would welcome any information that NEMA may have on 
potentially non-compliant manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ DOE, ``Office of the Assistant General Counsel for 
Enforcement.'' Available at www.energy.gov/gc/office-assistant-general-counsel-enforcement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this final rule, DOE continues to analyze the baseline lamps 
identified in the January 2023 NOPR as shown in table IV.5. See chapter 
5 of this final rule TSD for further details.

[[Page 28895]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.015

c. More Efficacious Substitutes
    In the January 2023 NOPR, DOE selected more-efficacious 
replacements for the baseline lamps considered within each 
representative product class. DOE considered only technologies that met 
all five criteria in the screening analysis. These selections were made 
such that the more efficacious substitute lamp saved energy and had 
light output within 10 percent of the baseline lamp's light output, 
when possible. DOE also sought to keep characteristics of substitute 
lamps, such as CCT, CRI, and lifetime, as similar as possible to the 
baseline lamps. DOE selected more efficacious substitutes with the same 
base type as the baseline lamp since replacing a lamp with a lamp of a 
different base type would potentially require a fixture or socket 
change and thus is considered an unlikely replacement. In identifying 
the more efficacious substitutes, DOE utilized the lamps database of 
commercially available GSLs it developed for this analysis (see section 
IV.D.1 of this document). 88 FR 1638, 1662. As noted, non-integrated 
lamps are operated on an external ballast or driver. Hence for the Non-
integrated Omnidirectional Short product class, DOE compiled catalog 
data of non-integrated CFL ballasts in order to estimate the system 
power ratings and initial lumen outputs of the representative lamp-and-
ballast systems in this class. A lamp-and-ballast system input power 
depends on the total lamp arc power operated by the ballast and the 
ballast's efficiency, or BLE. 88 FR 1638, 1664.
    DOE received comments regarding the Non-integrated Omnidirectional 
Short product class. Westinghouse stated that the G24q base lamp 
identified for the Non-integrated Omnidirectional Short product class 
is likely not omnidirectional and therefore, may not be the best lamp 
to analyze. Westinghouse stated that LED lamps designed to replace pin 
base CFLs are not actually omnidirectional but directional lamps 
designed to be used in specific luminaires based on the direction the 
consumer desires light to flow, and therefore, possibly not the right 
lamp type to use. (Westinghouse, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 27 at 
p. 54)
    In DOE's analysis of the LED replacements for pin base CFLs, DOE 
reviewed marketing information and lamp specification sheets and spoke 
to manufacturers' product support. Based on this review, it is clear 
that the more efficacious LED lamps identified for the Non-integrated 
Omnidirectional Short product class are designed and marketed to be 
replacements for pin base CFLs. These LED lamps have shapes and base 
types designed to fit in existing fixtures that employ pin base CFLs. 
Additionally, as noted in the January 2023 NOPR, DOE learned that 
because the LED lamp replacements for pin base CFLs identified are 
designed to emit light in one direction, they emit fewer lumens than 
their CFL counterparts which are designed to emit light in all 
directions (i.e., omnidirectional). Therefore, in a fixture the 26 W 
CFL and its equivalent LED lamp emit similar lumen outputs, as some of 
the CFL omnidirectional light is lost within the fixture. 88 FR 1638, 
1663. Hence, DOE groups pin base CFLs and their replacement pin base 
LED lamps in the Non-integrated Omnidirectional Short product class. To 
minimize any confusion, in the table that will codify in the CFR 
standards adopted in this final rule, DOE is specifying that the Non-
integrated Omnidirectional Short product class includes pin base LED 
lamps designed and marketed to replace pin base CFLs (see section 
IV.B.2.f of this document).
    In this final rule, DOE maintains the more efficacious substitutes 
selected in the January 2023 NOPR as shown in table IV.6 through table 
IV.10. (In these tables the A-value is a variable in the equation form 
(a curve) that specifies the minimum efficacy standard for GSLs. The A-
value specifies the height of the equation form and thereby indicates 
the level of efficacy (see section IV.D.1.d of this document)). DOE 
also continues to use the methodology used in the January 2023 NOPR to 
calculate the lamp-and-ballast system input power of the more 
efficacious substitutes in Non-integrated Omnidirectional Short product 
class. See chapter 5 of this final rule TSD for further details.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

[[Page 28896]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.016

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.017

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.018


[[Page 28897]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.019

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.020

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
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.
    In the January 2023 NOPR, using the more efficacious substitutes 
identified, DOE developed ELs for each representative product class 
based on the consideration of several factors, including: (1) the 
design options associated with the specific lamps being studied (e.g., 
grades of phosphor for CFLs, improved package architecture for LED 
lamps); (2) the ability of lamps across the applicable lumen range to 
comply with the standard level of a given product class; and (3) the 
max-tech level. Additionally, in the January 2023 NOPR, using the lamps 
database of commercially available GSLs, DOE conducted regression 
analyses to identify the equation form that best fits the GSL data. DOE 
determined a sigmoid equation is the best fit equation form to capture 
the relationship between wattage and lumens across all ranges for GSLs. 
The equation determines the minimum efficacy based on the measured 
lumen output of the lamp. The A-value in the equations is a value that 
can be changed to move the equation curve up or down and thereby change 
the minimum required efficacy. 88 FR 1638, 1665. DOE did not receive 
comments on the equation form used to set ELs in the January 2023 NOPR. 
In this final rule, DOE is continuing to use the same equation form as 
it is shown in table IV.11.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.021


[[Page 28898]]


    DOE received comments on higher efficiency levels considered in the 
January 2023 NOPR that are detailed in the following sections.
Max-Tech
    ASAP et al. stated DOE should reevaluate max-tech ELs presented in 
the January 2023 NOPR because DOE's analysis was based on lamp models 
available in June 2020 and lamps with higher efficacies appear to be 
currently available. Specifically, ASAP et al. stated that ENERGY STAR 
listed a 5.9 W, 800 lumen integrated omnidirectional short lamp with an 
efficacy of 135.6 lm/W while DOE had presented the max-tech lamp at 
124.6 lm/W for the same lamp type at the same lumens. ASAP et al. and 
NYSERDA stated that integrated omnidirectional short lamps available in 
Europe have efficacies as high as 200 lm/W. (ASAP et al., No. 174 at p. 
2; NYSERDA, No. 166 at pp. 1-2)
    CLASP also expressed concern that the LED lamp data on which DOE 
based its analysis is from mid-2020 and therefore, does not reflect 
products on the market today. CLASP stated that as a result, DOE's 
proposal uses efficacy levels that are too low and prices for LED lamps 
that are too high. CLASP commented that LED products are continuing to 
improve by around 5 percent per annum as projected by DOE's own SSL R&D 
program, and therefore, using older lamps means ELs are about 15 
percent too low. (CLASP, No. 177 at p. 1) NYSERDA commented that the 
proposed max-tech levels are significantly below the technical 
potential across LED products and, as shown by DOE's Solid State 
Lighting research efforts, LEDs have the potential to reach 200 lm/W or 
higher. (NYSERDA, No. 166 at pp. 1-2)
    In the January 2023 NOPR, DOE developed a lamps database using data 
from manufacturer catalogs, ENERGY STAR Certified Light Bulbs database, 
DOE's compliance certification database, and retailer websites. In 
addition, DOE reviewed applicable lamps in the CEC's Appliance 
Efficiency Database. This data was collected in June 2020 (see 
footnoted citations in January 2023 NOPR). 88 FR 1638, 1659. For this 
final rule analysis, DOE updated the lamps database with data collected 
mid-2022. Using this updated data, DOE reviewed the max-tech levels and 
determined that no changes are necessary from what was proposed in the 
January 2023 NOPR.
    Regarding the 5.9 W integrated omnidirectional short lamp at 135.6 
lm/W cited by ASAP et al., this lamp has a CRI in the 90s. As stated in 
section IV.D.1.b of this document, DOE's analysis ensures that the 
baseline lamp just meet standards and has characteristics similar to 
the most common lamps purchased by consumers in the respective product 
classes (e.g., wattage, CCT, CRI, and lumen output). Because the 
baseline lamp for the Integrated Omnidirectional Short product class 
has a CRI in the 80s, DOE did not consider lamps with CRIs in the 90s 
as appropriate substitutes. Hence, DOE did not identify the 5.9 W lamp 
at 135.6 lm/W as a more efficacious substitute representative of an EL. 
(See table IV.5 and January 2023 NOPR (88 FR 1638, 1661)). Regarding 
projections of LED efficacy increases by DOE's SSL R&D, as noted in 
section IV.C of this document, design options used to establish ELs 
must meet five screen criteria, including practicability to 
manufacture, install, and service. Hence, DOE bases its analysis on 
lamps that use design options that are incorporated in commercially 
available products or working prototypes, and not projected efficacies.
    NEMA stated the max-tech level proposed in the January 2023 NOPR 
for linear LED lamps should not be considered. NEMA stated that linear 
LED lamps are designed to provide the same illumination levels as 
fluorescent tubes but with lower lumens by utilizing internal luminaire 
optics to redirect light where it is needed while fluorescent tubes 
emit light in all directions. NEMA added that because LED tubes are 
intended to produce the same delivered lumen output to a target area, 
considering more efficacious substitute lamps that provide lower lumens 
may hinder manufacturers from producing lamps able to provide the 
appropriate amount of light to meet the max-tech performance standard 
of EL 7. (NEMA, No. 183 at p. 20)
    The Integrated Omnidirectional Long product class consists of 
linear tubular LED lamps 45 inches or longer that are Type B or Type A/
B (i.e., have an internal driver and connect to the main line voltage). 
In the January 2023 NOPR for this product class, DOE identified a 15 W 
4-foot T8 linear LED lamp with a medium bipin base, 1,800 lumens, 
lifetime of 50,000 hours, CRI of 80, and CCT of 4,000 K as the baseline 
lamp (see table IV.5). 88 FR 1638, 1661. In its engineering analysis, 
DOE identifies more efficacious substitutes that save energy, have 
light output within 10 percent of baseline lamp, and have 
characteristics similar to this baseline lamp. Lumen output is kept 
constant within the 10 percent tolerance to ensure consumer utility of 
more efficacious substitutes. Hence for the Integrated Omnidirectional 
Long product class lumen outputs of more efficacious substitutes at 
each EL including at the max-tech level were within 10 percent of the 
baseline lamp lumens (see table IV.7). 88 FR 1638, 1663. Further, as 
noted in section IV.D.1, in the January 2023 NOPR, and in this final 
rule, DOE used a database of commercially available lamps to identify 
baseline lamps and more efficacious substitutes. Hence, the max-tech 
level for this product class is based on commercially available linear 
LED lamps and therefore is technologically feasible.
Quality Metrics
    The CEC acknowledged that DOE stated in the January 2023 NOPR that 
there is value in ensuring a range of lamp characteristics such as 
lumens, CRI, and CCT are available at max-tech levels. The CEC stated, 
however, that when evaluating technological feasibility of max-tech or 
minimum lumen-per-watt requirements DOE should, in addition to raising 
minimum efficacy levels, consider other lamp quality characteristics 
such as color fidelity, noise, flicker, and rated life. (CEC, No. 176 
at pp. 2-3) The CEC commented that California has shown that high-
efficacy, high-quality LEDs are both economically justified and 
technologically feasible, and DOE should establish minimum energy 
conservation standards that encourage innovation and provide consumers 
with the best options for general illumination. The CEC added that such 
standards will ensure a robust lamp market that saves consumers money, 
reduce the unnecessary consumption of energy, and address climate 
change by avoiding the release of unnecessary GHGs. (CEC, No. 176 at p. 
5)
    Further, the CEC stated its concern that not considering quality 
characteristics in the development of efficiency levels would result in 
a race to the bottom (e.g., a driverless lamp that achieves a slightly 
higher lm/W by avoiding AC to DC-conversion at the cost of flickering). 
The CEC stated that inclusion of quality characteristics in DOE's 
analysis would ensure that lamps with higher quality emitters and 
drivers are not excluded from or disadvantaged in the U.S. market. 
Further, the CEC commented that DOE's consideration of quality 
characteristics would provide the opportunity for California to align 
its existing and future minimum efficiency levels for GSLs more closely 
with Federal levels. The CEC stated that it is not recommending the 
creation of a separate product class for high-quality lighting because 
a single standard that

[[Page 28899]]

recognizes quality as an essential element of max-tech would be 
preferable. The CEC stated that it does, however, see establishing a 
separate product class based on specific quality criteria as an 
alternative for balancing quality and energy performance concerns, as 
well as ensuring a compliance path for high-performing products without 
lowering energy efficiency standards for baseline products. (CEC, No. 
176 at pp. 2-3)
    Additionally, the CEC requested that DOE consider the lumen 
disadvantage of providing good color rendering, in particular of red 
light. The CEC stated that lumens factor in the eye's perception of 
brightness according to a particular wavelength resulting in a 
disincentive to use red light in the lamp's spectrum as 1 unit of green 
light is worth 10 units of red light at the same power. The CEC stated 
this creates a conflict between costs, consumer preferences, and the 
lm/W standard, and is particularly impactful for consumers that prefer 
light at 2700 K, which has more red light. (CEC, No. 176 at pp. 2-3)
    In its comment the CEC names color fidelity, noise, flicker and 
rated life as parameters to consider when evaluating minimum efficiency 
levels. In this analysis, DOE takes into account lamp characteristics 
provided in manufacturer's lamp specification sheets. Parameters 
specific to noise and flicker are not typically provided as part of 
lamp specifications and therefore DOE was unable to consider them. 
DOE's analysis does not focus only on whether a lamp has a higher 
efficacy. As mentioned in the CEC's comment DOE confirms that a range 
of lamp characteristics such as lumens, lifetime, CCT, and CRI are 
available at the highest levels of ELs considered, including lamps that 
offer good color rendering such as lamps with CRI in the 90s and high 
lifetimes such as lamps with 50,000 hours.
    Further as stated in sections IV.D.1.b and IV.D.1.d of this 
document, DOE identifies baseline lamps that have characteristics 
typical of the product class such as CCT, CRI, and lifetime, and 
selects more efficacious substitutes that have similar characteristics. 
Hence DOE ensures that characteristics common for lamps on the market 
are not sacrificed at higher ELs. A lamp able to both achieve a set of 
characteristics common in the market and a higher efficacy is 
indicative of a product that meets consumer preferences as well as 
energy efficiency. Hence, DOE finds that DOE's analysis accounts for 
quality of lamps.
Anti-Backsliding Provision
    In the January 2023 NOPR, because the Integrated Omnidirectional 
Short product class consists of MBCFLs which have existing standards, 
DOE assessed whether the initial ELs are equal to or more stringent 
than the existing standards (i.e., that backsliding would not occur if 
the proposed ELs were adopted) and ensured that the proposed ELs did 
not result in less stringent standards than existing ones in violation 
of EPCA's anti-backsliding provision. DOE determined that for products 
with lumens less than 424, the initial EL 1 equation would result in an 
efficacy requirement less than the 45 lm/W MBCFL standard. Similarly, 
for products with lumens less than 371, the initial EL 2 equation would 
result in an efficacy requirement less than the 45 lm/W MBCFL standard. 
Hence, DOE proposed at EL 1 and EL 2 products with respectively, lumens 
less than 424 and lumens less than 371 must meet a minimum efficacy 
requirement of 45 lm/W and for all other lumen ranges meet the minimum 
efficacy requirement based on the equation line of EL 1 or EL 2, as 
applicable. 88 FR 1638, 1655-1656. DOE did not propose lumen ranges at 
which the minimum efficacy requirement must be the 45 lm/W standard and 
not the equation line for any other product classes.
    Westinghouse stated the proposed EL 1 and EL 2 for the Non-
integrated Omnidirectional Short (no standby mode) product class may 
also require minimums to prevent falling below the current standard. 
Specifically, Westinghouse stated at 310 to about 400 lumens, products 
fall below 45 lm/W. (Westinghouse, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 27 at 
pp. 64-65)
    In this final rule, DOE reviewed potential backsliding resulting 
from ELs under consideration for all product classes, as all product 
classes are subject to the 45 lm/W backstop requirement. Based on this 
analysis, for the Integrated Omnidirectional Short (not capable of 
operating on standby mode) product class, DOE identified an error in 
its calculation of the lumen range that would result in an efficacy 
requirement less than the 45 lm/W. DOE is correcting that error in this 
final rule. For the Integrated Omnidirectional Short product class (not 
capable of operating on standby mode) for products with lumens less 
than 425 (rather than 424 as specified in the January 2023 NOPR), the 
initial EL 1 equation would result in an efficacy requirement less than 
the 45 lm/W standard. Similarly, for products with lumens less than 372 
(rather than 371 as specified in the January 2023 NOPR), the initial EL 
2 equation would result in an efficacy requirement less than the 45 lm/
W standard. Hence, at EL 1 and EL 2, products with, respectively, 
lumens less than 425 and lumens less than 372 must meet a minimum 
efficacy requirement of 45 lm/W. Regarding other lumen ranges, at EL 1, 
products with lumens equal to 425 and less than or equal to 3,300 meet 
the minimum efficacy requirement based on the equation line of EL 1; 
and at EL 2, products with lumens equal to 372 and less than or equal 
to 3,300 lumens meet the minimum efficacy requirement based on the 
equation line of EL 2.
    Further, DOE determined that for the Non-Integrated Omnidirectional 
Short product class for products with lumens less than 637, the initial 
EL 1 equation would result in an efficacy requirement less than the 45 
lm/W standard. Similarly, for products with lumens less than 332, the 
initial EL 2 equation, would result in an efficacy requirement less 
than the 45 lm/W standard. Therefore, at EL 1 and EL 2 products with 
respectively, lumens less than 637 and lumens less than 332 must meet a 
minimum efficacy requirement of 45 lm/W. Regarding other lumen ranges, 
at EL 1, products with lumens equal to 637 and less than or equal to 
3300 meet the minimum efficacy requirement based on the equation line 
of EL 1; and at EL 2 products with lumens equal to 332 and less than or 
equal to 3,300 lumens meet the minimum efficacy requirement based on 
the equation line of EL 2.
e. Scaling of Non-Representative Product Classes
    In this January 2023 NOPR, DOE scaled the Non-integrated 
Omnidirectional Long product class from the representative Integrated 
Omnidirectional Long product class because the lamps in these product 
classes are the same in shape and size, and therefore could be scaled 
from or to one another. Because the linear shapes are substantively 
more prevalent than the U-shape lamps, DOE compared efficacies of 
linear tubular LED lamp pairs that had the same manufacturer, initial 
lumen output, length, CCT, lifetime, CRI range in the 80s and differed 
only in being integrated (Type B \41\) or non-integrated (Type A). 
Based

[[Page 28900]]

on this analysis, DOE applied a 10.7 percent efficacy increase to the 
efficacy at each EL of the Integrated Omnidirectional Long product 
class to calculate the efficacies of ELs for the Non-integrated 
Omnidirectional Long product class. The scaled efficacies of the ELs 
were then used to calculate the corresponding A-values. 88 FR 1638, 
1667. DOE received no comments on the scaling of the Non-integrated 
Omnidirectional Long product class. In this final rule, DOE continues 
to use the methodology and results of this approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Type A lamps have an internal driver and connect to the 
existing fluorescent lamp ballast; (2) Type B lamps have an internal 
driver and connect to the main line voltage; and (3) Type C lamps 
connect to an external, remote driver. In this analysis, DOE 
considers Type A and Type C lamps as non-integrated lamps because 
they require an external component to operate, whereas Type B and 
Type A/B lamps are integrated lamps as they can be directly 
connected to the main line voltage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the January 2023 NOPR, DOE scaled standby product classes from 
similar non-standby product classes. Based on test data, DOE found that 
standby power consumption was 0.5 W or less for the vast majority of 
lamps available. Therefore, DOE assumed a typical wattage constant for 
standby mode power consumption of 0.5 W and added this wattage to the 
rated wattage of the non-standby mode representative units to calculate 
the expected efficacy of lamps with the addition of standby mode 
functionality. DOE then used the expected efficacy of the lamps with 
the addition of standby mode functionality at each efficiency level to 
calculate the corresponding A-value. DOE assumed the lumens for a lamp 
with the addition of standby mode functionality were the same as for 
the non-standby mode representative units. 88 FR 1638, 1667.
    DOE received comments on its approach of scaling standby mode 
product classes. ASAP et al. stated that DOE should set a separate 
standard for standby mode rather than the proposed integrated efficacy 
metric that combines standby mode and active mode power. ASAP et al. 
stated that a seemingly small tradeoff between active and standby mode 
wattage would result in a large percent increase in annual energy 
consumed due to the significantly greater number of operating hours in 
standby mode compared to active mode. ASAP et al. commented that, given 
DOE's estimates that 50 percent of lamps will include standby power by 
the end of the analysis period, failing to incorporate standby power in 
a way that captures its contribution to total energy use could have 
significant implications for national energy consumption associated 
with GSLs. ASAP et al. stated that if DOE decides not to set a separate 
standby standard, it should use a standby value of 0.2 W in setting the 
efficacy levels for lamps with standby power. ASAP et al. stated that, 
in the January 2023 NOPR, DOE stated that it used 0.2 W in the 
calculation of lamp unit energy consumption for all lamps with standby 
power because California requires state-regulated LED lamps to have 
standby power less than 0.2 W and it is likely that manufacturers sell 
the same lamp model across the United States. ASAP et al. stated that, 
when determining the standards for products with standby power, DOE 
instead used 0.5 W as a conservative estimate of standby power. ASAP et 
al. further stated that, while it acknowledges DOE performed standby 
mode power testing, there are also nearly 2,400 models of GSLs in 
California's compliance database meeting the 0.2 W standby power 
minimum. (ASAP et al., No. 174 at pp. 3-5) The CEC also recommended 
that DOE set a separate standard limiting standby mode power 
consumption to 0.2 W in alignment with California's standards, rather 
than a power that varies with a lamp's lumen output. The CEC provided 
the example that based on DOE's current proposal for integrated 
omnidirectional short lamps, the standby power is about 0.5 W for 800 
lumen lamps and would be 1.9 W for 3,300 lumen lamps. It noted that 
over 700 connected lamp models certified to the CEC database meet the 
0.2 W standby mode power consumption requirement. (CEC, No. 176 at p. 
4)
    In the January 2023 NOPR, DOE tentatively determined that an 
integrated metric for active mode and standby mode was the most 
appropriate approach for establishing ELs for standby mode product 
classes. Hence, in the January 2023 NOPR, for GSLs with standby mode 
functionality, the energy efficiency standards set an assumed power 
consumption attributable to standby mode. It is possible for a lamp 
with standby mode power consumption greater than the assumed value to 
comply with the applicable energy efficiency standard, but only if the 
decreased efficiency of standby mode was offset by an increased 
efficiency in active mode. This ability for manufacturers to trade off 
efficiency between active mode efficiency and standby mode efficiency 
is a function of integrating the efficiencies into a single standard 
and is consistent with EPCA. EPCA directs DOE to incorporate, if 
feasible, standby mode and active mode into a single standard. (42 
U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)(A)) The integration of efficacies of multiple modes 
into a single standard allows for this type of trade-off. The combined 
energy consumption of a GSL in active mode and standby mode must result 
in an efficiency that is equal to or less than the applicable standard. 
88 FR 1639, 1667.
    Because an integrated metric provides flexibility in lamp design 
and a balance of active mode and standby mode efficiency in a lamp, DOE 
continues to use this approach in this final rule for determining the 
ELs for standby mode product classes. Regarding the use of 0.2 W 
instead of 0.5 W, as stated in the January 2023 NOPR, DOE found that 
standby power consumption was 0.5 W or less for the vast majority of 
lamps available. 88 FR 1638, 1667. (See appendix 5A of the final rule 
TSD for more information on the test results.) The purpose of the 
energy use analysis is to estimate representative values of actual 
energy consumption. The significant number of lamps available that 
consume 0.2 W or less in standby power and the requirement that lamps 
with standby power sold in California (a significant fraction of the 
GSL market) consume less than 0.2 W continues to suggest that 0.2 W is 
a reasonable estimate of representative standby energy consumption (see 
section IV.E of this document for further details on the energy use 
analysis). In this final rule, DOE is continuing to take a conservative 
approach because this is still a developing market and using 0.5 W as 
it did in the January 2023 NOPR to scale the ELs for standby mode 
product classes from the ELs of similar non-standby mode power classes.
f. Summary of All Efficacy Levels
    Table IV.12 displays the efficacy requirements for each level 
analyzed by product class. The non-standby and standby Integrated 
Omnidirectional Short and Non-Integrated Omnidirectional product 
classes EL 1 and EL 2 have different requirements for lower and higher 
lumens. This is to ensure that lamps in the Integrated Omnidirectional 
Short product classes already subject to an existing standard are not 
subject to a less stringent standard (i.e., that backsliding in 
violation of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1) is not occurring) (see section 
IV.D.1.d of this document for further information). The representative 
product classes are shown in grey, and all others are scaled product 
classes. (Note: In the January 2023 NOPR, for the Integrated 
Omnidirectional Long product class DOE had decided to lower the A-value 
of EL 6 (max tech level) from 74.1 to 71.7. 88 FR 1638, 1666. However, 
in table VI.15, ``Proposed Efficacy Levels of GSLs'' and table VII.30, 
``Proposed Amended Energy Conservation Standards for GSLs'' in the 
January 2023 NOPR, the A-value appeared as 74.1 instead of 71.7. 88 FR 
1638, 1668, 1708. This has been corrected in the table below and all 
relevant tables in this final rule.)
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

[[Page 28901]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.022


[[Page 28902]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.023

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
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, the availability and timeliness of purchasing the GSLs on the 
market. The cost approaches are summarized as follows physical 
teardowns:
    Under this approach, DOE physically dismantles a commercially 
available product, component-by-component, to develop a detailed bill 
of materials for the product.
     Catalog teardowns: In lieu of physically deconstructing a 
product, DOE identifies each component using parts diagrams (available 
from manufacturer websites or appliance repair websites, for example) 
to develop the bill of materials for the product.
     Price surveys: If neither a physical nor catalog teardown 
is feasible (for example, for tightly integrated products such as 
fluorescent lamps, which are infeasible to disassemble and for which 
parts diagrams are unavailable) or cost-prohibitive and otherwise 
impractical (e.g. large commercial boilers), DOE conducts price surveys 
using publicly available pricing data published on major online 
retailer websites and/or by soliciting prices from distributors and 
other commercial channels.
    In the present case, DOE conducted the analysis using a price 
survey approach. Typically, DOE develops manufacturing selling prices 
(``MSPs'') for covered products and applies markups to create end-user 
prices to use as inputs to the LCC analysis and NIA. Because GSLs are 
difficult to reverse-engineer (i.e., not easily disassembled), DOE 
directly derives end-user prices for the lamps covered in this 
rulemaking. The end-user price refers to the product price a consumer 
pays before tax and installation. Because non-integrated CFLs operate 
with a ballast in practice, DOE also developed prices for ballasts that 
operate those lamps.
    In the January 2023 NOPR, DOE reviewed and used publicly available 
retail prices to develop end-user prices for GSLs. DOE observed a range 
of end-user prices paid for a lamp, depending on the distribution 
channel through which the lamp was purchased. DOE identified the 
following four main distribution channels: Small Consumer-Based 
Distributors (i.e., internet

[[Page 28903]]

retailers); Large Consumer-Based Distributors: (i.e., home centers, 
mass merchants, and hardware stores); Electrical Distributors; and 
State Procurement. For each distribution channel, DOE calculated an 
aggregate price for the representative lamp unit at each EL using the 
average prices for the representative lamp unit and similar lamp 
models. DOE ensured there was sufficient data to determine average 
prices and employed the interquartile range (IQR) calculation, a common 
statistical rule used to identify outliers in a dataset. When 
sufficient data were not available at a specific distribution channel 
to develop a representative unit price at an EL, DOE extrapolated 
pricing from lamps in the product class as similar as possible to the 
representative unit and with available pricing data. DOE employed price 
trends observed from the larger dataset of GSL prices as well as 
scaling factors. 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), 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 four main distribution 
channels analyzed. DOE then calculated an average weighted end-user 
price using estimated shipments through each distribution channel. For 
shipment weightings, DOE used one set of shipment percentages 
reflecting commercial products for the Non-integrated Omnidirectional 
Short, Non-integrated Directional, and Integrated Omnidirectional Long 
product classes and another set of shipment percentages reflecting 
residential products for the Integrated Omnidirectional Short and 
Integrated Directional product classes. DOE grouped the Integrated 
Omnidirectional Long product class in the commercial product categories 
as these are mainly linear tubular LED lamps used as replacements for 
linear fluorescents in commercial spaces. DOE also determined prices 
for CFL ballasts by comparing the blue book prices of CFL ballasts with 
comparable fluorescent lamp ballasts and developing a scaling factor to 
apply to the end-user prices of the fluorescent lamp ballasts developed 
for the final rule that was published on November 14, 2011. 76 FR 
70548. 88 FR 1638, 1669.
    NEMA stated that it could not comment on end-user pricing and 
referred DOE to individual manufacturer interviews. (NEMA, No. 183 at 
p. 1) The CA IOUs stated their interest in whether DOE accounted for 
the impact of mid and upstream energy efficiency program incentives on 
its retail prices. The CA IOUs stated that DOE's collected retail 
prices may reflect, depending on the geographic region and rebate 
program, significant rebates that are applied further up the 
distribution channel stream and not reflected in manufacturer costs. 
(CA IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 27 at pp. 74-75)
    When collecting retail prices, DOE recorded the regular prices 
rather than any discounted or sale prices specified by the retailer. 
DOE made no adjustment to retail prices for rebate programs. Rebate 
programs can vary in terms of geography, rebate amount as well as to 
the extent they are utilized, among other things. Hence it is difficult 
for DOE to determine the impact of mid or upstream rebate programs on 
retail price, if any, that is consistently applicable at a national 
level. The cost analysis in this rulemaking employs a consistent 
methodology in developing the final consumer prices that are used in 
the LCC analysis and development of MPC and MSP. Further, EPA's ENERGY 
STAR Lighting Program has noted that in recent years utility programs 
have been declining in anticipation of Federal standards, which would 
result in a new baseline that would make it difficult for utilities to 
justify their rebates.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ EPA ENERGY STAR Lighting Program, ``ENERGY STAR Lighting 
Sunset Proposal Memo.'' Available at: www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/asset/document/ENERGY%20STAR%20Lighting%20Sunset%20Proposal%20Memo.pdf (last 
accessed Aug. 22, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Hence, in this final rule, DOE continues to use the methodology and 
results of the cost analysis as determined in the January 2023 NOPR. 
The end-user prices are detailed in chapter 5 of the final rule TSD. 
These end-user prices are used to determine an MSP using a distribution 
chain markup. DOE developed an average distribution chain markup by 
examining the annual Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'') 10-K 
reports filed by publicly traded retail stores that sell GSLs. See 
section IV.J.2.a of this document for further details.

E. Energy Use Analysis

    The purpose of the energy use analysis is to determine the annual 
energy consumption of GSLs 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 GSL 
efficacy. The energy use analysis estimates the range of energy use of 
GSLs 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. To develop annual energy use estimates, DOE 
multiplied GSL input power by the number of hours of use (``HOU'') per 
year and a factor representing the impact of controls.
    DOE analyzed energy use in the residential and commercial sectors 
separately but did not explicitly analyze GSLs installed in the 
industrial sector. This is because far fewer GSLs are installed in that 
sector compared to the commercial sector, and the average operating 
hours for GSLs in the two sectors were assumed to be approximately 
equal. In the energy use and subsequent analyses, DOE analyzed these 
sectors together (using data specific to the commercial sector) and 
refers to the combined sector as the commercial sector.
1. Operating Hours
a. Residential Sector
    To determine the average HOU of Integrated Omnidirectional Short 
GSLs in the residential sector, DOE collected data from a number of 
sources. Consistent with the approach taken in the January 2023 NOPR, 
DOE used data from various regional field-metering studies of GSL 
operating hours conducted across the United States. (88 FR 1669-1670) 
DOE determined the regional variation in average HOU using average HOU 
data from the regional metering studies, which are listed in the energy 
use chapter (chapter 6 of the final rule TSD). Specifically, DOE 
determined the average HOU for each of the reportable domains (i.e., 
state, or group of states) used in the EIA 2009 Residential Energy 
Consumption Survey (``RECS'').\43\ For regions without HOU metered 
data, DOE used data from adjacent regions. DOE estimated the national 
weighted-average HOU of Integrated Omnidirectional Short GSLs in the 
residential sector to be 2.3 hours per day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information 
Administration. 2009 RECS Survey Data. Available at www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2009/(last accessed Aug. 1, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For lamps in the other GSL product classes, DOE estimated average 
HOU by scaling the average HOU from the Integrated Omnidirectional 
Short product class. Scaling factors were developed based on the 
distribution of room types that particular lamp types

[[Page 28904]]

(e.g., reflector or linear) are typically installed in, and the 
associated HOU for those room types. Room-specific average HOU data 
came from NEEA's ``2014 Residential Building Stock Assessment Metering 
Study'' (``RBSAM'') \44\ and room distribution data by lamp type came 
from a 2010 KEMA report.\45\ See chapter 6 of this final rule TSD for 
more detail. DOE notes that its approach assumes that the ratio of 
average HOU for reflector or linear lamps to A-line lamps will be 
approximately the same across the United States, even if the average 
HOU varies by geographic location. DOE estimated the national weighted-
average HOU of Integrated Directional and Non-integrated Directional 
GSLs to be 2.9 hours per day and Integrated Omnidirectional Long GSLs 
to be 2.1 hours per day in the residential sector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Ecotope Inc. Residential Building Stock Assessment: 
Metering Study. 2014. Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance: Seattle, 
WA. Report No. E14-283. Available at neea.org/resources/2011-rbsa-metering-study (last accessed Aug. 10, 2023).
    \45\ KEMA, Inc. Final Evaluation Report: Upstream Lighting 
Program: Volume 2. 2010. California Public Utilities Commission, 
Energy Division: Sacramento, CA. Report No. CPU0015.02. 
www.calmac.org/publications/FinalUpstreamLightingEvaluationReport_Vol2_CALMAC.pdf (last accessed 
Aug. 10, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE assumes that operating hours do not vary by light source 
technology. Although some metering studies observed higher hours of 
operation for CFL GSLs compared to all GSLs--such as NMR Group, Inc.'s 
``Northeast Residential Lighting Hours-of-Use Study'' \46\ and the 
``Residential Lighting End-Use Consumption Study'' (``RLEUCS'') \47\--
DOE assumes that the higher HOU found for CFL GSLs were based on those 
lamps disproportionately filling sockets with higher HOU at the time of 
the studies. This would not be the case during the analysis period, 
when CFL and LED GSLs are expected to fill all GSL sockets. DOE assumes 
that it is appropriate to apply the HOU estimate for all GSLs to CFLs 
and LEDs, as only CFLs and LEDs will be available during the analysis 
period, consistent with DOE's approach in the January 2023 NOPR. This 
assumption is equivalent to assuming no rebound in operating hours as a 
result of more efficacious technologies filling sockets currently 
filled by less efficacious technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ NMR Group, Inc. and DNV GL. Northeast Residential Lighting 
Hours-of-Use Study. 2014. Connecticut Energy Efficiency Board, Cape 
Light Compact, Massachusetts Energy Efficiency Advisory Council, 
National Grid Massachusetts, National Grid Rhode Island, New York 
State Energy Research and Development Authority. Available at 
app.box.com/s/o1f3bhbunib2av2wiblu/1/1995940511/17399081887/1 (last 
accessed Aug. 10, 2023).
    \47\ DNV KEMA Energy and Sustainability and Pacific Northwest 
National Laboratory. Residential Lighting End-Use Consumption Study: 
Estimation Framework and Baseline Estimates. 2012. U.S. Department 
of Energy: Washington, DC. Available at: www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/2012_residential-lighting-study.pdf 
(last accessed Aug. 10, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The operating hours of lamps in actual use are known to vary 
significantly based on the room type in which the lamp is located; 
therefore, DOE estimated this variability by developing HOU 
distributions for each room type using data from NEEA's 2014 RBSAM, a 
metering study of 101 single-family houses in the Northwest. DOE 
assumed that the shape of the HOU distribution for a particular room 
type would be the same across the U.S., even if the average HOU for 
that room type varied by geographic location. To determine the 
distribution of GSLs by room type, DOE used data from NEEA's 2016-2017 
RBSAM for single-family homes,\48\ which included GSL room-distribution 
data for more than 700 single-family homes throughout the Northwest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance. ``Residential 
Building Stock Assessment II: Single-Family Homes Report: 2016-
2017.'' 2019. Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance. Available at: 
neea.org/img/uploads/Residential-Building-Stock-Assessment-II-Single-Family-Homes-Report-2016-2017.pdf (last accessed Aug. 10, 
2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the January 2023 NOPR, NEMA agreed with the data and 
methodology DOE used to estimate residential HOU. (NEMA, No. 183 at p. 
15)
b. Commercial Sector
    For each commercial building type presented in the ``2015 U.S. 
Lighting Market Characterization'' (``LMC''), DOE determined average 
HOU based on the fraction of installed lamps utilizing each of the 
light source technologies typically used in GSLs and the HOU for each 
of these light source technologies for integrated omnidirectional 
short, integrated directional, non-integrated directional, and non-
integrated omnidirectional GSLs.\49\ For integrated omnidirectional 
long GSLs, DOE used the data from the 2015 LMC pertaining to linear 
fluorescent lamps. DOE estimated the national-average HOU for the 
commercial sector by mapping the LMC building types to the building 
types used in Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey 
(``CBECS'') 2012,\50\ and then weighting the building-specific HOU for 
GSLs by the relative floor space of each building type as reported in 
the 2015 LMC. The national weighted-average HOU for integrated 
omnidirectional short, integrated directional, non-integrated 
directional, and non-integrated omnidirectional GSLs in the commercial 
sector were estimated at 11.5 hours per day. The national weighted-
average HOU for integrated omnidirectional long GSLs in the commercial 
sector were estimated at 8.1 hours per day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ Navigant Consulting, Inc. ``2015 U.S. Lighting Market 
Characterization.'' 2017. U.S. Department of Energy: Washington, DC. 
Report No. DOE/EE-1719. Available at: Energy.gov/eere/ssl/downloads/2015-us-lighting-market-characterization (last accessed Aug. 10, 
2023).
    \50\ U.S. Department of Energy--Energy Information 
Administration. ``2012 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption 
Survey (CBECS).'' 2012. Available at: www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/data/2012/ (last accessed Aug. 10, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To capture the variability in HOU for individual consumers in the 
commercial sector, DOE used data from NEEA's ``2019 Commercial Building 
Stock Assessment'' (``CBSA'').\51\ Similar to the residential sector, 
DOE assumed that the shape of the HOU distribution from the CBSA was 
similar for the U.S. as a whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ Cadmus Group. Commercial Building Stock Assessment 4 (2019) 
Final Report. 2020. Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance: Seattle, 
WA. neea.org/resources/cbsa-4-2019-final-report (last accessed Aug. 
10, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the January 2023 NOPR, NEMA agreed with the data and 
methodology DOE used to estimate commercial HOU. (NEMA, No. 183 at p. 
15)
2. Input Power
    The input power used in the energy use analysis is the input power 
presented in the engineering analysis (section IV.D.1.c of this 
document) for the representative lamps considered in this rulemaking.
3. Lighting Controls
    For GSLs that operate with controls, DOE assumed an average energy 
reduction of 30 percent, which is based on a meta-analysis of field 
measurements of energy savings from commercial lighting controls by 
Williams, et al.\52\ Because field measurements of energy savings from 
controls in the residential sector are very limited, DOE assumed that 
controls would have the same impact as in the commercial sector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ Williams, A., B. Atkinson, K. Garbesi, E. Page, and F. 
Rubinstein. Lighting Controls in Commercial Buildings. LEUKOS. 2012. 
8(3): pp. 161-180.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the January 2023 NOPR, NEMA commented that the 
results of the meta-analysis DOE relied on to estimate 30 percent 
energy savings are not accurate because LED technology was not in 
general use at that time. NEMA suggested--based on a DesignLights 
Consortium report \53\

[[Page 28905]]

showing average savings of 49 percent for networked lighting controls--
that DOE use a range of 30-49 percent energy savings from controls. 
(NEMA, No. 183 at p. 15) DOE appreciates NEMA identifying this report; 
however, because the meta-analysis DOE has relied on incorporates a 
variety of control strategies, DOE believes the meta-analysis is likely 
more representative of potential savings than the results of a study 
looking only at networked lighting controls. DOE has thus continued to 
use 30 percent energy savings for controls in its reference scenario. 
However, due to the inherent uncertainty in estimating energy savings 
from controls, DOE also analyzed a scenario in which controls are 
assumed to result in a 49 percent reduction in energy use. The results 
of this analysis can be found in appendix 7B of the final rule TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ Wen, Y.-J., E. Kehmeier, T. Kisch, A. Springfield, B. 
Luntz, and M. Frey. Energy Savings from Networked Lighting Control 
(NLC) Systems with and without LLLC. 2020. Energy Solutions: 
Oakland, CA. Available at: www.designlights.org/resources/reports/report-energy-savings-from-networked-lighting-control-nlc-systems-with-and-without-lllc/ (last accessed Aug. 10, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For this final rule, DOE assumed that the controls penetration of 9 
percent reported in the 2015 LMC is representative of integrated 
omnidirectional short GSLs. DOE estimated different controls 
penetrations for integrated omnidirectional long and integrated and 
non-integrated directional GSLs. The 2015 LMC reports a controls 
penetration of 0 percent for linear fluorescent lamps in the 
residential sector; therefore, DOE assumed that no residential 
integrated omnidirectional long lamps are operated on controls. To 
estimate controls penetrations for integrated directional and non-
integrated directional GSLs, DOE scaled the controls penetration for 
integrated omnidirectional short GSLs based on the distribution of room 
types that reflector lamps are typically installed in relative to A-
type GSLs, and the controls penetration by room type from the 2010 KEMA 
report. Based on this analysis, DOE estimated the controls penetrations 
for integrated directional and non-integrated directional GSLs at 10 
percent.
    In response to the January 2023 NOPR, NEMA recommended that DOE use 
a controls penetration of 1 percent or 2 percent for integrated 
omnidirectional long lamps. NEMA also commented that DOE should not 
rely on the 2015 LMC to estimate controls penetration due to the 2015 
LMC being outdated and also showing less controls penetration than the 
previous 2010 LMC report. NEMA estimated that approximately 20 percent 
of residential lamps are connected to lighting controls and provided 
multiple explanations for the increased controls penetration. (NEMA, 
No. 183 at pp. 15-17) DOE has continued to use the 2015 LMC to estimate 
controls penetration in this final rule because the 2015 LMC estimates 
are the best nationally representative estimates that DOE has for 
integrated omnidirectional long lamps, assuming a 2 percent controls 
penetration for those lamps (as opposed to 0 percent) would have very 
minor impacts on the energy use and LCC results. For the other lamp 
types, DOE agrees that there is more uncertainty with the estimated 
controls penetration. As a result, DOE has analyzed a scenario in which 
the controls penetration is assumed to be 20 percent for all product 
classes other than integrated omnidirectional long. The results of this 
analysis can be found in appendix 7B of the final rule TSD.
    For this final rule, DOE maintains its assumption in the January 
2023 NOPR that the fraction of CFLs and LED lamps on controls is the 
same. By maintaining the same controls fraction for both technologies 
derived from estimates for all GSLs, DOE's estimates of energy savings 
may be slightly conservative compared to a scenario where fewer CFLs 
are on dimmers. Additionally, DOE's shipments model projects that only 
2.3 percent of residential shipments in the integrated omnidirectional 
short product class and 0.3 percent of residential shipments in the 
integrated directional product class will be CFLs by 2029, indicating 
that the control fraction for CFLs will not significantly impact the 
overall results of DOE's analysis.
    In the reference scenario, DOE assumed the fraction of residential 
GSLs on external controls remain fixed throughout the analysis period 
at 9 percent for integrated omnidirectional short GSLs, 10 percent for 
integrated directional and non-integrated directional GSLs, and 0 
percent for integrated omnidirectional long GSLs. The national impact 
analysis does, however, assume an increasing fraction of residential 
LED GSLs that operate with controls in the form of smart lamps, as 
discussed in section IV.H.1.a of this document.
    DOE assumed that building codes would drive an increase in floor 
space utilizing controls in the commercial sector in this final rule, 
similar to its assumption in the January 2023 NOPR (see appendix 9C of 
this final rule TSD). By the assumed first full year of compliance 
(2029), DOE estimated 36 percent of commercial GSLs in all product 
classes will operate on controls. In response to the January 2023 NOPR, 
NEMA commented that an estimated 50 percent of commercial GSLs operate 
on controls. (NEMA, No. 183 at p. 17) Without data to corroborate a 
different value, DOE has continued to assume 36 percent of commercial 
GSLs operate on controls in its reference scenario because DOE believes 
the data sources it used and the analysis it conducted to estimate 
commercial controls penetration in the compliance year provide a 
nationally representative estimate. However, based on NEMA's input, DOE 
has analyzed a scenario in which 50 percent of commercial GSLs operate 
on controls. The results of this analysis can be found in appendix 7B 
of the final rule TSD.
    Chapter 6 of the final rule TSD provides details on DOE's energy 
use analysis for GSLs.

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

    DOE conducted LCC and PBP analyses to evaluate the economic impacts 
on individual consumers of potential energy conservation standards for 
GSLs. 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 used 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.
    For a GSL standard case (i.e., case where a standard would be in 
place at a particular TSL), DOE measured the LCC savings resulting from 
the estimated efficacy distribution under the considered standard 
relative to the estimated efficacy distribution in the no-new-standards 
case. The efficacy distributions include market trends that can result 
in some lamps with efficacies

[[Page 28906]]

that exceed the minimum efficacy associated with the standard under 
consideration. In contrast, the PBP only considers the average time 
required to recover any increased first cost associated with a purchase 
at a particular EL relative to the baseline product.
    For each considered efficiency level in each product class, DOE 
calculated the LCC and PBP for a nationally representative set of 
potential residential consumers and commercial customers. Separate 
calculations were conducted for the residential and commercial sectors. 
DOE developed consumer samples based on the 2020 RECS \54\ and the 2018 
CBECS \55\ for the residential and commercial sectors, respectively. 
For each consumer in the sample, DOE determined the energy consumption 
for the lamp purchased and the appropriate electricity price. By 
developing representative consumer samples, the analysis captured the 
variability in energy consumption and energy prices associated with the 
use of GSLs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ U.S. Department of Energy--Energy Information 
Administration. 2020 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS). 
2020. www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2020/. Last accessed 
August 10, 2023.
    \55\ U.S. Department of Energy--Energy Information 
Administration. 2018 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey 
(CBECS). 2021. Available at www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/data/2018/ (last accessed Aug. 10, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE added sales tax, which varied by state, and installation cost 
(for the commercial sector) to the cost of the product developed in the 
product price determination to determine the total installed cost. 
Inputs to the calculation of operating expenses include annual energy 
consumption, energy prices and price projections, lamp lifetimes, and 
discount rates. DOE created distributions of values for lamp lifetimes, 
discount rates, and sales taxes, with probabilities attached to each 
value, to account for their uncertainty and variability.
    The computer model DOE uses to calculate the LCC relies on a Monte 
Carlo simulation to incorporate uncertainty and variability into the 
analysis. The Monte Carlo simulations randomly sample input values from 
the probability distributions and GSL consumer samples. The model 
calculated the LCC and PBP for a sample of 10,000 consumers per 
simulation run. The analytical results include a distribution of 10,000 
data points showing the range of LCC savings. In performing an 
iteration of the Monte Carlo simulation for a given consumer, product 
efficiency is chosen based on its probability. If the chosen product 
efficiency is greater than or equal to the efficiency of the standard 
level under consideration, the LCC calculation reveals that a consumer 
is not impacted by the standard level. By accounting for consumers who 
already purchase more-efficient products, DOE avoids overstating the 
potential benefits from increasing product efficiency. DOE calculated 
the LCC and PBP for consumers of GSLs as if each were to purchase a new 
product in the expected first full year of required compliance with 
amended standards. As discussed in section II of this document, since 
compliance with the statutory backstop requirement for GSLs commenced 
on July 25, 2022, DOE would set a 6-year compliance date of July 25, 
2028, for consistency with requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(4)(B) and 
42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(B)(iii). Therefore, because the compliance date 
would be in the second half of 2028, for purposes of its analysis, DOE 
used 2029 as the first full year of compliance with any amended 
standards for GSLs.
    Table IV.13 summarizes the approach and data DOE used to derive 
inputs to the LCC and PBP calculations. The subsections that follow 
provide further discussion. Details of the spreadsheet model, and of 
all the inputs to the LCC and PBP analyses, are contained in chapter 7 
of the final rule TSD and its appendices.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

[[Page 28907]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.024

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
1. Product Cost
    To calculate consumer product costs, DOE typically multiplies the 
manufacturer production costs (``MPCs'') developed in the engineering 
analysis by the markups along with sales taxes. For GSLs, the 
engineering analysis determined end-user prices for 2020 directly; 
therefore, for the LCC analysis, the only adjustment was to adjust the 
prices to 2022$ using the implicit price deflator for gross domestic 
product (``GDP'') from the Bureau of Economic Analysis \56\ and add 
sales taxes, which were assigned to each household or building in the 
LCC sample based on its location.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ www.bea.gov/data/prices-inflation/gdp-price-deflator (last 
accessed March 5, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE also used a price-learning analysis to account for changes in 
LED lamp prices that are expected to occur between the time for which 
DOE has data for lamp prices (2020) and the assumed first full year of 
compliance of the rulemaking (2029). For details on the price-learning 
analysis, see section IV.G.1.b of this document.
2. Installation Cost
    Installation cost includes labor, overhead, and any miscellaneous 
materials and parts needed to install the product. DOE assumed an 
installation cost of $1.73 per installed commercial GSL--based on an 
estimated lamp installation time of 5 minutes from RSMeans \57\ and 
hourly wage data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics \58\--but 
zero installation cost for residential GSLs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ RSMeans. Facilities Maintenance & Repair Cost Data 2013. 
2012. RSMeans: Kingston, MA.
    \58\ U.S. Department of Labor-Bureau of Labor Statistics. 
``Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2021: 49-9071 Maintenance 
and Repair Workers, General.'' Available at: www.bls.gov/oes/2021/may/oes499071.htm (last accessed April 13, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Annual Energy Consumption
    For each sampled household or commercial building, DOE determined 
the energy consumption for a GSL at different efficiency levels using 
the

[[Page 28908]]

approach described previously in section IV.E of this document.
4. Energy Prices
    Because marginal electricity price more accurately captures the 
incremental savings associated with a change in energy use from higher 
efficiency, it provides a better representation of incremental change 
in consumer costs than average electricity prices. DOE generally 
applies average electricity prices for the energy use of the product 
purchased in the no-new-standards case, and marginal electricity prices 
for the incremental change in energy use associated with the other 
efficiency levels considered.
    In this final rule, consistent with the January 2023 NOPR, DOE used 
marginal electricity prices to estimate electricity costs for both the 
incremental change in energy use and the energy use in the no-new-
standards case due to the calculated annual electricity cost for some 
regions and efficiency levels being negative when using average 
electricity prices for the energy use of the product purchased in the 
no-new-standards case. Negative costs can occur in instances where the 
marginal electricity cost for the region and the energy savings 
relative to the baseline for the given efficiency level are large 
enough that the incremental cost savings exceed the baseline cost.
    DOE derived electricity prices in 2022 using data from the EEI 
Typical Bills and Average Rates reports. Based upon comprehensive, 
industry-wide surveys, this semi-annual report presents typical monthly 
electric bills and average kilowatt-hour costs to the customer as 
charged by investor-owned utilities. For the residential sector, DOE 
calculated electricity prices using the methodology described in 
Coughlin and Beraki (2018).\59\ For the commercial sector, DOE 
calculated electricity prices using the methodology described in 
Coughlin and Beraki (2019).\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ Coughlin, K. and B. Beraki. 2018. Residential Electricity 
Prices: A Review of Data Sources and Estimation Methods. Lawrence 
Berkeley National Lab. Berkeley, CA. Report No. LBNL-2001169. 
ees.lbl.gov/publications/residential-electricity-prices-review.
    \60\ Coughlin, K. and B. Beraki. 2019. Non-residential 
Electricity Prices: A Review of Data Sources and Estimation Methods. 
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. Berkeley, CA. Report No. LBNL-
2001203. ees.lbl.gov/publications/non-residential-electricity-prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE's methodology allows electricity prices to vary by sector, 
region, and season. In the analysis, variability in electricity prices 
is chosen to be consistent with the way the consumer economic and 
energy use characteristics are defined in the LCC analysis. DOE 
assigned marginal prices to each household in the LCC sample based on 
its location. DOE also assigned marginal prices to each commercial 
building in the LCC sample based on its location and annual energy 
consumption. For a detailed discussion of the development of 
electricity prices, see chapter 7 of the Final Rule TSD.
    To estimate energy prices in future years, DOE multiplied the 2022 
energy prices by the projection of annual average price changes for 
each of the nine census divisions from the Reference case in the Annual 
Energy Outlook 2023 (AEO2023), which has an end year of 2050.\61\ To 
estimate price trends after 2050, DOE assumed that the regional prices 
would remain at the 2050 value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ EIA. Annual Energy Outlook 2023. Available at: www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/ (last accessed Aug. 10, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE used the electricity price trends associated with the AEO 
Reference case, which is a business-as-usual estimate, given known 
market, demographic, and technological trends. DOE also included AEO 
High Economic Growth and AEO Low Economic Growth scenarios in the 
analysis. The high- and low-growth cases show the projected effects of 
alternative economic growth assumptions on energy prices, and the 
results can be found in appendix 9D of the final rule TSD.
5. Product Lifetime
    In this final rule, DOE considered the GSL lifetime to be the 
service lifetime (i.e., the age at which the lamp is retired from 
service). For the representative lamps in this analysis, DOE used the 
same lifetime methodology as in the January 2023 NOPR. This methodology 
uses Weibull survival models to calculate the probability of survival 
as a function of lamp age. In the analysis, DOE considered the lamp's 
rated lifetime (taken from the engineering analysis), sector- and 
product class-specific HOU distributions, typical renovation timelines, 
and effects of on-time cycle length, which DOE assumed only applied to 
residential CFL GSLs.
    For a detailed discussion of the development of lamp lifetimes, see 
appendix 7C of the final rule TSD.
6. Residual Value
    The residual value represents the remaining dollar value of 
surviving lamps at the end of the LCC analysis period (the lifetime of 
the shortest-lived GSL in each product class), discounted to the first 
full year of compliance. To account for the value of any lamps with 
remaining life to the consumer, the LCC model applies this residual 
value as a ``credit'' at the end of the LCC analysis period. Because 
DOE estimates that LED GSLs undergo price learning, the residual value 
of these lamps is calculated based on the lamp price at the end of the 
LCC analysis period.
7. Disposal Cost
    Disposal cost is the cost a consumer pays to dispose of their 
retired GSLs. DOE assumed that 35 percent of CFLs are recycled (this 
fraction remains constant over the analysis period), and that the 
disposal cost is $0.70 per lamp for commercial consumers. Disposal 
costs were not applied to residential consumers. Because LED lamps do 
not contain mercury, DOE assumes no disposal costs for LED lamps in 
both the residential and commercial sectors.
8. Discount Rates
    In the calculation of LCC, DOE applies discount rates appropriate 
to residential and commercial consumers to estimate the present value 
of future operating cost savings. The subsections below provide 
information on the derivation of the discount rates by sector. See 
chapter 7 of the final rule TSD for further details on the development 
of discount rates.
a. Residential
    DOE estimated a distribution of residential discount rates for GSLs 
based on the opportunity cost of consumer funds. DOE applies weighted 
average discount rates calculated from consumer debt and asset data, 
rather than marginal or implicit discount rates.\62\ The LCC analysis 
estimates net present value over the lifetime of the product, so the 
appropriate discount rate will reflect the general opportunity cost of 
household funds, taking this time scale into account. Given the long 
time horizon modeled in the LCC, the application of a marginal interest 
rate associated with an initial source of funds is inaccurate. 
Regardless of the method of purchase, consumers are expected to 
continue to rebalance their debt and asset holdings over the LCC 
analysis period, based on the

[[Page 28909]]

restrictions consumers face in their debt payment requirements and the 
relative size of the interest rates available on debts and assets. DOE 
estimates the aggregate impact of this rebalancing using the historical 
distribution of debts and assets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ The implicit discount rate is inferred from a consumer 
purchase decision between two otherwise identical goods with 
different first cost and operating cost. It is the interest rate 
that equates the increment of first cost to the difference in net 
present value of lifetime operating cost, incorporating the 
influence of several factors: transaction costs; risk premiums and 
response to uncertainty; time preferences; interest rates at which a 
consumer is able to borrow or lend. The implicit discount rate is 
not appropriate for the LCC analysis because it reflects a range of 
factors that influence consumer purchase decisions, rather than the 
opportunity cost of the funds that are used in purchases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To establish residential discount rates for the LCC analysis, DOE 
identified all relevant household debt or asset classes in order to 
approximate a consumer's opportunity cost of funds related to appliance 
energy cost savings. It estimated the average percentage shares of the 
various types of debt and equity by household income group using data 
from the Federal Reserve Board's triennial Survey of Consumer Finances 
\63\ (``SCF'') starting in 1995 and ending in 2019. Using the SCF and 
other sources, DOE developed a distribution of rates for each type of 
debt and asset by income group to represent the rates that may apply in 
the year in which amended standards would take effect. DOE assigned 
each sample household a specific discount rate drawn from one of the 
distributions. The average rate across all types of household debt and 
equity and income groups, weighted by the shares of each type, is 4.2 
percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ U.S. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. 
Survey of Consumer Finances. 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2010, 
2013, 2016, and 2019. www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/scf/scfindex.htm (last accessed Aug. 10, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Commercial
    For commercial consumers, DOE used the cost of capital to estimate 
the present value of cash flows to be derived from a typical company 
project or investment. Most companies use both debt and equity capital 
to fund investments, so the cost of capital is the weighted-average 
cost to the firm of equity and debt financing. This corporate finance 
approach is referred to as the weighted-average cost of capital. DOE 
used currently available economic data in developing commercial 
discount rates, with Damadoran Online being the primary data 
source.\64\ The average discount rate across the commercial building 
types is 6.8 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ Damodaran, A. Data Page: Historical Returns on Stocks, 
Bonds and Bills-United States. 2023. pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/ 
(last accessed August 10, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

9. Efficacy Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case
    To accurately estimate the share of consumers that would be 
affected by a potential energy conservation standard at a particular 
TSL, DOE's LCC analysis considered the projected distribution (market 
shares) of product efficacies under the no-new-standards case (i.e., 
the case without amended or new energy conservation standards) and each 
of the standard cases (i.e., the cases where a standard would be set at 
each TSL) in the assumed first full year of compliance.
    To estimate the efficacy distribution of GSLs for 2029, DOE used a 
consumer-choice model based on consumer sensitivity to lamp price, 
lifetime, energy savings, and mercury content, as measured in a market 
study, as well as on consumer preferences for lighting technology as 
revealed in historical shipments data. DOE also included consumer 
sensitivity to dimmability in the market-share model for non-linear 
lamps to capture the better dimming performance of LED lamps relative 
to CFLs. Dimmability was excluded as a parameter in the market-share 
model for linear lamps because DOE assumed that this feature was 
equivalently available among lamp options in the consumer-choice model. 
Consumer-choice parameters were derived from consumer surveys of the 
residential sector. DOE was unable to obtain appropriate data to 
directly calibrate parameters for consumers in the commercial sector. 
Due to a lack of data to support an alternative set of parameters, DOE 
assumed the same parameters in the commercial sector. For further 
information on the derivation of the market efficacy distributions, see 
section IV.G of this document and chapter 8 of the final rule TSD.
    The estimated market shares for the no-new-standards case and each 
standards case for GSLs are determined by the shipments analysis and 
are shown in table IV.14 through table IV.18. A description of each of 
the TSLs is located in section V.A of this document.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

[[Page 28910]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.025

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.026


[[Page 28911]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.027

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.028

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.029


[[Page 28912]]


BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
10. LCC Savings Calculation
    In the reference scenario, DOE calculated the LCC savings at each 
TSL based on the change in average LCC for each standards case compared 
to the no-new-standards case, considering the efficacy distribution of 
products derived by the shipments analysis. This approach allows 
consumers to choose products that are more efficient than the standard 
level and is intended to more accurately reflect the impact of a 
potential standard on consumers.
    DOE used the consumer-choice model in the shipments analysis to 
determine the fraction of consumers that purchase each lamp option 
under a standard, but the model is unable to track the purchasing 
decision for individual consumers in the LCC sample. However, DOE must 
track any difference in purchasing decision for each consumer in the 
sample in order to determine the fraction of consumers who experience a 
net cost. Therefore, DOE assumed that the rank order of consumers, in 
terms of the efficacy of the product they purchase, is the same in the 
no-new-standards case as in the standards cases. In other words, DOE 
assumed that the consumers who purchased the most-efficacious products 
in the no-new-standards case would continue to do so in standards 
cases, and similarly, those consumers who purchased the least 
efficacious products in the no-new-standards case would continue to do 
so in standards cases. This assumption is only relevant in determining 
the fraction of consumers who experience a net cost in the LCC savings 
calculation and has no effect on the estimated national impact of a 
potential standard.
11. Payback Period Analysis
    The payback period is the amount of time (expressed in years) it 
takes the consumer to recover the additional installed cost of more-
efficient products, compared to baseline products, through energy cost 
savings. Payback periods that exceed the life of the product mean that 
the increased total installed cost is not recovered in reduced 
operating expenses.
    The inputs to the PBP calculation for each efficiency level are the 
change in total installed cost of the product and the change in the 
first-year annual operating expenditures relative to the baseline. DOE 
refers to this as a ``simple PBP'' because it does not consider changes 
over time in operating cost savings. The PBP calculation uses the same 
inputs as the LCC analysis when deriving first-year operating costs.
    As noted previously, EPCA establishes a rebuttable presumption that 
a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the 
additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying with 
an energy conservation standard level will be less than three times the 
value of the first year's energy savings resulting from the standard, 
as calculated under the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) For each considered efficiency level, DOE 
determined the value of the first year's energy savings by calculating 
the energy savings in accordance with the applicable DOE test procedure 
and multiplying those savings by the average energy price projection 
for the year in which compliance with the amended standards would be 
required.

G. 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.\65\ 
The shipments model takes an accounting approach, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Shipments Model
    The shipments model projects shipments of GSLs over a thirty-year 
analysis period for the no-new-standards case and for all standards 
cases. Consistent with the May 2022 Backstop Final Rule, DOE developed 
a shipments model that implements the 45 lm/W minimum efficiency 
requirement for GSLs in 2022 in the no-new-standards case and all 
standards cases. Accurate modeling of GSL shipments also requires 
modeling, in the years prior to 2022, the demand and market shares of 
those lamps that are eliminated by the implementation of the 45 lm/W 
minimum efficiency requirement, as well as general service fluorescent 
lamps (``GSFLs''), because replacements of these lamps are a source of 
demand for in-scope products.
    Separate shipments projections are calculated for the residential 
sector and for the commercial sector. The shipments model used to 
estimate GSL lamp shipments for this rulemaking has three main 
interacting elements: (1) a lamp demand module that estimates the 
demand for GSL lighting for each year of the analysis period; (2) a 
price-learning module that projects future prices based on historic 
price trends; and (3) a market-share module that assigns shipments to 
the available lamp options.
a. Lamp Demand Module
    The lamp demand module first estimates the national demand for GSLs 
in each year. The demand calculation assumes that sector-specific 
lighting capacity (maximum lumen output of installed lamps) remains 
fixed per square foot of floor space over the analysis period, and 
total floor space changes over the analysis period according to the 
EIA's AEO2023 projections of U.S. residential and commercial floor 
space.\66\ For linear lamps, DOE assumed that there is no new demand 
from floorspace growth due to the increasing prevalence of integral LED 
luminaires in new commercial construction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ U.S. Department of Energy--Energy Information 
Administration. Annual Energy Outlook 2023 with projections to 2050. 
Washington, DC Report No. AEO2023. U.S. Department of Energy--Energy 
Information Administration. Annual Energy Outlook 2023 with 
projections to 2050. Washington, DC. Report No. AEO2023. Available 
at: www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/ (last accessed Aug. 21, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A lamp turnover calculation estimates demand for new lamps in each 
year based on the growth of floor space in each year, the expected 
demand for replacement lamps, and sector-specific assumptions about the 
distribution of per-lamp lumen output desired by consumers. The demand 
for replacements is computed based on the historical shipments of lamps 
and the probability of lamp failure as a function of age. DOE used 
rated lamp lifetimes (in hours) and expected usage patterns in order to 
derive these probability distributions (see section IV.F.5 of this 
document for further details on the derivation of lamp lifetime 
distributions).
    The lamp demand module also accounts for the reduction in GSL 
demand due to the adoption of integral LED luminaires into lighting 
applications traditionally served by GSLs, both prior to and during the 
analysis period. For non-linear lamps in each year, an increasing 
portion of demand capped at 15 percent is assumed to be met by integral 
LED luminaires modeled as a Bass diffusion

[[Page 28913]]

curve \67\ as in the January 2023 NOPR. For linear lamps, DOE assumes 
that 8.2 percent of stock is replaced each year with integrated LED 
fixtures in order to account for retrofits and renovations, and that 
demand comes from replacement of failures in the remaining stock. This 
annual rate of stock replacement is based on a projection of commercial 
lighting stock composition through 2050 produced for AEO2023.\68\ 
Further details on the assumptions used to model these market 
transitions are presented in chapter 8 of the final rule TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ Bass, FM. A New Product Growth Model for Consumer Durables. 
Management Science. 1969. 15(5): pp. 215-227. Bass, FM. A New 
Product Growth Model for Consumer Durables. Management Science 1969. 
15(5): pp. 215-227.
    \68\ U.S. Department of Energy--Energy Information 
Administration. Annual Energy Outlook 2023 with Projections to 2050. 
Washington, DC. Report No. AEO2023. Available at: www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/ (last accessed Aug. 21, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NEMA commented that it does not believe the current conversion rate 
of linear lamp stock to integrated fixtures is likely to be maintained 
in the long term. (NEMA, No. 183 at p. 18) In addition, NEMA commented 
that sustainability goals for new construction are likely to support 
the linear lamp market of the future. (NEMA, No. 183 at p. 18) DOE 
acknowledges that there is uncertainty in the rate at which integrated 
fixtures will replace linear lamps fixtures, as well as uncertainty in 
the persistence of demand for linear lamps in applications that were 
not explicitly analyzed. In order to account for the possibility that 
shipments remain higher than those projected in this Final Rule 
analysis, DOE modeled a scenario where a smaller percentage of stock is 
removed each year. This lower attrition rate is based on estimates made 
in DOE's 2019 Forecast of Solid-State Lighting in General Illumination 
Applications,\69\ and results in a more gradual reduction in the size 
of the linear lamp market. The national impacts of this shipments 
scenario are presented in appendix 9D of the final rule TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ Navigant Consulting, Inc. Energy Savings Forecast of Solid-
State Lighting in General Illumination Applications. 2019. U.S. 
Department of Energy: Washington, DC. Report No. DOE/EERE 2001. 
Available at: www.energy.gov/eere/ssl/downloads/2019-ssl-forecast-report (last accessed March 15, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For this final rule, DOE assumed the implementation of a 45 lm/W 
minimum efficiency requirement for GSLs in 2022, consistent with the 
May 2022 Backstop Final Rule. DOE notes that CFL and LEDs make up 79 
percent of A-line lamp sales in 2021 based on data collected from NEMA 
A-line lamp indices, indicating that the market has moved rapidly 
towards increasing production capacity for CFL and LED 
technologies.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ National Electrical Manufacturers Association. Lamp 
Indices. Available at www.nema.org/analytics/lamp-indices (last 
accessed Aug. 24, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As in the January 2023 NOPR, for the integrated omnidirectional 
short product class, DOE developed separate shipments projections for 
A-line lamps and for non-A-line lamps (candelabra, intermediate and 
medium-screw base lamps including, B, BA, C, CA, F, G and T-shape 
lamps) to capture the different market drivers between the two types of 
lamps. Based on an analysis of online product offerings, DOE assumed 
that the prices of lamp options at each EL would be approximately the 
same for A-line and non-A-line integrated omnidirectional short lamps, 
but scaled the power consumption of non-A-line lamps to be 
representative of a 450 lumen lamp. Although modelled separately, 
results for A-line and non-A-line lamps are aggregated into the 
integrated omnidirectional short product class throughout this final 
rule analysis.
b. Price-Learning Module
    The price-learning module estimates lamp prices in each year of the 
analysis period using a standard price-learning model,\71\ which 
relates the price of a given technology to its cumulative production, 
as represented by total cumulative shipments. Cumulative shipments are 
determined for each GSL lighting technology under consideration in this 
analysis (CFL and LED) at the start of the analysis period and are 
augmented in each subsequent year of the analysis based on the 
shipments determined for the prior year. New prices for each lighting 
technology are calculated from the updated cumulative shipments 
according to the learning (or experience) curve for each technology. 
The current year's shipments, in turn, affect the subsequent year's 
prices. Because LED lamps are a relatively young technology, their 
cumulative shipments increase relatively rapidly and hence they undergo 
a substantial price decline during the shipments analysis period. For 
simplicity, shipments of integrated omnidirectional long lamps were not 
included in the cumulative shipments total used to determine the price 
learning rate for LED GSLs, as shipments of those lamps would not 
contribute significantly to the total cumulative LED shipments or the 
resulting LED GSL learning rate, but integrated omnidirectional long 
GSLs were assumed to experience the same rate of price decline as all 
LED GSLs. DOE assumed that CFLs and GSFLs undergo no price learning in 
the analysis period due to the long history of these lamps in the 
market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ Taylor, M. and S.K. Fujita. Accounting for Technological 
Change in Regulatory Impact Analyses: The Learning Curve Technique. 
2013. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory: Berkeley, CA. Report 
No. LBNL-6195E. (Last accessed August 5, 2021) eta.lbl.gov/publications/accounting-technological-change. Taylor, M. and S.K. 
Fujita. Accounting for Technological Change in Regulatory Impact 
Analyses: The Learning Curve Technique. 2013. Lawrence Berkeley 
National Laboratory: Berkeley, CA. Report No. LBNL-6195E. (Last 
accessed August 5, 2021) eta.lbl.gov/publications/accounting-technological-change. (last accessed Aug. 5, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Market-Share Module
    The market-share module apportions the lamp shipments in each year 
among the different lamp options developed in the engineering analysis. 
DOE used a consumer-choice model based on consumer sensitivity to lamp 
price, lifetime, energy savings, and mercury content, as measured in a 
market study, as well as on consumer preferences for lighting 
technology as revealed in historical shipments data. DOE also included 
consumer sensitivity to dimmability in the market-share model for non-
linear lamps to capture the better dimming performance of LED lamps 
relative to CFLs. Dimmability was excluded as a parameter in the 
market-share model for linear lamps because DOE assumed that this 
feature was equivalently available among lamp options in the consumer-
choice model. GSFL substitute lamp options were included in the 
consumer-choice model for integrated omnidirectional long lamps, as 
such GSFLs can serve as substitutes for linear LED lamps. Specifically, 
the 4-foot T8 lamp options described in the 2023 GSFL Final 
Determination analysis (see 88 FR 9118-9136) were included as lamp 
options to more accurately estimate the impact of any potential 
standard on costs and energy use in the broader linear lamp market.
    The market-share module assumes that, when replacing a lamp, 
consumers will choose among all of the available lamp options. 
Substitution matrices were developed to specify the product choices 
available to consumers. The available options depend on the case under 
consideration; in each of the standards cases corresponding to the 
different TSLs, only those lamp options at or above the particular 
standard level, and relevant alternative lamps, are considered to be 
available. The market-share module also incorporates a limit on the 
diffusion of LED technology into the market using the widely accepted

[[Page 28914]]

Bass adoption model,\72\ the parameters of which are based on data on 
the market penetration of LED lamps published by NEMA,\73\ as discussed 
previously. In this way, the module assigns market shares to available 
lamp options, based on observations of consumer preferences. DOE also 
used a Bass adoption model to estimate the diffusion of LED lamp 
technologies into the non-integrated product class and assumes that 
non-integrated LED lamp options became available starting in 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ Bass, F.M. A New Product Growth Model for Consumer 
Durables. Management Science. 1969. 15(5): pp. 215-227.Bass, F.M. A 
New Product Growth Model for Consumer Durables. Management Science. 
1969. 15(5): pp. 215-227.
    \73\ National Electrical Manufacturers Association. Lamp 
Indices. Available at: www.nema.org/analytics/lamp-indices (last 
accessed Aug. 24, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the January 2023 NOPR, EEI commented that, as 
proposed, the efficacy requirement of 120 lm/W for most types of 
lighting would eliminate 98 percent of the highest-efficiency light 
bulbs currently available to consumers. (EEI, No. 181 at pp. 2-3) 
NYSERDA commented that findings from its December 2020 study of sales 
and shipments of GSLs in New York underscores the feasibility of the 
NOPR's updated standards as LEDs made up 73 percent of all GSLs sold in 
New York in 2020 and that rate continues to grow. (NYSERDA, No. 166 at 
p. 3) The CA IOUs cited CEC's MAEDbS, which lists 15,313 integrated, 
single-ended LED lamps with lighting outputs between 800 and 1100 
lumens, all complying with the light quality criteria in California's 
Appliance Efficiency Regulations. The CA IOUs noted that 14 percent of 
these lamps claim an efficacy of 120 lm/W or higher and would likely 
meet DOE's proposed standard, and the CA IOUs commented they anticipate 
a larger share of marketable GSLs will exceed the efficacy requirements 
when the new standard becomes effective. (CA IOUs, No. 167 at p. 2).
    For the shipments model, DOE included the impact of historically 
observed trends in LED efficacy based on the 2019 DOE Solid State 
Lighting report,\74\ which projects that the average efficacy of the 
non-linear LED GSLs will likely exceed the efficacy of the most 
efficacious (max-tech) lamp options considered in the engineering 
analysis in future years. As detailed in section IV.F.9 of this 
document, DOE projects that in the no-new-standards case by 2029, the 
fraction of GSLs at or above max-tech is at least 13 precent for all 
product classes, and considerably higher for some. More information on 
the efficacy trend data can be found in chapter 8 of the final rule 
TSD. Additionally, DOE does not anticipate a decrease in manufacturing 
capacity of products that will be able to meet the proposed standard by 
the compliance date (see section V.B.2 of this document for details).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ Navigant Consulting, Inc. Energy Savings Forecast of Solid-
State Lighting in General Illumination Applications. 2019. U.S. 
Department of Energy: Washington, DC. Report No. DOE/EERE 2001. 
Available at www.energy.gov/eere/ssl/downloads/2019-ssl-forecast-report (last accessed Feb. 23, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. National Impact Analysis

    The NIA assesses the national energy savings (``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.\75\ (``Consumer'' in this context refers to 
consumers of the product being regulated.) 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 from the energy use and LCC analyses. For 
the present analysis, DOE projected the energy savings, operating cost 
savings, product costs, and NPV of consumer benefits over the lifetime 
of GSLs sold from 2029 through 2058.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ The NIA accounts for impacts in the 50 states and U.S. 
territories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE evaluates the impacts 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 
product 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 TSLs or standards cases) for that class. For the standards 
cases, DOE considers how a given standard would likely affect the 
market shares of products with efficiencies greater than the standard 
and, in the case of integrated omnidirectional long lamps, out-of-scope 
alternatives such as GSFLs.
    DOE takes analytical results from the shipments model and 
calculates the energy savings and the national consumer costs and 
savings from each TSL. Analytical results and inputs to the model are 
presented in the form of a spreadsheet. Interested parties can review 
DOE's analyses by changing various input quantities within the 
spreadsheet. The NIA uses typical values (as opposed to probability 
distributions) as inputs.
    Table IV.19 summarizes the inputs and methods DOE used for the NIA 
analysis for the final rule. Discussion of these inputs and methods 
follows the table. See chapter 9 of the final rule TSD for further 
details.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

[[Page 28915]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.030

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
1. National Energy Savings
    The national energy savings analysis involves a comparison of 
national energy consumption of the considered products between each 
potential standards case (``TSL'') 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 
AEO2023. Cumulative energy savings are the sum of the NES for each year 
over the timeframe of the analysis.
    Use of higher-efficiency products is sometimes associated with a 
direct rebound effect, which refers to an increase in utilization of 
the product due to the increase in efficiency. In the case of lighting, 
the rebound effect could be manifested in increased HOU or in increased 
lighting density (lamps per square foot). In the January 2023 NOPR, DOE 
assumed no rebound effect in both the residential and commercial 
sectors for consumers switching from CFLs to LED lamps or from less 
efficacious LED lamps to more efficacious LED lamps. This is due to the 
relatively small incremental increase in efficacy between CFLs and LED 
GSLs or less efficacious LED lamps and more efficacious LED lamps, as 
well as an examination of DOE's 2001, 2010, and 2015 U.S. LMC studies, 
which indicates that there has been a reduction in total lamp operating 
hours in the residential sector concomitant with increases in lighting 
efficiency. Consistent with the residential sector, DOE does not expect 
there to be any rebound effect associated with the commercial sector. 
Therefore, DOE assumed no rebound effect in all final rule scenarios 
for both the residential and commercial sectors.
    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 national impact analyses and 
emissions analyses included in future energy conservation standards 
rulemakings. 76 FR 51281 (Aug. 18, 2011). After evaluating the 
approaches discussed in the August 18, 2011 notice, DOE published a 
statement of amended policy in which DOE explained its determination 
that EIA's National Energy Modeling System (``NEMS'') is the most 
appropriate tool for its FFC analysis and its intention to use NEMS for 
that purpose. 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012). NEMS is a public domain, 
multi-sector, partial equilibrium model of the U.S. energy sector \76\ 
that EIA uses to prepare its Annual Energy Outlook. 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 9B of the final rule TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ 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/forecasts/aeo/index.cfm (last 
accessed April 21, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EEI commented that DOE's utilization of a fossil fuel equivalent 
marginal heat rate for electricity generated from

[[Page 28916]]

renewable sources is inconsistent with prior DOE recommendations for 
all appliance standards rulemakings. EEI commented that by assigning a 
fossil heat rate to renewable energy as if that energy has an emissions 
impact (when in fact no carbon emissions are associated with the 
electricity generated), DOE's analysis does not accurately capture the 
emissions profile of clean energy resources deployed by the sector at 
large scale. EEI commented that DOE should use a more appropriate 
methodology for this rulemaking to accurately capture the ongoing clean 
energy transition, such as the ``captured energy'' approach. Otherwise, 
EEI commented, DOE's use of fossil-fuel marginal heat rates results in 
at least a 3x overstatement of the amount of primary energy that would 
be saved if new efficiency standards for consumer light bulbs are 
promulgated. (EEI, No. 181 at pp. 2-3)
    As previously mentioned, DOE converts electricity consumption and 
savings to primary energy using annual conversion factors derived from 
the AEO. Traditionally, EIA has used the fossil fuel equivalency 
approach to report noncombustible renewables' contribution to total 
primary energy. The fossil fuel equivalency approach applies an 
annualized weighted-average heat rate for fossil fuel power plants to 
the electricity generated (in kWh) from noncombustible renewables. EIA 
recognizes that using captured energy (the net energy available for 
direct consumption after transformation of a noncombustible renewable 
energy into electricity) or incident energy (the mechanical, radiation, 
or thermal energy that is measurable as the ``input'' to the device) 
are possible approaches for converting renewable electricity to a 
common measure of primary energy, but it continues to use the fossil 
fuel equivalency approach in the AEO and other reporting of energy 
statistics. DOE contends that it is important for it to maintain 
consistency with EIA in DOE's accounting of primary energy savings from 
energy efficiency standards. This method for calculating primary energy 
savings has no effect on the estimation of impacts of standards on 
emissions, which uses a different approach (see chapter 9 of the final 
rule TSD).
a. Smart Lamps
    Integrated GSLs with standby functionality, henceforth referred to 
as smart lamps, were not explicitly analyzed in the shipments analysis 
for this final rule. To account for the additional standby energy 
consumption from smart lamps in the NIA, DOE assumed that smart lamps 
would make up an increasing fraction of Integrated Omnidirectional 
Short, Integrated Directional, Non-integrated Directional, and Non-
integrated Omnidirectional lamps in the residential sector following a 
Bass adoption curve. DOE assumes for this final rule that smart lamp 
penetration is limited to the residential sector.
    In response to the January 2023 NOPR, NEMA objected to DOE's 
assumption that integrated lamps with standby functionality are 
fundamentally similar to lamps without standby functionality but with 
the addition of wireless communication components and the associated 
consumption of power in standby mode. NEMA noted that the variety of 
features that lamps capable of operating on standby power may offer has 
greatly expanded in recent years and includes functionality such as 
dimming, scheduling, high end trim, and demand response. (NEMA, No. 183 
at p. 9-10) DOE notes that the representative lamps without standby 
power consumption that were used as the basis for scaling are also 
capable of dimming. DOE is not aware of data indicating how scheduling, 
high end trim and demand response functionality impact the energy 
consumption of smart GSLs with these features, but assumed that smart 
GSLs offer similar fractional energy savings (30 percent) from controls 
as representative GSLs used with dimming controls.
    NEMA commented on the growing popularity of smart LED lamps, noting 
that nearly 10 million households use smart speakers to control 
lighting, based on data from EIA and RECS. (NEMA, No. 183 at p. 10) 
However, NEMA commented that it could not predict the market share for 
smart lamps by the end of the analysis period, noting how much the 
lighting market has changed in the last 35 years. (NEMA, No. 183 at p. 
18) For this final rule, DOE continued to assume that there was an 
increase in the fraction of LED lamps that are smart lamps over the 
shipments analysis period. In the absence of information to support an 
alternative projection, DOE continued to assume that the market 
penetration of smart lamps in the residential sector reached 50 percent 
by the end of the analysis period.
    DOE assumed a standby power of 0.2 W per smart lamp in alignment 
with standby requirements in California Code of Regulations--Title 20, 
as it is assumed that manufacturers would typically sell the same smart 
lamp models in California as in the rest of the U.S.\77\ DOE further 
assumed that the majority of smart lamps would be standalone and not 
require the need of a hub.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ California Energy Commission. California Code of 
Regulations: Title 20--Public Utilities and Energy. May 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    More details on the incorporation of smart lamps in DOE's analysis 
can be found in chapter 9 of the TSD.
b. Unit Energy Consumption Adjustment To Account for GSL Lumen 
Distribution for the Integrated Omnidirectional Short Product Class
    The engineering analysis provides representative units within the 
lumen range of 750-1,049 lumens for the integrated omnidirectional 
short product class. For the NIA, DOE adjusted the energy use of the 
representative units for the integrated omnidirectional short product 
class to account for the full distribution of GSL lumen outputs (i.e., 
310-2,600 lumens).
    Using the lumen range distribution for integrated omnidirectional 
short A-line lamps developed originally for the March 2016 NOPR and 
used in the January 2023 NOPR, DOE calculated unit energy consumption 
(``UEC'') scaling factors to apply to the energy use of the integrated 
omnidirectional short representative lamp options by taking the ratio 
of the stock-weighted wattage equivalence of the full GSL lumen 
distribution to the wattage equivalent of the representative lamp bin 
(750-1,049 lumens). DOE applied a UEC scaling factor of 1.15 for the 
residential sector and 1.21 for the commercial sector for integrated 
omnidirectional short A-line lamps.
c. Unit Energy Consumption Adjustment To Account for Type A Integrated 
Omnidirectional Long Lamps
    The representative units in the engineering analysis for the 
integrated omnidirectional long product class represent Type B lamp 
options. To account for Type A lamps that were not explicitly modeled, 
DOE scaled the energy consumption values of Type B integrated 
omnidirectional long lamp options based on the relative energy 
consumption of equivalent Type A lamps. DOE assumed a 60/40 market 
share of Type B and Type A linear LED lamps, respectively, based on 
product offerings in the Design Lights Consortium database, which was 
held constant throughout the analysis period.
2. Net Present Value Analysis
    The inputs for determining the NPV of the total costs and benefits 
experienced by consumers are (1) total

[[Page 28917]]

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.
    As discussed in section IV.G.1.b of this document, DOE developed 
LED lamp prices using a price-learning module incorporated in the 
shipments analysis. By 2058, which is the end date of the forecast 
period, the average LED GSL price is projected to drop 33 percent 
relative to 2022 in the no-new-standards case. DOE's projection of 
product prices as described in chapter 8 of the final rule TSD.
    To evaluate the effect of uncertainty regarding the price trend 
estimates, DOE investigated the impact of different product price 
projections on the consumer NPV for the considered TSLs for GSLs. In 
addition to the default price trend, DOE considered two product price 
sensitivity cases: (1) a high price decline case based on a higher 
price learning rate and (2) a low price decline case based on a lower 
price learning rate. The derivation of these price trends and the 
results of these sensitivity cases are described in appendix 9D of the 
final rule TSD.
    The operating cost savings are primarily 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 residential energy 
price changes in the Reference case from AEO2023, which has an end year 
of 2050. For years after 2050, DOE maintained the 2050 electricity 
price. As part of the NIA, DOE also analyzed scenarios that used inputs 
from variants of the AEO2023 Reference case that have lower and higher 
economic growth. Those cases have lower and higher energy price trends 
compared to the Reference case. NIA results based on these cases are 
presented in appendix 9D of the final rule 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 rule, 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.\78\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-4: 
Regulatory Analysis. Available at www.whitehouse.gov/omb/information-for-agencies/circulars (last accessed March 22, 2024). 
DOE used the prior version of Circular A-4 (September 17, 2003) in 
accordance with the effective date of the November 9, 2023 version.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis

    In analyzing the potential impact of new or amended energy 
conservation standards on consumers, DOE evaluates the impact on 
identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be disproportionately 
affected by a new or amended national standard. The purpose of a 
subgroup analysis is to determine the extent of any such 
disproportional impacts. DOE evaluates impacts on particular subgroups 
of consumers by analyzing the LCC impacts and PBP for those particular 
consumers from alternative standard levels. For this final rule, DOE 
analyzed the impacts of the considered standard levels on two 
subgroups: (1) low-income households and (2) small businesses. The 
residential low-income household analysis used a subset of the RECS 
2020 sample composed of households that are at or below the poverty 
line. DOE analyzed only the low-income households that are responsible 
for paying their electricity bill in this analysis. RECS 2020 indicates 
that approximately 15% of low-income renters are not responsible for 
paying their electricity bills. Such consumers may incur a net cost 
(depending on if they purchase their own GSLs or not). DOE notes that 
this is only relevant for the integrated omnidirectional short GSL 
product class, as low-income households that purchase integrated 
directional GSLs would still experience a net benefit even if they are 
not responsible for paying their electricity bill and low-income 
households are assumed not to purchase lamps in other GSL product 
classes, which are uncommon in the residential sector.
    The analysis of commercial small businesses uses the CBECS 2018 
sample (as in the full-sample LCC analysis) but applies discount rates 
specific to small businesses. DOE used the analytical framework and 
inputs described in section IV.F of this document.
    Chapter 10 in the final rule TSD describes the consumer subgroup 
analysis.

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis

1. Overview
    DOE performed an MIA to estimate the financial impacts of new and 
amended energy conservation standards on manufacturers of GSLs and to 
estimate the potential impacts of such standards on employment and 
manufacturing capacity. The MIA has both quantitative and qualitative 
aspects and includes analyses of projected industry cash flows, the 
INPV, investments in research and development (``R&D'') and 
manufacturing capital, and domestic manufacturing employment. 
Additionally, the MIA seeks to determine how new and amended energy 
conservation standards might affect manufacturing employment, capacity, 
and competition, as well as how standards contribute to overall 
regulatory burden. Finally, the MIA serves to identify any 
disproportionate impacts on manufacturer subgroups, including small 
business manufacturers.
    The quantitative part of the MIA primarily relies on the Government 
Regulatory Impact Model (``GRIM''), an industry cash flow model with 
inputs specific to this rulemaking. The key GRIM inputs include data on 
the industry cost structure, unit production costs, product shipments, 
manufacturer markups, and investments in R&D and manufacturing capital 
required to produce compliant products. The key GRIM outputs are the 
INPV, which is the sum of industry annual cash flows over the analysis 
period, discounted using the industry-weighted average cost of capital, 
and the impact to domestic manufacturing employment. The model uses 
standard accounting principles to estimate the impacts of more-
stringent energy conservation standards on a given industry by 
comparing changes in INPV and domestic manufacturing employment between 
a no-new-standards case and the various standards cases (i.e., TSLs). 
To capture the uncertainty relating to manufacturer pricing strategies 
following new and amended standards, the GRIM estimates a range of 
possible impacts under different manufacturer markup scenarios.
    The qualitative part of the MIA addresses manufacturer 
characteristics

[[Page 28918]]

and market trends. Specifically, the MIA considers such factors as a 
potential standard's impact on manufacturing capacity, competition 
within the industry, the cumulative impact of other DOE and non-DOE 
regulations and impacts on manufacturer subgroups. The complete MIA is 
outlined in chapter 11 of the final rule TSD.
2. Government Regulatory Impact Model and Key Inputs
    DOE uses the GRIM to quantify the changes in cash flow due to new 
and amended standards that result in a higher or lower industry value. 
The GRIM uses a standard, annual discounted cash-flow analysis that 
incorporates manufacturer costs, manufacturer markups, shipments, and 
industry financial information as inputs. The GRIM models changes in 
costs, distribution of shipments, investments, and manufacturer margins 
that could result from new and amended energy conservation standards. 
The GRIM spreadsheet uses the inputs to arrive at a series of annual 
cash flows, beginning in 2024 (the base year of the analysis) and 
continuing to 2058. DOE calculated INPVs by summing the stream of 
annual discounted cash flows during this period. For manufacturers of 
GSLs, DOE used a real discount rate of 6.1 percent, which was derived 
from industry financials.
    The GRIM calculates cash flows using standard accounting principles 
and compares changes in INPV between the no-new-standards case and each 
standards case. The difference in INPV between the no-new-standards 
case and a standards case represents the financial impact of new and 
amended energy conservation standards on GSL manufacturers. As 
discussed previously, DOE developed critical GRIM inputs using a number 
of sources, including publicly available data, results of the 
engineering analysis, and information gathered from industry 
stakeholders during previous rulemaking public comments. The GRIM 
results are presented in section V.B.2 of this document. Additional 
details about the GRIM, the discount rate, and other financial 
parameters can be found in chapter 11 of the final rule TSD.
a. Manufacturer Production Costs
    Manufacturing more efficient products is typically more expensive 
than manufacturing baseline products due to the use of more complex 
components, which are typically more costly than baseline components. 
The changes in the MPCs of covered products can affect the revenues, 
gross margins, and cash flow of the industry. Typically, DOE develops 
MPCs for the covered products using reverse-engineering. These costs 
are used as an input to the LCC analysis and NIA. However, because 
lamps are difficult to reverse-engineer, DOE directly derived end-user 
prices and then used those prices in conjunction with average 
distribution chain markups and manufacturer markups to calculate the 
MPCs of GSLs.
    To determine MPCs of GSLs from the end-user prices, DOE divided the 
end-user price by the average distribution chain markup and then again 
by the average manufacturer markup of the representative GSLs at each 
EL. In the January 2023 NOPR, DOE used the SEC 10-Ks of publicly traded 
GSL manufacturers to estimate the manufacturer markup of 1.55 for all 
GSLs in this rulemaking. DOE used the SEC 10-Ks of the major publicly 
traded lighting retailers to estimate the distribution chain markup of 
1.52 for all GSLs. DOE asked for comment on the use of these values and 
NEMA stated that it cannot comment on the average distribution chain 
markup and referred DOE to individual manufacturer interviews for this 
information. (NEMA, No. 183 at p. 19) The estimated manufacturer markup 
and the estimated average distribution chain markup values that were 
used in the January 2023 SNOPR were based on information provided 
during manufacturer interviews. Therefore, DOE continues to use the 
same values in this final rule analysis that were used in the January 
2023 NOPR.
    For a complete description of end-user prices, see the cost 
analysis in section IV.D.2 of this document.
b. Shipments Projections
    The GRIM estimates manufacturer revenues based on total unit 
shipment projections and the distribution of those shipments by 
efficiency level. Changes in sales volumes and efficiency mix over time 
can significantly affect manufacturer finances. For this analysis, DOE 
developed a consumer-choice-based model to estimate shipments of GSLs. 
The model projects consumer purchases (and hence shipments) based on 
sector-specific consumer sensitivities to first cost, energy savings, 
lamp lifetime, and lamp mercury content. The shipments analysis 
projects shipments from 2024 (the base year) to 2058 (the end year of 
the analysis period). See chapter 8 of the final rule TSD for 
additional details.
c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs
    New and amended energy conservation standards could cause 
manufacturers to incur conversion costs to bring their production 
facilities and product designs into compliance. DOE evaluated the level 
of conversion-related expenditures that would be needed to comply with 
each considered efficiency level in each product class. For the MIA, 
DOE classified these conversion costs into two major groups: (1) 
product conversion costs; and (2) capital conversion costs. Product 
conversion costs are investments in research, development, testing, 
marketing, and other non-capitalized costs necessary to make product 
designs comply with new and amended energy conservation standards. 
Capital conversion costs are investments in property, plant, and 
equipment necessary to adapt or change existing production facilities 
such that new compliant product designs can be fabricated and 
assembled.
    In the January 2023 NOPR, DOE conducted a bottom-up analysis to 
calculate the product conversion costs for GSL manufacturers for each 
product class at each EL. To conduct this bottom-up analysis, DOE used 
manufacturer input from manufacturer interviews regarding the average 
amount of engineering time to design a new product or remodel an 
existing model. DOE then estimated the number of GSL models that would 
need to be re-modeled or introduced into the market for each product 
class at each EL using DOE's database of existing GSL models and the 
distribution of shipments from the shipments analysis (see section IV.G 
of this document).
    DOE assumed GSL manufacturers would not re-model non-compliant CFL 
models into compliant CFL models, even if it is possible for the 
remodeled CFLs to meet the analyzed energy conservation standards. 
Additionally, DOE assumed that GSL manufacturers would not need to 
introduce any new LED lamp models due to CFL models not being able to 
meet the analyzed energy conservation standards.\79\ However, DOE 
assumed that all non-compliant LED lamp models would be remodeled to 
meet the analyzed energy conservation standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ Based on the Shipment Analysis, LED lamp sales exceed 95 
percent of the total GSL sales for every analyzed product class by 
2029 (the first full year of compliance). DOE assumed there are 
replacement LED lamps for all CFL models.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on feedback in manufacturer interviews, DOE assumed that most 
LED lamp models would be remodeled between the estimated publication of 
this rulemaking's final rule and the estimated date by which energy 
conservation standards are required, even in the absence of DOE energy 
conservation standards for GSLs.

[[Page 28919]]

Additionally, DOE estimated that remodeling a non-compliant LED lamp 
model that would already be scheduled to be remodeled into a compliant 
one would require an additional month of engineering time per LED lamp 
model.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ Based on feedback from manufacturers, DOE estimates that 
most LED lamp models are remodeled approximately every 2 to 3 years 
and it takes manufacturers approximately 6 months of engineering 
time to remodel one LED lamp model. DOE is therefore estimating that 
it would take manufacturers approximately 7 months (one additional 
month) to remodel a non-compliant LED lamp model into a compliant 
LED lamp model, due to the extra efficacy and any other requirement 
induced by DOE's standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE assumed that capital conversion costs would only be necessary 
if GSL manufacturers would need to increase the production volume of 
LED lamps in the standards case compared to the no-new-standards case 
and if existing LED lamp production capacity did not already exist to 
meet this additional market demand for LED lamps. Based on the 
shipments analysis, the volume of LED lamp sales in the years leading 
up to 2029 exceeds the volume of LED lamp sales in 2029 (the first full 
year of compliance) for every product class at all TSLs. Therefore, DOE 
assumed no capital conversion costs as GSL manufacturers would not need 
to make any additional investments in production equipment to maintain, 
or reduce, their LED lamp production volumes from the previous year.
    DOE asked for comment on the methodology used to calculate product 
and capital conversion costs for GSLs in January 2023 NOPR. DOE did not 
receive any comments on this methodology. Therefore, DOE continued to 
use this methodology for this final rule analyses. DOE updated all 
engineering labor costs from 2021 dollars that were used in the January 
2023 NOPR to 2022 dollars for this final rule analysis.
    In general, DOE assumes all conversion-related investments occur 
between the publication of this final rule and the year by which 
manufacturers must comply with the new and amended standards. The 
conversion cost figures used in the GRIM can be found in section 
V.B.2.a of this document. For additional information on the estimated 
capital and product conversion costs, see chapter 11 of the final rule 
TSD.
d. Manufacturer Markup Scenarios
    MSPs include direct manufacturing production costs (i.e., labor, 
materials, and overhead estimated in DOE's MPCs) and all non-production 
costs (i.e., SG&A, R&D, and interest), along with profit. To calculate 
the MSPs in the GRIM, DOE applied non-production cost markups to the 
MPCs estimated in the engineering analysis for each product class and 
efficiency level. Modifying these markups in the standards case yields 
different sets of impacts on manufacturers. For the MIA, DOE modeled 
two standards-case markup scenarios to represent uncertainty regarding 
the potential impacts on prices and profitability for manufacturers 
following the implementation of amended energy conservation standards: 
(1) a preservation of gross margin scenario; and (2) a preservation of 
operating profit scenario. These scenarios lead to different markup 
values that, when applied to the MPCs, result in varying revenue and 
cash flow impacts.
    Under the preservation of gross margin percentage scenario, DOE 
applied a single uniform ``gross margin percentage'' across all 
efficiency levels, which assumes that manufacturers would be able to 
maintain the same amount of profit as a percentage of revenues at all 
efficiency levels within a product class. DOE continued to use a 
manufacturer markup of 1.55 for all GSLs, which corresponds to a gross 
margin of 35.5 percent, and the same manufacturer markup that was used 
in the January 2023 NOPR. This manufacturer markup scenario represents 
the upper bound to industry profitability under new and amended energy 
conservation standards and is the manufacturer markup scenario that is 
used in all consumer analyses (e.g., LCC, NIA).
    Under the preservation of operating profit scenario, DOE modeled a 
situation in which manufacturers are not able to increase per-unit 
operating profit in proportion to increases in manufacturer production 
costs. Under this scenario, as the MPCs increase, manufacturers reduce 
their margins (on a percentage basis) to a level that maintains the no-
new-standards case operating profit (in absolute dollars). The implicit 
assumption behind this scenario is that the industry can only maintain 
its operating profit in absolute dollars after compliance with new and 
amended standards. Therefore, operating profit in percentage terms is 
reduced between the no-new-standards case and the analyzed standards 
cases. DOE adjusted the margins in the GRIM at each TSL to yield 
approximately the same earnings before interest and taxes in the 
standards cases in the year after the first full year of compliance of 
the new and amended standards as in the no-new-standards case. This 
scenario represents the lower bound to industry profitability under new 
and amended energy conservation standards.
    A comparison of industry financial impacts under the two markup 
scenarios is presented in section V.B.2.a of this document.

K. Emissions Analysis

    The emissions analysis consists of two components. The first 
component estimates the effect of potential energy conservation 
standards on power sector and site (where applicable) combustion 
emissions of CO2, NOX, SO2, and Hg. 
The second component estimates the impacts of potential standards on 
emissions of two additional greenhouse gases, CH4 and 
N2O, as well as the reductions in emissions of other gases 
due to ``upstream'' activities in the fuel production chain. These 
upstream activities comprise extraction, processing, and transporting 
fuels to the site of combustion.
    The analysis of electric power sector emissions of CO2, 
NOX, SO2, and Hg uses emissions intended to 
represent the marginal impacts of the change in electricity consumption 
associated with amended or new standards. The methodology is based on 
results published for the AEO, including a set of side cases that 
implement a variety of efficiency-related policies. The methodology is 
described in appendix 12A in the final rule TSD. The analysis presented 
in this final rule uses projections from AEO2023. Power sector 
emissions of CH4 and N2O from fuel combustion are 
estimated using Emission Factors for Greenhouse Gas Inventories 
published by the Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'').\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ Available at: www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2021-04/documents/emission-factors_apr2021.pdf (last accessed July 12, 
2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FFC upstream emissions, which include emissions from fuel 
combustion during extraction, processing, and transportation of fuels, 
and ``fugitive'' emissions (direct leakage to the atmosphere) of 
CH4 and CO2, are estimated based on the 
methodology described in chapter 12 of the final rule TSD.
    The emissions intensity factors are expressed in terms of physical 
units per MWh or MMBtu of site energy savings. For power sector 
emissions, specific emissions intensity factors are calculated by 
sector and end use. Total emissions reductions are estimated using the 
energy savings calculated in the national impact analysis.

[[Page 28920]]

1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated in DOE's Analysis
    DOE's no-new-standards case for the electric power sector reflects 
the AEO, which incorporates the projected impacts of existing air 
quality regulations on emissions. AEO2023 reflects, to the extent 
possible, laws and regulations adopted through mid-November 2022, 
including the emissions control programs discussed in the following 
paragraphs the emissions control programs discussed in the following 
paragraphs, and the Inflation Reduction Act.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ For further information, see the Assumptions to AEO2023 
report that sets forth the major assumptions used to generate the 
projections in the Annual Energy Outlook. Available at: www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/assumptions/ (last accessed August 21, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SO2 emissions from affected electric generating units 
(``EGUs'') are subject to nationwide and regional emissions cap-and-
trade programs. Title IV of the Clean Air Act sets an annual emissions 
cap on SO2 for affected EGUs in the 48 contiguous States and 
the District of Columbia (``DC''). (42 U.S.C. 7651 et seq.) 
SO2 emissions from numerous States in the eastern half of 
the United States are also limited under the Cross-State Air Pollution 
Rule (``CSAPR''). 76 FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011). CSAPR requires these 
States to reduce certain emissions, including annual SO2 
emissions, and went into effect as of January 1, 2015.\83\ The AEO2023 
incorporates implementation of CSAPR, including the update to the CSAPR 
ozone season program emission budgets and target dates issued in 2016. 
81 FR 74504 (Oct. 26, 2016). Compliance with CSAPR is flexible among 
EGUs and is enforced through the use of tradable emissions allowances. 
Under existing EPA regulations, for states subject to SO2 
emissions limits under CSAPR, any excess SO2 emissions 
allowances resulting from the lower electricity demand caused by the 
adoption of an efficiency standard could be used to permit offsetting 
increases in SO2 emissions by another regulated EGU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ CSAPR requires states to address annual emissions of 
SO2 and NOX, precursors to the formation of 
fine particulate matter (``PM2.5'') pollution, in order 
to address the interstate transport of pollution with respect to the 
1997 and 2006 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards (``NAAQS''). CSAPR also requires certain states to address 
the ozone season (May-September) emissions of NOX, a 
precursor to the formation of ozone pollution, in order to address 
the interstate transport of ozone pollution with respect to the 1997 
ozone NAAQS. 76 FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011). EPA subsequently issued a 
supplemental rule that included an additional five states in the 
CSAPR ozone season program; 76 FR 80760 (Dec. 27, 2011) 
(Supplemental Rule), and EPA issued the CSAPR Update for the 2008 
ozone NAAQS. 81 FR 74504 (Oct. 26, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, beginning in 2016, SO2 emissions began to fall 
as a result of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (``MATS'') for 
power plants.\84\ 77 FR 9304 (Feb. 16, 2012). The final rule 
establishes power plant emission standards for mercury, acid gases, and 
non-mercury metallic toxic pollutants. Because of the emissions 
reductions under the MATS, it is unlikely that excess SO2 
emissions allowances resulting from the lower electricity demand would 
be needed or used to permit offsetting increases in SO2 
emissions by another regulated EGU. Therefore, energy conservation 
standards that decrease electricity generation will generally reduce 
SO2 emissions. DOE estimated SO2 emissions 
reduction using emissions factors based on AEO2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ In order to continue operating, coal power plants must have 
either flue gas desulfurization or dry sorbent injection systems 
installed. Both technologies, which are used to reduce acid gas 
emissions, also reduce SO2 emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CSAPR also established limits on NOX emissions for 
numerous States in the eastern half of the United States. Energy 
conservation standards would have little effect on NOX 
emissions in those States covered by CSAPR emissions limits if excess 
NOX emissions allowances resulting from the lower 
electricity demand could be used to permit offsetting increases in 
NOX emissions from other EGUs. In such case, NOX 
emissions would remain near the limit even if electricity generation 
goes down. Depending on the configuration of the power sector in the 
different regions and the need for allowances, however, NOX 
emissions might not remain at the limit in the case of lower 
electricity demand. That would mean that standards might reduce 
NOX emissions in covered States. Despite this possibility, 
DOE has chosen to be conservative in its analysis and has maintained 
the assumption that standards will not reduce NOX emissions 
in States covered by CSAPR. Standards would be expected to reduce 
NOX emissions in the States not covered by CSAPR. DOE used 
AEO2023 data to derive NOX emissions factors for the group 
of States not covered by CSAPR.
    The MATS limit mercury emissions from power plants, but they do not 
include emissions caps and, as such, DOE's energy conservation 
standards would be expected to slightly reduce Hg emissions. DOE 
estimated mercury emissions reduction using emissions factors based on 
AEO2023, which incorporates the MATS.

L. Monetizing Emissions Impacts

    As part of the development of this final rule, for the purpose of 
complying with the requirements of Executive Order 12866, DOE 
considered the estimated monetary benefits from the reduced emissions 
of CO2, CH4, N2O, NOX, and 
SO2 that are expected to result from each of the TSLs 
considered. In order to make this calculation analogous to the 
calculation of the NPV of consumer benefit, DOE considered the reduced 
emissions expected to result over the lifetime of products shipped in 
the projection period for each TSL. This section summarizes the basis 
for the values used for monetizing the emissions benefits and presents 
the values considered in this final rule.
    To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions, this analysis 
uses the interim estimates presented in the Technical Support Document: 
Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates 
Under Executive Order 13990 published in February 2021 by the IWG.
1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
    DOE estimates the monetized benefits of the reductions in emissions 
of CO2, CH4, and N2O by using a 
measure of the SC of each pollutant (e.g., SC-CO2). These 
estimates represent the monetary value of the net harm to society 
associated with a marginal increase in emissions of these pollutants in 
a given year, or the benefit of avoiding that increase. These estimates 
are intended to include (but are not limited to) climate-change-related 
changes in net agricultural productivity, human health, property 
damages from increased flood risk, disruption of energy systems, risk 
of conflict, environmental migration, and the value of ecosystem 
services.
    DOE exercises its own judgment in presenting monetized climate 
benefits as recommended by applicable Executive orders, and DOE would 
reach the same conclusion presented in this rulemaking in the absence 
of the social cost of greenhouse gases. That is, the social costs of 
greenhouse gases, whether measured using the February 2021 interim 
estimates presented by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost 
of Greenhouse Gases or by another means, did not affect the rule 
ultimately adopted by DOE.
    DOE estimated the global social benefits of CO2, 
CH4, and N2O reductions using SC-GHG values that 
were based on the interim values presented in the Technical Support 
Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim

[[Page 28921]]

Estimates under Executive Order 13990, published in February 2021 by 
the IWG (``February 2021 SC-GHG TSD''). The SC-GHG is the monetary 
value of the net harm to society associated with a marginal increase in 
emissions in a given year, or the benefit of avoiding that increase. In 
principle, the SC-GHG includes the value of all climate change impacts, 
including (but not limited to) changes in net agricultural 
productivity, human health effects, property damage from increased 
flood risk and natural disasters, disruption of energy systems, risk of 
conflict, environmental migration, and the value of ecosystem services. 
The SC-GHG therefore, reflects the societal value of reducing emissions 
of the gas in question by one metric ton. The SC-GHG is the 
theoretically appropriate value to use in conducting benefit-cost 
analyses of policies that affect CO2, N2O and CH4 
emissions. As a member of the IWG involved in the development of the 
February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, DOE agrees that the interim SC-GHG estimates 
represent the most appropriate estimate of the SC-GHG until revised 
estimates have been developed reflecting the latest, peer-reviewed 
science. DOE continues to evaluate recent developments in the 
scientific literature, including the updated SC-GHG estimates published 
by the EPA in December 2023 within their rulemaking on oil and natural 
gas sector sources.\85\ For this rulemaking, DOE used these updated SC-
GHG values to conduct a sensitivity analysis of the value of GHG 
emissions reductions associated with alternative standards for GSLs 
(see section IV.L.1.c of this document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ U.S. EPA. (2023). Supplementary Material for the Regulatory 
Impact Analysis for the Final Rulemaking, ``Standards of Performance 
for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources and Emissions 
Guidelines for Existing Sources: Oil and Natural Gas Sector Climate 
Review'': EPA Report on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases: 
Estimates Incorporating Recent Scientific Advances. Washington, DC: 
U.S. EPA. www.epa.gov/controlling-air-pollution-oil-and-natural-gas-operations/epas-final-rule-oil-and-natural-gas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SC-GHG estimates presented here were developed over many years, 
using peer-reviewed methodologies, transparent process, the best 
science available at the time of that process, and with input from the 
public. Specifically, in 2009, the IWG, that included the DOE and other 
executive branch agencies and offices was established to ensure that 
agencies were using the best available science and to promote 
consistency in the social cost of carbon (SC-CO2) values 
used across agencies. The IWG published SC-CO2 estimates in 
2010 that were developed from an ensemble of three widely cited 
integrated assessment models (IAMs) that estimate global climate 
damages using highly aggregated representations of climate processes 
and the global economy combined into a single modeling framework. The 
three IAMs were run using a common set of input assumptions in each 
model for future population, economic, and CO2 emissions 
growth, as well as equilibrium climate sensitivity--a measure of the 
globally averaged temperature response to increased atmospheric 
CO2 concentrations. These estimates were updated in 2013 
based on new versions of each IAM. In August 2016 the IWG published 
estimates of the social cost of methane (SC-CH4) and nitrous 
oxide (SC-N2O) using methodologies that are consistent with 
the methodology underlying the SC-CO2 estimates. The 
modeling approach that extends the IWG SC-CO2 methodology to 
non-CO2 GHGs has undergone multiple stages of peer review. 
The SC-CH4 and SC-N2O estimates were developed by 
Marten et al.\86\ and underwent a standard double-blind peer review 
process prior to journal publication. In 2015, as part of the response 
to public comments received to a 2013 solicitation for comments on the 
SC-CO2 estimates, the IWG announced a National Academies of 
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine review of the SC-CO2 
estimates to offer advice on how to approach future updates to ensure 
that the estimates continue to reflect the best available science and 
methodologies. In January 2017, the National Academies released their 
final report, Valuing Climate Damages: Updating Estimation of the 
Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide, and recommended specific criteria for 
future updates to the SC-CO2 estimates, a modeling framework 
to satisfy the specified criteria, and both near-term updates and 
longer-term research needs pertaining to various components of the 
estimation process.\87\ Shortly thereafter, in March 2017, President 
Trump issued Executive Order 13783, which disbanded the IWG, withdrew 
the previous TSDs, and directed agencies to ensure SC-CO2 
estimates used in regulatory analyses are consistent with the guidance 
contained in OMB's Circular A-4, ``including with respect to the 
consideration of domestic versus international impacts and the 
consideration of appropriate discount rates'' (E.O. 13783, section 
5(c)). Benefit-cost analyses following E.O. 13783 used SC-GHG estimates 
that attempted to focus on the U.S.-specific share of climate change 
damages as estimated by the models and were calculated using two 
discount rates recommended by Circular A-4, 3 percent and 7 percent. 
All other methodological decisions and model versions used in SC-GHG 
calculations remained the same as those used by the IWG in 2010 and 
2013, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ Marten, A.L., E.A. Kopits, C.W. Griffiths, S.C. Newbold, 
and A. Wolverton. Incremental CH4 and N2O 
mitigation benefits consistent with the US Government's SC-
CO2 estimates. Climate Policy. 2015. 15(2): pp. 272-298.
    \87\ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 
Valuing Climate Damages: Updating Estimation of the Social Cost of 
Carbon Dioxide. 2017. The National Academies Press: Washington, DC. 
Available at nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/24651/valuing-climate-damages-updating-estimation-of-the-social-cost-of.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 20, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 13990, 
which re-established the IWG and directed it to ensure that the U.S. 
Government's estimates of the social cost of carbon and other 
greenhouse gases reflect the best available science and the 
recommendations in the National Academies 2017 report. The IWG was 
tasked with first reviewing the SC-GHG estimates currently used in 
Federal analyses and publishing interim estimates within 30 days of the 
E.O. that reflect the full impact of GHG emissions, including by taking 
global damages into account. The interim SC-GHG estimates published in 
February 2021 are used here to estimate the climate benefits for this 
rulemaking. The E.O. instructs the IWG to undertake a fuller update of 
the SC-GHG estimates that takes into consideration the advice in the 
National Academies 2017 report and other recent scientific literature. 
The February 2021 SC-GHG TSD provides a complete discussion of the 
IWG's initial review conducted under E.O.13990. In particular, the IWG 
found that the SC-GHG estimates used under E.O. 13783 fail to reflect 
the full impact of GHG emissions in multiple ways.
    First, the IWG found that the SC-GHG estimates used under E.O. 
13783 fail to fully capture many climate impacts that affect the 
welfare of U.S. citizens and residents, and those impacts are better 
reflected by global measures of the SC-GHG. Examples of omitted effects 
from the E.O. 13783 estimates include direct effects on U.S. citizens, 
assets, and investments located abroad, supply chains, U.S. military 
assets and interests abroad, and tourism, and spillover pathways such 
as economic and political destabilization and global migration that can 
lead to adverse impacts on U.S. national security, public health, and 
humanitarian concerns. In addition, assessing the benefits of U.S. GHG 
mitigation activities requires consideration of how those actions may 
affect mitigation

[[Page 28922]]

activities by other countries, as those international mitigation 
actions will provide a benefit to U.S. citizens and residents by 
mitigating climate impacts that affect U.S. citizens and residents. A 
wide range of scientific and economic experts have emphasized the issue 
of reciprocity as support for considering global damages of GHG 
emissions. If the United States does not consider impacts on other 
countries, it is difficult to convince other countries to consider the 
impacts of their emissions on the United States. The only way to 
achieve an efficient allocation of resources for emissions reduction on 
a global basis--and so benefit the U.S. and its citizens--is for all 
countries to base their policies on global estimates of damages. As a 
member of the IWG involved in the development of the February 2021 SC-
GHG TSD, DOE agrees with this assessment and, therefore, in this final 
rule DOE centers attention on a global measure of SC-GHG. This approach 
is the same as that taken in DOE regulatory analyses from 2012 through 
2016. A robust estimate of climate damages that accrue only to U.S. 
citizens and residents does not currently exist in the literature. As 
explained in the February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, existing estimates are both 
incomplete and an underestimate of total damages that accrue to the 
citizens and residents of the U.S. because they do not fully capture 
the regional interactions and spillovers previously discussed, nor do 
they include all of the important physical, ecological, and economic 
impacts of climate change recognized in the climate change literature. 
As noted in the February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, the IWG will continue to 
review developments in the literature, including more robust 
methodologies for estimating a U.S.-specific SC-GHG value, and explore 
ways to better inform the public of the full range of carbon impacts. 
As a member of the IWG, DOE will continue to follow developments in the 
literature pertaining to this issue.
    Second, the IWG found that the use of the social rate of return on 
capital (estimated to be 7 percent under OMB's 2003 Circular A-4 
guidance) to discount the future benefits of reducing GHG emissions 
inappropriately underestimates the impacts of climate change for the 
purposes of estimating the SC-GHG. Consistent with the findings of the 
National Academies and the economic literature, the IWG continued to 
conclude that the consumption rate of interest is the theoretically 
appropriate discount rate in an intergenerational context,\88\ and 
recommended that discount rate uncertainty and relevant aspects of 
intergenerational ethical considerations be accounted for in selecting 
future discount rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon. Social 
Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis under Executive Order 
12866. 2010. United States Government. Available at www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-12/documents/scc_tsd_2010.pdf (last 
accessed April 15, 2022); Interagency Working Group on Social Cost 
of Carbon. Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for 
Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866. 2013. 
Available at www.federalregister.gov/documents/2013/11/26/2013-28242/technical-support-document-technical-update-of-the-social-cost-of-carbon-for-regulatory-impact (last accessed April 15, 2022); 
Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, United 
States Government. Technical Support Document: Technical Update on 
the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis-Under 
Executive Order 12866. August 2016. Available at www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-12/documents/sc_co2_tsd_august_2016.pdf (last 
accessed Jan. 18, 2022); Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of 
Greenhouse Gases, United States Government. Addendum to Technical 
Support Document on Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact 
Analysis under Executive Order 12866: Application of the Methodology 
to Estimate the Social Cost of Methane and the Social Cost of 
Nitrous Oxide. August 2016. Available at: www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-12/documents/addendum_to_sc-ghg_tsd_august_2016.pdf (last 
accessed January 18, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the damage estimates developed for use in the SC-GHG 
are estimated in consumption-equivalent terms, and so an application of 
OMB Circular A-4's guidance for regulatory analysis would then use the 
consumption discount rate to calculate the SC-GHG. DOE agrees with this 
assessment and will continue to follow developments in the literature 
pertaining to this issue. DOE also notes that while OMB's 2003 Circular 
A-4 recommends using 3% and 7% discount rates as ``default'' values, 
Circular A-4 also reminds agencies that ``different regulations may 
call for different emphases in the analysis, depending on the nature 
and complexity of the regulatory issues and the sensitivity of the 
benefit and cost estimates to the key assumptions.'' On discounting, 
Circular A-4 recognizes that ``special ethical considerations arise 
when comparing benefits and costs across generations,'' and Circular A-
4 acknowledges that analyses may appropriately ``discount future costs 
and consumption benefits . . . at a lower rate than for 
intragenerational analysis.'' In the 2015 Response to Comments on the 
Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis, OMB, DOE, and the 
other IWG members recognized that ``Circular A-4 is a living document'' 
and ``the use of 7 percent is not considered appropriate for 
intergenerational discounting. There is wide support for this view in 
the academic literature, and it is recognized in Circular A-4 itself.'' 
Thus, DOE concludes that a 7% discount rate is not appropriate to apply 
to value the social cost of greenhouse gases in the analysis presented 
in this analysis.
    To calculate the present and annualized values of climate benefits, 
DOE uses the same discount rate as the rate used to discount the value 
of damages from future GHG emissions, for internal consistency. That 
approach to discounting follows the same approach that the February 
2021 SC-GHG TSD recommends ``to ensure internal consistency--i.e., 
future damages from climate change using the SC-GHG at 2.5 percent 
should be discounted to the base year of the analysis using the same 
2.5 percent rate.'' DOE has also consulted the National Academies' 2017 
recommendations on how SC-GHG estimates can ``be combined in RIAs with 
other cost and benefits estimates that may use different discount 
rates.'' The National Academies reviewed several options, including 
``presenting all discount rate combinations of other costs and benefits 
with [SC-GHG] estimates.''
    As a member of the IWG involved in the development of the February 
2021 SC-GHG TSD, DOE agrees with the above assessment and will continue 
to follow developments in the literature pertaining to this issue. 
While the IWG works to assess how best to incorporate the latest, peer 
reviewed science to develop an updated set of SC-GHG estimates, it set 
the interim estimates to be the most recent estimates developed by the 
IWG prior to the group being disbanded in 2017. The estimates rely on 
the same models and harmonized inputs and are calculated using a range 
of discount rates. As explained in the February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, the 
IWG has recommended that agencies revert to the same set of four values 
drawn from the SC-GHG distributions based on three discount rates as 
were used in regulatory analyses between 2010 and 2016 and were subject 
to public comment. For each discount rate, the IWG combined the 
distributions across models and socioeconomic emissions scenarios 
(applying equal weight to each) and then selected a set of four values 
recommended for use in benefit-cost analyses: an average value 
resulting from the model runs for each of three discount rates (2.5 
percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent), plus a fourth value, selected as 
the 95th percentile of estimates based on a 3 percent discount rate. 
The fourth value was included to provide information on potentially 
higher-than-expected economic impacts

[[Page 28923]]

from climate change. As explained in the February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, and 
DOE agrees, this update reflects the immediate need to have an 
operational SC-GHG for use in regulatory benefit-cost analyses and 
other applications that was developed using a transparent process, 
peer-reviewed methodologies, and the science available at the time of 
that process. Those estimates were subject to public comment in the 
context of dozens of proposed rulemakings as well as in a dedicated 
public comment period in 2013.
    IPI commented that even though the proposed rule's costs would 
exceed its benefits without considering climate effects, DOE 
appropriately applies the social cost estimates developed by the 
Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases to its 
analysis of climate benefits. IPI commented that DOE should consider 
applying sensitivity analysis using EPA's draft climate-damage 
estimates released in November 2022, as EPA's work faithfully 
implements the roadmap laid out in 2017 by the National Academies of 
Sciences and applies recent advances in the science and economics on 
the costs of climate change. (IPI, No. 175 at pp. 1-3)
    DOE typically does not conduct analyses using draft inputs that are 
still under review. DOE notes that because the EPA's draft estimates 
are considerably higher than the IWG's interim SC-GHG values applied 
for this final rule, an analysis that used the draft values would 
result in significantly greater climate-related benefits. However, such 
results would not affect DOE's decision in this final rule.
    There are a number of limitations and uncertainties associated with 
the SC-GHG estimates. First, the current scientific and economic 
understanding of discounting approaches suggests discount rates 
appropriate for intergenerational analysis in the context of climate 
change are likely to be less than 3 percent, near 2 percent or 
lower.\89\ Second, the IAMs used to produce these interim estimates do 
not include all of the important physical, ecological, and economic 
impacts of climate change recognized in the climate change literature 
and the science underlying their ``damage functions''--i.e., the core 
parts of the IAMs that map global mean temperature changes and other 
physical impacts of climate change into economic (both market and 
nonmarket) damages--lags behind the most recent research. For example, 
limitations include the incomplete treatment of catastrophic and non-
catastrophic impacts in the integrated assessment models, their 
incomplete treatment of adaptation and technological change, the 
incomplete way in which inter-regional and intersectoral linkages are 
modeled, uncertainty in the extrapolation of damages to high 
temperatures, and inadequate representation of the relationship between 
the discount rate and uncertainty in economic growth over long time 
horizons. Likewise, the socioeconomic and emissions scenarios used as 
inputs to the models do not reflect new information from the last 
decade of scenario generation or the full range of projections. The 
modeling limitations do not all work in the same direction in terms of 
their influence on the SC-CO2 estimates. However, as 
discussed in the February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, the IWG has recommended 
that, taken together, the limitations suggest that the interim SC-GHG 
estimates used in this final rule likely underestimate the damages from 
GHG emissions. DOE concurs with this assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse 
Gases. 2021. Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, 
Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates under Executive Order 
13990. February. United States Government. Available at 
www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/blog/2021/02/26/a-return-to-science-evidence-based-estimates-of-the-benefits-of-reducing-climate-pollution/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE's derivations of the SC-CO2, SC-N2O, and 
SC-CH4 values used for this NOPR are discussed in the 
following sections, and the results of DOE's analyses estimating the 
benefits of the reductions in emissions of these GHGs are presented in 
section V.B.6 of this document.
a. Social Cost of Carbon
    The SC-CO2 values used for this final rule were based on 
the values developed for the IWG's February 2021 TSD, which are shown 
in table IV.20 in five-year increments from 2020 to 2050. The set of 
annual values that DOE used, which was adapted from estimates published 
by EPA,\90\ is presented in appendix 13A of the final rule TSD. These 
estimates are based on methods, assumptions, and parameters identical 
to the estimates published by the IWG (which were based on EPA 
modeling), and include values for 2051 to 2070. DOE expects additional 
climate benefits to accrue for products still operating after 2070, but 
a lack of available SC-CO2 estimates for emissions years 
beyond 2070 prevents DOE from monetizing these potential benefits in 
this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ See EPA, Revised 2023 and Later Model Year Light-Duty 
Vehicle GHG Emissions Standards: Regulatory Impact Analysis, 
Washington, DC, December 2021. Available at nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P1013ORN.pdf (last accessed Feb. 21, 2023).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.031


[[Page 28924]]


    NYSERDA commented that the assumption used by DOE in the NOPR 
regarding SC-CO2 based on current Federal guidance is 
significantly lower than that established by the New York Department of 
Environmental Conservation, and DOE may be underestimating the climate 
benefits from this proposed standard. (NYSERDA, No. 166 at p. 3)
    The IWG is preparing new SC-GHG values that reflect the current 
state of science related to climate change and its impacts. Until such 
values have been finalized, DOE continues to use the interim values in 
the February 2021 TSD. DOE agrees that the climate benefits from the 
proposed standard may be underestimated in the NOPR, but such 
underestimation has no bearing on DOE's decision in the NOPR or in this 
final rule.
    DOE multiplied the CO2 emissions reduction estimated for 
each year by the SC-CO2 value for that year in each of the 
four cases. DOE adjusted the values to 2022$ using the implicit price 
deflator for gross domestic product (``GDP'') from the Bureau of 
Economic Analysis. To calculate a present value of the stream of 
monetary values, DOE discounted the values in each of the four cases 
using the specific discount rate that had been used to obtain the SC-
CO2 values in each case.
b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous Oxide
    The SC-CH4 and SC-N2O values used for this 
final rule were based on the values developed for the February 2021 SC-
GHG TSD. Table IV.21 shows the updated sets of SC-CH4 and 
SC-N2O estimates from the latest interagency update in 5-
year increments from 2020 to 2050. The full set of annual values used 
is presented in Appendix 13-A of the final rule TSD. To capture the 
uncertainties involved in regulatory impact analysis, DOE has 
determined it is appropriate to include all four sets of SC-
CH4 and SC-N2O values, as recommended by the IWG. 
DOE derived values after 2050 using the approach described above for 
the SC-CO2.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.032

    DOE multiplied the CH4 and N2O emissions 
reduction estimated for each year by the SC-CH4 and SC-
N2O estimates for that year in each of the cases. DOE 
adjusted the values to 2022$ using the implicit price deflator for 
gross domestic product (``GDP'') from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. 
To calculate a present value of the stream of monetary values, DOE 
discounted the values in each of the cases using the specific discount 
rate that had been used to obtain the SC-CH4 and SC-
N2O estimates in each case.
c. Sensitivity Analysis Using EPA's New SC-GHG Estimates
    In the regulatory impact analysis of EPA's December 2023 Final 
Rulemaking, ``Standards of Performance for New, Reconstructed, and 
Modified Sources and Emissions Guidelines for Existing Sources: Oil and 
Natural Gas Sector Climate Review,'' EPA estimated climate benefits 
using a new set of Social Cost of Greenhouse Gas (SC-GHG) estimates. 
These estimates incorporate recent research addressing recommendations 
of the National Academies (2017), responses to public comments on an 
earlier sensitivity analysis using draft SC-GHG estimates, and comments 
from a 2023 external peer review of the accompanying technical 
report.\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ For further information about the methodology used to 
develop these values, public comments, and information pertaining to 
the peer review, see https://www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/scghg.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The full set of annual values is presented in appendix 13C of the 
direct final rule TSD. Although DOE continues

[[Page 28925]]

to review EPA's estimates, for this rulemaking, DOE used these new SC-
GHG values to conduct a sensitivity analysis of the value of GHG 
emissions reductions associated with alternative standards for GSLs. 
This sensitivity analysis provides an expanded range of potential 
climate benefits associated with amended standards. The final year of 
EPA's new estimates is 2080; therefore, DOE did not monetize the 
climate benefits of GHG emissions reductions occurring after 2080.
    The results of the sensitivity analysis are presented in appendix 
13C of the final rule TSD. The overall climate benefits are larger when 
using EPA's higher SC-GHG estimates, compared to the climate benefits 
using the more conservative IWG SC-GHG estimates. However, DOE's 
conclusion that the standards are economically justified remains the 
same regardless of which SC-GHG estimates are used.
2. Monetization of Other Emissions Impacts
    For the final rule, DOE estimated the monetized value of 
NOX and SO2 emissions reductions from electricity 
generation using benefit per ton estimates for that sector from EPA's 
Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program.\92\ DOE used EPA's values for 
PM2.5-related benefits associated with NOX and 
SO2 and for ozone-related benefits associated with 
NOX for 2025 and 2030, and 2040, calculated with discount 
rates of 3 percent and 7 percent. DOE used linear interpolation to 
define values for the years not given in the 2025 to 2040 period; for 
years beyond 2040, the values are held constant. DOE combined the EPA 
regional benefit-per-ton estimates with regional information on 
electricity consumption and emissions from AEO2023 to define weighted-
average national values for NOX and SO2 (see 
appendix 13B of the final rule TSD).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ``Estimating the 
Benefit per Ton of Reducing Directly-Emitted PM2.5, 
PM2.5 Precursors and Ozone Precursors from 21 Sectors.'' 
Available at www.epa.gov/benmap/estimating-benefit-ton-reducing-directly-emitted-pm25-pm25-precursors-and-ozone-precursors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE multiplied the site emissions reduction (in tons) in each year 
by the associated $/ton values, and then discounted each series using 
discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent as appropriate.

M. Utility Impact Analysis

    The utility impact analysis estimates the changes in installed 
electrical capacity and generation projected to result for each 
considered TSL. The analysis is based on published output from the NEMS 
associated with AEO2023. NEMS produces the AEO Reference case, as well 
as a number of side cases that estimate the economy-wide impacts of 
changes to energy supply and demand. For the current analysis, impacts 
are quantified by comparing the levels of electricity sector 
generation, installed capacity, fuel consumption, and emissions in the 
AEO2023 Reference case and various side cases. Details of the 
methodology are provided in the appendices to chapter 14 of the final 
rule TSD.
    The output of this analysis is a set of time-dependent coefficients 
that capture the change in electricity generation, primary fuel 
consumption, installed capacity, and power sector emissions due to a 
unit reduction in demand for a given end use. These coefficients are 
multiplied by the stream of electricity savings calculated in the NIA 
to provide estimates of selected utility impacts of potential new or 
amended energy conservation standards.

N. Employment Impact Analysis

    DOE considers employment impacts in the domestic economy as one 
factor in selecting a standard. Employment impacts from new or amended 
energy conservation standards include both direct and indirect impacts. 
Direct employment impacts are any changes in the number of employees of 
manufacturers of the products subject to standards, their suppliers, 
and related service firms. The MIA addresses those impacts. Indirect 
employment impacts are changes in national employment that occur due to 
the shift in expenditures and capital investment caused by the purchase 
and operation of more-efficient appliances. Indirect employment impacts 
from standards consist of the net jobs created or eliminated in the 
national economy, other than in the manufacturing sector being 
regulated, caused by (1) reduced spending by consumers on energy, (2) 
reduced spending on new energy supply by the utility industry, (3) 
increased consumer spending on the products to which the new standards 
apply and other goods and services, and (4) the effects of those three 
factors throughout the economy.
    One method for assessing the possible effects on the demand for 
labor of such shifts in economic activity is to compare sector 
employment statistics developed by the Labor Department's Bureau of 
Labor Statistics (``BLS''). BLS regularly publishes its estimates of 
the number of jobs per million dollars of economic activity in 
different sectors of the economy, as well as the jobs created elsewhere 
in the economy by this same economic activity. Data from BLS indicate 
that expenditures in the utility sector generally create fewer jobs 
(both directly and indirectly) than expenditures in other sectors of 
the economy.\93\ There are many reasons for these differences, 
including wage differences and the fact that the utility sector is more 
capital-intensive and less labor-intensive than other sectors. Energy 
conservation standards have the effect of reducing consumer utility 
bills. Because reduced consumer expenditures for energy likely lead to 
increased expenditures in other sectors of the economy, the general 
effect of efficiency standards is to shift economic activity from a 
less labor-intensive sector (i.e., the utility sector) to more labor-
intensive sectors (e.g., the retail and service sectors). Thus, the BLS 
data suggest that net national employment may increase due to shifts in 
economic activity resulting from energy conservation standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ See U.S. Department of Commerce--Bureau of Economic 
Analysis. Regional Multipliers: A User Handbook for the Regional 
Input-Output Modeling System (``RIMS II''). 1997. U.S. Government 
Printing Office: Washington, DC. Available at www.bea.gov/scb/pdf/regional/perinc/meth/rims2.pdf (last accessed July 1, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE estimated indirect national employment impacts for the standard 
levels considered in this final rule using an input/output model of the 
U.S. economy called Impact of Sector Energy Technologies version 4 
(``ImSET'').\94\ ImSET is a special-purpose version of the ``U.S. 
Benchmark National Input-Output'' (``I-O'') model, which was designed 
to estimate the national employment and income effects of energy-saving 
technologies. The ImSET software includes a computer-based I-O model 
having structural coefficients that characterize economic flows among 
187 sectors most relevant to industrial, commercial, and residential 
building energy use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ Livingston, O.V., S.R. Bender, M.J. Scott, and R.W. 
Schultz. ImSET 4.0: Impact of Sector Energy Technologies Model 
Description and User's Guide. 2015. Pacific Northwest National 
Laboratory: Richland, WA. PNNL-24563.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE notes that ImSET is not a general equilibrium forecasting 
model, and that the uncertainties involved in projecting employment 
impacts, especially changes in the later years of the analysis. Because 
ImSET does not incorporate price changes, the employment effects 
predicted by ImSET may over-estimate actual job impacts over the long 
run for this rule. Therefore, DOE used ImSET only to generate results 
for near-term timeframes (2029), where these uncertainties are reduced. 
For more

[[Page 28926]]

details on the employment impact analysis, see chapter 15 of the final 
rule TSD.

V. Analytical Results and Conclusions

    The following section addresses the results from DOE's analyses 
with respect to the considered energy conservation standards for GSLs. 
It addresses the TSLs examined by DOE, the projected impacts of each of 
these levels if adopted as energy conservation standards for GSLs, and 
the standards levels that DOE is adopting in this final rule. 
Additional details regarding DOE's analyses are contained in the final 
rule TSD supporting this document.

A. Trial Standard Levels

    In general, DOE typically evaluates potential new or amended 
standards for products and equipment by grouping individual efficiency 
levels for each class into TSLs. Use of TSLs allows DOE to identify and 
consider manufacturer cost interactions between the product classes, to 
the extent that there are such interactions, and price elasticity of 
consumer purchasing decisions that may change when different standard 
levels are set.
    In the analysis conducted for this final rule, DOE analyzed the 
benefits and burdens of six TSLs for GSLs. DOE developed TSLs that 
combine efficiency levels for each analyzed product class. These TSLs 
were developed by combining specific efficiency levels for each of the 
GSL product classes analyzed by DOE. TSL 1 represents a modest increase 
in efficiency, with CFL technology retained as an option for product 
classes that include fluorescent lamps, including the Integrated 
Omnidirectional Short and Non-integrated Omnidirectional product 
classes. TSL 2 represents a moderate standard level that can only be 
met by LED options for all product classes. TSL 3 increases the 
stringency for the Integrated Omnidirectional Short, Integrated 
Omnidirectional Long and Integrated Directional product classes, and 
represents a significant increase in NES compared to TSLs 1 and 2. TSL 
4 increases the standard level for the Integrated Omnidirectional Short 
product class, as well as the expected NES. TSL 5 represents the 
maximum NPV. TSL 6 represents max-tech. DOE presents the results for 
the TSLs in this document, while the results for all efficiency levels 
that DOE analyzed are in the final rule TSD.
    Table V.1 presents the TSLs and the corresponding efficiency levels 
that DOE has identified for potential amended energy conservation 
standards for GSLs.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.033

    DOE constructed the TSLs for this final rule to include ELs 
representative of ELs with similar characteristics (i.e., using similar 
technologies and/or efficiencies, and having roughly comparable 
equipment availability) or representing significant increases in 
efficiency and energy savings. The use of representative ELs provided 
for greater distinction between the TSLs. While representative ELs were 
included in the TSLs, DOE considered all efficiency levels as part of 
its analysis.\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ Efficiency levels that were analyzed for this final rule 
are discussed in section 0 of this document. Results by efficiency 
level are presented in TSD chapter 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings

1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers
    DOE analyzed the economic impacts on GSL consumers by looking at 
the effects that potential amended standards at each TSL would have on 
the LCC and PBP. DOE also examined the impacts of potential standards 
on selected consumer subgroups. These analyses are discussed in the 
following sections.
a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
    In general, higher-efficiency products affect consumers in two 
ways: (1) purchase price increases and (2) annual operating costs 
decrease. Inputs used for calculating the LCC and PBP include total 
installed costs (i.e., product price plus installation costs), and 
operating costs (i.e., annual energy use, energy prices, energy price 
trends, repair costs, and maintenance costs). The LCC calculation also 
uses product lifetime and a discount rate. Chapter 7 of the final rule 
TSD provides detailed information on the LCC and PBP analyses.
    Table V.2 through table V.11 show the LCC and PBP results for the 
TSLs considered for each product class. In the first of each pair of 
tables, the simple payback is measured relative to the baseline 
product. In the second table, the impacts are measured based on the 
changes in the efficacy distribution under a standard relative to the 
efficacy distribution in the no-new-standards case in the first full 
year of compliance (see section IV.F.9 of this document). Because some 
consumers purchase products with higher efficiency than the minimum 
allowed under a standard in the no-new-standards case, the average 
savings can differ from the difference between the average LCC of the 
baseline product and the average LCC at each TSL. The savings refer 
only to consumers who are affected by a standard at a given TSL. Those 
who already purchase a product with efficiency at or above a given TSL 
are not affected. Consumers for whom the

[[Page 28927]]

LCC increases at a given TSL experience a net cost.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.034


[[Page 28928]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.035


[[Page 28929]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.036


[[Page 28930]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.037

 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.038


[[Page 28931]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.039

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.040

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.041


[[Page 28932]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.042

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.043

b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
    In the consumer subgroup analysis, DOE estimated the impact of the 
considered TSLs on low-income households and small businesses. Table 
V.12 and table V.13 compare the average LCC savings and PBP at each 
efficiency level for the consumer subgroups with similar metrics for 
the entire consumer sample for GSLs. In most cases, the average LCC 
savings and PBP for low-income households and small businesses at the 
considered efficiency levels are not substantially different from the 
average for all consumers. Chapter 10 of the final rule TSD presents 
the complete LCC and PBP results for the subgroups.

[[Page 28933]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.044


[[Page 28934]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.045

c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
    As discussed in section IV.F.11 of this document, EPCA establishes 
a rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is 
economically justified if the increased purchase cost for a product 
that meets the standard is less than three times the value of the 
first-year energy savings resulting from the standard. In calculating a 
rebuttable presumption payback period for each of the considered TSLs, 
DOE used discrete values, and as required by EPCA, based the energy use 
calculation on the DOE test procedures for GSLs. In contrast, the PBPs 
presented in section V.B.1.a of this document were calculated using

[[Page 28935]]

distributions that reflect the range of energy use in the field.
    Table V.14 presents the rebuttable-presumption payback periods for 
the considered TSLs for GSLs. While DOE examined the rebuttable-
presumption criterion, it considered whether the standard levels 
considered for this rule are economically justified through a more 
detailed analysis of the economic impacts of those levels, pursuant to 
42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i), that considers the full range of impacts to 
the consumer, manufacturer, Nation, and environment. The results of 
that analysis serve as the basis for DOE to definitively evaluate the 
economic justification for a potential standard level, thereby 
supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of 
economic justification.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.046

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
    DOE performed an MIA to estimate the impact of new and amended 
energy conservation standards on manufacturers of GSLs. The next 
section describes the expected impacts on manufacturers at each 
considered TSL. Chapter 11 of the final rule TSD explains the analysis 
in further detail.
a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results
    In this section, DOE provides GRIM results from the analysis, which 
examines changes in the industry that would result from a standard. The 
following tables summarize the estimated financial impacts (represented 
by changes in INPV) of potential new and amended energy conservation 
standards on manufacturers of GSLs, as well as the conversion costs 
that DOE estimates manufacturers of GSLs would incur at each TSL. To 
evaluate the range

[[Page 28936]]

of cash flow impacts on the GSL industry, DOE modeled two manufacturer 
markup scenarios using different assumptions that correspond to the 
range of anticipated market responses to new and amended energy 
conservation standards: (1) the preservation of gross margin scenario 
and (2) the preservation of operating profit scenario, as previously 
described in section IV.J.2.d of this document.
    Each of the modeled scenarios results in a unique set of cash flows 
and corresponding industry values at each TSL for GSL manufacturers. In 
the following discussion, the INPV results refer to the difference in 
industry value between the no-new-standards case and each standards 
case (i.e., TSLs) resulting from the sum of discounted cash flows from 
2024 through 2058. To provide perspective on the short-run cash flow 
impact, DOE includes in the discussion of results a comparison of free 
cash flow between the no-new-standards case and the standards case at 
each TSL in the year before new and amended standards are required.
    DOE presents the range in INPV for GSL manufacturers in table V.15 
and table V.16. DOE presents the impacts to industry cash flows and the 
conversion costs in table V.17.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.047

 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.048

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.049

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
    At TSL 6, DOE estimates the change in INPV will range from -$322 
million to -$155 million, which represents a change in INPV of -15.3 
percent to -7.3 percent, respectively. At TSL 6, industry free cash 
flow decreases to -$49 million, which represents a decrease of 
approximately 141 percent, compared to the no-new-standards case value 
of $119 million in 2028, the year before the first full year of 
compliance.
    TSL 6 sets the efficacy level at EL 7 for the Integrated 
Omnidirectional Short product class, which is max-tech; at EL 6 for the 
Integrated Omnidirectional Long product class, which is max-tech; at EL 
5 for the Integrated Directional product class, which is max-tech; and 
at EL 3 for the Non-Integrated Omnidirectional Short and Non-Integrated 
Directional product classes, which is max-tech for those product 
classes. DOE estimates that

[[Page 28937]]

approximately 17 percent of the Integrated Omnidirectional Short 
product class shipments; approximately 14 percent of the Integrated 
Omnidirectional Long product class shipments; approximately 35 percent 
of the Integrated Directional product class shipments; approximately 54 
percent of the Non-Integrated Omnidirectional Short product class 
shipments; and approximately 26 percent of the Non-Integrated 
Directional product class shipments will meet the ELs required at TSL 6 
in 2029, the first full year of compliance of new and amended 
standards.
    DOE does not expect manufacturers to incur any capital conversion 
costs at TSL 6. At TSL 6, additional LED lamp production capacity is 
not expected to be needed to meet the expected volume of LED lamp 
shipments, as GSL manufacturers are expected to produce more LED lamps 
for every product class in the years leading up to 2029 than in 2029, 
the first full year of compliance of new and amended standards. DOE 
estimates approximately $430 million in product conversion costs as 
most LED lamps may need to be re-modeled to meet ELs required at TSL 6. 
DOE does not estimate any conversion costs for CFL models as GSL 
manufacturers are expected to discontinue all CFLs for any standard 
level beyond TSL 1.
    At TSL 6, the shipment weighted-average MPC increases moderately by 
approximately 12.9 percent relative to the no-new-standards case MPC. 
In the preservation of gross margin scenario, this increase in MPC 
causes an increase in manufacturer free cash flow. However, the $430 
million in conversion costs estimated at TSL 6, ultimately results in a 
moderately negative change in INPV at TSL 6 under the preservation of 
gross margin scenario.
    Under the preservation of operating profit scenario, the moderate 
increase in the shipment weighted-average MPC results in a slightly 
lower average manufacturer markup of 1.53 (compared to the 1.55 
manufacturer markup used in the no-new-standards case). This slightly 
lower average manufacturer markup and the $430 million in conversion 
costs result in a moderately negative change in INPV at TSL 6 under the 
preservation of operating profit scenario.
    At TSL 5, DOE estimates the change in INPV will range from -$316 
million to -$154 million, which represents a change in INPV of -15.0 
percent to -7.3 percent, respectively. At TSL 5, industry free cash 
flow decreases to -$47 million, which represents a decrease of 
approximately 140 percent, compared to the no-new-standards case value 
of $119 million in 2028, the year before the first full year of 
compliance.
    TSL 5 sets the efficacy level at EL 7 for the Integrated 
Omnidirectional Short product class, which is max-tech; at EL 5 for the 
Integrated Omnidirectional Long product class; at EL 5 for the 
Integrated Directional product class, which is max-tech; and at EL 3 
for the Non-Integrated Omnidirectional Short and Non-Integrated 
Directional product classes, which is max-tech for those product 
classes. DOE estimates that approximately 17 percent of the Integrated 
Omnidirectional Short product class shipments; approximately 28 percent 
of the Integrated Omnidirectional Long product class shipments; 
approximately 35 percent of the Integrated Directional product class 
shipments; approximately 54 percent of the Non-Integrated 
Omnidirectional Short product class shipments; and approximately 26 
percent of the Non-Integrated Directional product class shipments will 
meet or exceed the ELs required at TSL 5 in 2029, the first full year 
of compliance of new and amended standards.
    DOE does not expect manufacturers to incur any capital conversion 
costs at TSL 5. At TSL 5, additional LED lamp production capacity is 
not expected to be needed to meet the expected volume of LED lamp 
shipments, as GSL manufacturers are expected to produce more LED lamps 
for every product class in the years leading up to 2029 than in 2029, 
the first full year of compliance of new and amended standards. DOE 
estimates approximately $426 million in product conversion costs as 
most LED lamps may need to be re-modeled to meet ELs required at TSL 5. 
DOE does not estimate any conversion costs for CFL models as GSL 
manufacturers are expected to discontinue all CFLs for any standard 
level beyond TSL 1.
    At TSL 5, the shipment weighted-average MPC increases moderately by 
approximately 12.8 percent relative to the no-new-standards case MPC. 
In the preservation of gross margin scenario, this increase in MPC 
causes an increase in manufacturer free cash flow. However, the $429 
million in conversion costs estimated at TSL 5, ultimately results in a 
moderately negative change in INPV at TSL 5 under the preservation of 
gross margin scenario.
    Under the preservation of operating profit scenario, the moderate 
increase in the shipment weighted-average MPC results in a slightly 
lower average manufacturer markup of 1.53 (compared to the 1.55 
manufacturer markup used in the no-new-standards case). This slightly 
lower average manufacturer markup and the $429 million in conversion 
costs result in a moderately negative change in INPV at TSL 5 under the 
preservation of operating profit scenario.
    At TSL 4, DOE estimates the change in INPV will range from -$219 
million to -$149 million, which represents a change in INPV of -10.4 
percent to -7.1 percent, respectively. At TSL 4, industry free cash 
flow decreases to -$33 million, which represents a decrease of 
approximately 127 percent, compared to the no-new-standards case value 
of $119 million in 2028, the year before the first full year of 
compliance.
    TSL 4 sets the efficacy level at EL 6 for the Integrated 
Omnidirectional Short product class; at EL 5 for the Integrated 
Omnidirectional Long product class; at EL 5 for the Integrated 
Directional product class, which is max-tech; at EL 3 for the Non-
Integrated Omnidirectional Short product class, which is max-tech; and 
at EL 1 for the Non-Integrated Directional product class. DOE estimates 
that approximately 31 percent of the Integrated Omnidirectional Short 
product class shipments; approximately 28 percent of the Integrated 
Omnidirectional Long product class shipments; approximately 35 percent 
of the Integrated Directional product class shipments; approximately 54 
percent of the Non-Integrated Omnidirectional Short product class 
shipments; and approximately 74 percent of the Non-Integrated 
Directional product class shipments will meet or exceed the ELs 
required at TSL 4 in 2029, the first full year of compliance of new and 
amended standards.
    DOE does not expect manufacturers to incur any capital conversion 
costs at TSL 4. At TSL 4, additional LED lamp production capacity is 
not expected to be needed to meet the expected volume of LED lamp 
shipments, as GSL manufacturers are expected to produce more LED lamps 
for every product class in the years leading up to 2029 than in 2029, 
the first full year of compliance of new and amended standards. DOE 
estimates approximately $394 million in product conversion costs as 
many LED lamps may need to be re-modeled to meet ELs required at TSL 4. 
DOE does not estimate any conversion costs for CFL models as GSL 
manufacturers are expected to discontinue all CFLs for any standard 
level beyond TSL 1.
    At TSL 4, the shipment weighted-average MPC increases moderately by 
approximately 10.4 percent relative to the no-new-standards case MPC. 
In the preservation of gross margin scenario, this increase in MPC 
causes an increase

[[Page 28938]]

in manufacturer free cash flow. However, the $394 million in conversion 
costs estimated at TSL 4, ultimately results in a moderately negative 
change in INPV at TSL 4 under the preservation of gross margin 
scenario.
    Under the preservation of operating profit scenario, the moderate 
increase in the shipment weighted-average MPC results in a slightly 
lower average manufacturer markup of 1.54 (compared to the 1.55 
manufacturer markup used in the no-new-standards case). This slightly 
lower average manufacturer markup and the $394 million in conversion 
costs result in a moderately negative change in INPV at TSL 4 under the 
preservation of operating profit scenario.
    At TSL 3, DOE estimates the change in INPV will range from -$200 
million to -$159 million, which represents a change in INPV of -9.5 
percent to -7.5 percent, respectively. At TSL 3, industry free cash 
flow decreases to -$16 million, which represents a decrease of 
approximately 113 percent, compared to the no-new-standards case value 
of $119 million in 2028, the year before the first full year of 
compliance.
    TSL 3 sets the efficacy level at EL 5 for the Integrated 
Omnidirectional Short product class; at EL 5 for the Integrated 
Omnidirectional Long product class; at EL 5 for the Integrated 
Directional product class, which is max-tech; at EL 3 for the Non-
Integrated Omnidirectional Short product class, which is max-tech; and 
at EL 1 for the Non-Integrated Directional product class. DOE estimates 
that approximately 45 percent of the Integrated Omnidirectional Short 
product class shipments; approximately 28 percent of the Integrated 
Omnidirectional Long product class shipments; approximately 35 percent 
of the Integrated Directional product class shipments; approximately 54 
percent of the Non-Integrated Omnidirectional Short product class 
shipments; and approximately 74 percent of the Non-Integrated 
Directional product class shipments will meet or exceed the ELs 
required at TSL 3 in 2029, the first full year of compliance of new and 
amended standards.
    DOE does not expect manufacturers to incur any capital conversion 
costs at TSL 3. At TSL 3, additional LED lamp production capacity is 
not expected to be needed to meet the expected volume of LED lamp 
shipments, as GSL manufacturers are expected to produce more LED lamps 
for every product class in the years leading up to 2029 than in 2029, 
the first full year of compliance of new and amended standards. DOE 
estimates approximately $356 million in product conversion costs as 
many LED lamps may need to be re-modeled to meet ELs required at TSL 3. 
DOE does not estimate any conversion costs for CFL models as GSL 
manufacturers are expected to discontinue all CFLs for any standard 
level beyond TSL 1.
    At TSL 3, the shipment weighted-average MPC increases by 
approximately 6.7 percent relative to the no-new-standards case MPC. In 
the preservation of gross margin scenario, this increase in MPC causes 
an increase in manufacturer free cash flow. However, the $356 million 
in conversion costs estimated at TSL 3, ultimately results in a 
moderately negative change in INPV at TSL 3 under the preservation of 
gross margin scenario.
    Under the preservation of operating profit scenario, the increase 
in the shipment weighted-average MPC results in a slightly lower 
average manufacturer markup. This slightly lower average manufacturer 
markup and the $356 million in conversion costs result in a moderately 
negative change in INPV at TSL 3 under the preservation of operating 
profit scenario.
    At TSL 2, DOE estimates the change in INPV will range from -$166 
million to -$159 million, which represents a change in INPV of -7.9 
percent to -7.6 percent, respectively. At TSL 2, industry free cash 
flow decreases to $37 million, which represents a decrease of 
approximately 69 percent, compared to the no-new-standards case value 
of $119 million in 2028, the year before the first full year of 
compliance.
    TSL 2 sets the efficacy level at EL 3 for the Integrated 
Omnidirectional Short product class; at EL 3 for the Integrated 
Omnidirectional Long product class; at EL 3 for the Integrated 
Directional product class; at EL 3 for the Non-Integrated 
Omnidirectional Short product class, which is max-tech; and at EL 1 for 
the Non-Integrated Directional product class. DOE estimates that 
approximately 98 percent of the Integrated Omnidirectional Short 
product class shipments; approximately 57 percent of the Integrated 
Omnidirectional Long product class shipments; approximately 73 percent 
of the Integrated Directional product class shipments; approximately 54 
percent of the Non-Integrated Omnidirectional Short product class 
shipments; and approximately 74 percent of the Non-Integrated 
Directional product class shipments will meet or exceed the ELs 
required at TSL 2 in 2029, the first full year of compliance of new and 
amended standards.
    DOE does not expect manufacturers to incur any capital conversion 
costs at TSL 2. At TSL 2, additional LED lamp production capacity is 
not expected to be needed to meet the expected volume of LED lamp 
shipments, as GSL manufacturers are expected to produce more LED lamps 
for every product class in the years leading up to 2029 than in 2029, 
the first full year of compliance of new and amended standards. DOE 
estimates approximately $233 million in product conversion costs as 
some LED lamps may need to be re-modeled to meet ELs required at TSL 2. 
DOE does not estimate any conversion costs for CFL models as GSL 
manufacturers are expected to discontinue all CFLs for any standard 
level beyond TSL 1.
    At TSL 2, the shipment weighted-average MPC slightly increases by 
approximately 0.2 percent relative to the no-new-standards case MPC. In 
the preservation of gross margin scenario, this slight increase in MPC 
causes a marginal increase in manufacturer free cash flow. However, the 
$233 million in conversion costs estimated at TSL 2, ultimately results 
in a moderately negative change in INPV at TSL 2 under the preservation 
of gross margin scenario.
    Under the preservation of operating profit scenario, the slight 
increase in the shipment weighted-average MPC results in a slightly 
lower average manufacturer markup. This slightly lower average 
manufacturer markup and the $233 million in conversion costs result in 
a moderately negative change in INPV at TSL 2 under the preservation of 
operating profit scenario.
    At TSL 1, DOE estimates the change in INPV will range from -$60 
million to -$54 million, which represents a change in INPV of -2.8 
percent to -2.6 percent, respectively. At TSL 1, industry free cash 
flow decreases to $88 million, which represents a decrease of 
approximately 26 percent, compared to the no-new-standards case value 
of $119 million in 2028, the year before the first full year of 
compliance.
    TSL 1 sets the efficacy level at EL 2 for the Integrated 
Omnidirectional Short product class; at EL 1 for the Integrated 
Omnidirectional Long product class; at EL 1 for the Integrated 
Directional product class; at EL 1 for the Non-Integrated 
Omnidirectional Short product class; and at EL 1 for the Non-Integrated 
Directional product class. DOE estimates that approximately 99 percent 
of the Integrated Omnidirectional Short product class shipments; 
approximately 86 percent of the Integrated Omnidirectional Long product 
class shipments; approximately 99 percent of the Integrated Directional

[[Page 28939]]

product class shipments; approximately 97 percent of the Non-Integrated 
Omnidirectional Short product class shipments; and approximately 74 
percent of the Non-Integrated Directional product class shipments will 
meet or exceed the ELs required at TSL 1 in 2029, the first full year 
of compliance of new and amended standards.
    DOE does not expect manufacturers to incur any capital conversion 
costs at TSL 1. At TSL 1, additional LED lamp production capacity is 
not expected to be needed to meet the expected volume of LED lamp 
shipments, as GSL manufacturers are expected to produce more LED lamps 
for every product class in the years leading up to 2029 than in 2029, 
the first full year of compliance of new and amended standards. DOE 
estimates approximately $87 million in product conversion costs. Most, 
but not all, LED lamps would meet the ELs required at TSL 1, and 
therefore would not need to be re-modeled.
    At TSL 1, the shipment weighted-average MPC slightly increases by 
approximately 0.9 percent relative to the no-new-standards case MPC. In 
the preservation of gross margin scenario, this slight increase in MPC 
causes a marginal increase in manufacturer free cash flow. However, the 
$87 million in conversion costs estimated at TSL 1, ultimately results 
in a slightly negative change in INPV at TSL 1 under the preservation 
of gross margin scenario.
    Under the preservation of operating profit scenario, the slight 
increase in the shipment weighted-average MPC results in a slightly 
lower average manufacturer markup. This slightly lower average 
manufacturer markup and the $87 million in conversion costs result in a 
slightly negative change in INPV at TSL 1 under the preservation of 
operating profit scenario.
b. Direct Impacts on Employment
    Based on previous manufacturer interviews and public comments from 
GSL rulemaking documents previously published, DOE determined that 
there are no GSL manufacturers that manufacture CFLs in the United 
States, as all CFLs sold in the United States are manufactured abroad. 
Some of these CFL manufacturing facilities are owned by the GSL 
manufacturer and others outsource their CFL production to original 
equipment manufacturers located primarily in Asia. However, several GSL 
manufacturers that sell CFLs in the United States have domestic 
employees responsible for the R&D, marketing, sales, and distribution 
of CFLs.
    In the January 2023 NOPR, DOE estimated that in the no-new-
standards case there could be approximately 30 domestic employees 
dedicated to the non-production aspects of CFLs in 2029, the first full 
year of compliance for GSL standards. DOE estimates GSL manufacturers 
selling CFLs in the U.S. could reduce or eliminate up to 30 domestic 
non-production employees if CFLs are not able to meet the adopted new 
and amended standards. DOE predicts that CFLs would not be able to meet 
energy conservation standards set at TSL 2 or higher.
    While most LED lamp manufacturing is done abroad, there is a 
limited number of LED lamps and LED lamp components covered by this 
rulemaking that are manufactured domestically. EEI recalled that 
domestic light bulb factories shut down due to Federal action around 
2010-2011, and that with other products, manufacturers have moved 
production overseas to lower costs. EEI inquired whether the employment 
analysis accounted for the percentage of GSLs manufactured in the 
United States versus overseas. (EEI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 27 
at p. 119-121)
    Additionally, DOE received comments from private citizens \96\ that 
stated heavy regulation of lamps has forced many American-based 
factories to shut down, removing a number of jobs for American 
manufacturers. Commenters stated that DOE should be trying to keep 
these manufacturers in the United States instead of relying on subpar 
products from overseas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ Comments submitted in response to the January 2023 NOPR, 
including comments from private citizens can be found in the docket 
of DOE's rulemaking to develop energy conservation standards for 
GSLs at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2022-BT-STD-0022/comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE estimated that over 90 percent of GSLs sold in the United 
States are manufactured abroad. The previous lamp factory shutdowns 
referenced by the interested parties were specifically caused by 
changes in lighting technologies being manufactured. All GSL 
manufacturing that occurs domestically that is covered by this 
rulemaking uses LED technology. DOE assumes that all GSL manufacturers 
manufacturing LED lamps in the U.S. would continue to manufacture LED 
lamps in the U.S. after compliance with standards and therefore would 
not reduce or eliminate any domestic production or non-production 
employees involved in manufacturing or selling of LED lamps.
    DOE did not estimate a potential increase in domestic production 
employment due to energy conservation standards, as existing domestic 
LED lamp manufacturing represents a small portion of LED lamp 
manufacturing overall and would not necessarily increase as LED lamp 
sales increase. Therefore, DOE estimates that GSL manufacturers could 
reduce or eliminate up to 30 domestic non-production employees (that 
are associated with the non-production of CFLs) for all TSLs higher 
than TSL 2 (i.e., at TSLs 3-6).
c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
    Based on the final rule shipments analysis, the quantity of LED 
lamps sold for all product classes reaches approximately 566 million in 
2024 and then declines to approximately 400 million by 2029, the first 
full year of compliance for GSL standards, in the no-new-standards 
case. This represents a decrease of approximately 30 percent from 2024 
to 2029. Based on the final rule shipments analysis, while all TSLs 
project an increase in number of LED lamps sold in 2029 (in the 
standards cases) compared to the no-new standards case, the number of 
LED lamps sold in 2029 (for all TSLs), is smaller than the number of 
LED lamps sold in the years leading up to 2029. Therefore, DOE assumed 
that GSL manufacturers would be able to maintain their 2028 LED lamp 
production capacity in 2029 and manufactures would be able to meet the 
LED lamp production capacity for all TSLs in 2029.
    DOE does not anticipate that manufacturing the same, or slightly 
fewer, quantity of LED lamps that are more efficacious would impact the 
production capacity for LED manufacturers.
d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers
    Using average cost assumptions to develop an industry cash-flow 
estimate may not be adequate for assessing differential impacts among 
manufacturer subgroups. Small manufacturers, niche manufacturers, and 
manufacturers exhibiting a cost structure substantially different from 
the industry average could be affected disproportionately. DOE used the 
results of the industry characterization to group manufacturers 
exhibiting similar characteristics. Consequently, DOE identified small 
business manufacturers as a subgroup for a separate impact analysis.
    For the small business subgroup analysis, DOE applied the small 
business size standards published by the Small Business Administration 
(``SBA'') to determine whether a

[[Page 28940]]

company is considered a small business. The size standards are codified 
at 13 CFR part 121. To be categorized as a small business under North 
American Industry Classification System (``NAICS'') code 335139, 
``electric lamp bulb and other lighting equipment manufacturing'' a GSL 
manufacturer and its affiliates may employ a maximum of 1,250 
employees. The 1,250-employee threshold includes all employees in a 
business's parent company and any other subsidiaries. DOE identified 
more than 300 GSL manufacturers that qualify as small businesses.
    The small business subgroup analysis is discussed in more detail in 
section VI.B and in chapter 11 of the final rule TSD.
e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
    One aspect of assessing manufacturer burden involves looking at the 
cumulative impact of multiple DOE standards and the regulatory actions 
of other Federal agencies and States that affect the manufacturers of a 
covered product or equipment. While any one regulation may not impose a 
significant burden on manufacturers, the combined effects of several 
existing or impending regulations may have serious consequences for 
some manufacturers, groups of manufacturers, or an entire industry. 
Multiple regulations affecting the same manufacturer can strain profits 
and lead companies to abandon product lines or markets with lower 
expected future returns than competing products. For these reasons, DOE 
conducts an analysis of cumulative regulatory burden as part of its 
rulemakings pertaining to appliance efficiency.
    DOE evaluates product-specific regulations that will take effect 
approximately 3 years before or after the first full year of compliance 
(i.e., 2029) of the new and amended energy conservation standards for 
GSLs. This information is presented in table V.18.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.050

3. National Impact Analysis
    This section presents DOE's estimates of the national energy 
savings and the NPV of consumer benefits that would result from each of 
the TSLs considered as potential amended standards.
a. Significance of Energy Savings
    To estimate the energy savings attributable to potential amended 
standards for GSLs, DOE compared their energy consumption under the no-
new-standards case to their anticipated energy consumption under each 
TSL. The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of products 
purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the first full year of 
anticipated compliance with amended standards (2029-2058). Table V.19 
presents DOE's projections of the national energy savings for each TSL 
considered for GSLs. The savings were calculated using the approach 
described in section IV.H of this document.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

[[Page 28941]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.051

    OMB Circular A-4 \97\ 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 rulemaking, 
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.\98\ The review timeframe established in EPCA is generally 
not synchronized with the product lifetime, product manufacturing 
cycles, or other factors specific to GSLs. Thus, such results are 
presented for informational purposes only and are not indicative of any 
change in DOE's

[[Page 28942]]

analytical methodology. The NES sensitivity analysis results based on a 
9-year analytical period are presented in table V.20. The impacts are 
counted over the lifetime of GSLs purchased during the period 2029-
2037.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-4: 
Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 2003. 
obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4 (last accessed 
Aug. 21, 2023).
    \98\ 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. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(m)). 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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.052

b. 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 TSLs considered for GSLs. In 
accordance with OMB's guidelines on regulatory analysis,\99\ DOE 
calculated NPV using both a 7-percent and a 3-percent real discount 
rate. Table V.21 shows the consumer NPV results with impacts counted 
over the lifetime of products purchased during the period 2029-2058.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-4: 
Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 2003. 
obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4 (last accessed 
March 25, 2022).

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

[[Page 28943]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.053

    The NPV results based on the aforementioned 9-year analytical 
period are presented in table V.22. The impacts are counted over the 
lifetime of products purchased during the period 2029-2037. 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.

[[Page 28944]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.054

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
    The previous results reflect the use of a default trend to estimate 
the change in price for GSLs over the analysis period (see sections 
IV.G and IV.H of this document). As part of the NIA, DOE also analyzed 
high and low benefits scenarios that use inputs from variants of the 
AEO2023 Reference case. For the high benefits scenario, DOE uses the 
AEO2023 High Economic Growth scenario, which has a higher energy price 
trend relative to the Reference case, as well as a lower price learning 
rate. The lower learning rate in this scenario slows the adoption of 
more efficacious lamp options in the no-new-standards case, increasing 
the available energy savings attributable to a standard. For the low 
benefits scenario, DOE uses the AEO2023 Low Economic Growth scenario, 
which has a lower energy price trend relative to the Reference case, as 
well as a higher price learning rate. The higher learning rate in this 
scenario accelerates the adoption of more efficacious lamp options in 
the no-new-standards case (relative to the Reference scenario) 
decreasing the available energy savings attributable to a standard. NIA 
results based on these cases are presented in appendix 9D of the final 
rule TSD.
c. Indirect Impacts on Employment
    DOE estimates that amended energy conservation standards for GSLs 
will reduce energy expenditures for consumers of those products, with 
the resulting net savings being redirected to other forms of economic 
activity. These expected shifts in spending and economic activity could 
affect the demand for labor. As described in section IV.N of this 
document, DOE used an input/output model of the U.S. economy to 
estimate indirect employment impacts of the TSLs that DOE considered. 
There are uncertainties involved in projecting employment impacts, 
especially changes in the later

[[Page 28945]]

years of the analysis. Therefore, DOE generated results for near-term 
timeframes (2029-2032), where these uncertainties are reduced.
    The results suggest that the adopted standards are likely to have a 
negligible impact on the net demand for labor in the economy. The net 
change in jobs is so small that it would be imperceptible in national 
labor statistics and might be offset by other, unanticipated effects on 
employment. Chapter 15 of the final rule TSD presents detailed results 
regarding anticipated indirect employment impacts.
4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products
    As discussed in section IV.C.1.b of this document, DOE has 
concluded that the standards adopted in this final rule will not lessen 
the utility or performance of the GSLs under consideration in this 
rulemaking. Manufacturers of these products currently offer units that 
meet or exceed the adopted standards.
5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
    DOE considered any lessening of competition that would be likely to 
result from new or amended standards. As discussed in section III.F.1.e 
of this document, EPCA directs the Attorney General of the United 
States (``Attorney General'') to determine the impact, if any, of any 
lessening of competition likely to result from a proposed standard and 
to transmit such determination in writing to the Secretary within 60 
days of the publication of a proposed rule, together with an analysis 
of the nature and extent of the impact. To assist the Attorney General 
in making this determination, DOE provided the Department of Justice 
(``DOJ'') with copies of the NOPR and the TSD for review. In its 
assessment letter responding to DOE, DOJ concluded that the proposed 
energy conservation standards for GSLs are unlikely to have a 
significant adverse impact on competition. DOE is publishing the 
Attorney General's assessment at the end of this final rule.
6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy
    Enhanced energy efficiency, where economically justified, improves 
the Nation's energy security, strengthens the economy, and reduces the 
environmental impacts (costs) of energy production. Reduced electricity 
demand due to energy conservation standards is also likely to reduce 
the cost of maintaining the reliability of the electricity system, 
particularly during peak-load periods. Chapter 14 in the final rule TSD 
presents the estimated impacts on electricity generating capacity, 
relative to the no-new-standards case, for the TSLs that DOE considered 
in this rulemaking.
    Energy conservation resulting from potential energy conservation 
standards for GSLs is additionally expected to yield environmental 
benefits in the form of reduced emissions of certain air pollutants and 
greenhouse gases. Table V.23 provides DOE's estimate of cumulative 
emissions reductions expected to result from the TSLs considered in 
this rulemaking. The emissions were calculated using the multipliers 
discussed in section IV.K of this document. DOE reports annual 
emissions reductions for each TSL in chapter 12 of the final rule TSD.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

[[Page 28946]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.055

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
    As part of the analysis for this rule, DOE estimated monetary 
benefits likely to result from the reduced emissions of CO2 
that DOE estimated for each of the considered TSLs for GSLs. Section 
IV.L.1.a of this document discusses the estimated SC-CO2 
values that DOE used. Table V.24 presents the value of CO2 
emissions reduction at each TSL for each of the SC-CO2 
cases. The time-series of annual values is presented for the selected 
TSL in chapter 14 of the final rule TSD.

[[Page 28947]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.056

    As discussed in section IV.L.1.b of this document, DOE estimated 
the climate benefits likely to result from the reduced emissions of 
methane and N2O that DOE estimated for each of the 
considered TSLs for GSLs. Table V.25 presents the value of the 
CH4 emissions reduction at each TSL, and table V.26 presents 
the value of the N2O emissions reduction at each TSL. The 
time-series of annual values is presented for the selected TSL in 
chapter 13 of the final rule TSD.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.057

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.058

    DOE is well aware that scientific and economic knowledge about the 
contribution of CO2 and other GHG emissions to changes in 
the future global climate and the potential resulting damages to the 
global and U.S. economy continues to evolve rapidly. DOE, together with 
other Federal agencies, will continue to review methodologies for 
estimating the monetary value of reductions in CO2 and other 
GHG emissions. This ongoing review will consider the comments on this 
subject that are part of the public record for this and other 
rulemakings, as

[[Page 28948]]

well as other methodological assumptions and issues. DOE notes that the 
adopted standards would be economically justified even without 
inclusion of monetized benefits of reduced GHG emissions.
    DOE also estimated the monetary value of the economic benefits 
associated with NOX and SO2 emissions reductions 
anticipated to result from the considered TSLs for GSLs. The dollar-
per-ton values that DOE used are discussed in section IV.L of this 
document. Table V.27 presents the present value for NOX 
emissions reduction for each TSL calculated using 7-percent and 3-
percent discount rates, and table V.28 presents similar results for 
SO2 emissions reductions. The results in these tables 
reflect application of EPA's low dollar-per-ton values, which DOE used 
to be conservative. The time-series of annual values is presented for 
the selected TSL in chapter 13 of the final rule TSD.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.059

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.060

    Not all the public health and environmental benefits from the 
reduction of greenhouse gases, NOX, and SO2 are 
captured in the values above, and additional unquantified benefits from 
the reductions of those pollutants as well as from the reduction of 
direct PM and other co-pollutants may be significant. DOE has not 
included monetary benefits of the reduction of Hg emissions because the 
amount of reduction is very small.
    DOE emphasizes that the emissions analysis, including the SC-GHG 
analysis, presented in this final rule and TSD was performed in support 
of the cost-benefit analyses required by Executive Order 12866, and is 
provided to inform the public of the impacts of emissions reductions 
resulting from each TSL considered.
7. Other Factors
    The Secretary of Energy, in determining whether a standard is 
economically justified, may consider any other factors that the 
Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) No 
other factors were considered in this analysis.
8. Summary of Economic Impacts
    Table V.29 presents the NPV values that result from adding the 
estimates of the economic benefits resulting from reduced GHG and 
NOX and SO2 emissions to the NPV of consumer 
benefits calculated for each TSL considered in this rulemaking. The 
consumer benefits are domestic U.S. monetary savings that occur as a 
result of purchasing the covered GSLs, and are measured for the 
lifetime of products shipped during the period 2029-2058. The climate 
benefits associated with reduced GHG emissions resulting from the 
adopted standards are global benefits, and are also calculated based on 
the lifetime of GSLs shipped during the period 2029-2058.

[[Page 28949]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.061

C. Conclusion

    When considering new or amended energy conservation standards, the 
standards that DOE adopts for any type (or class) of covered product 
must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy 
efficiency that the Secretary determines is technologically feasible 
and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) In determining 
whether a standard is economically justified, the Secretary must 
determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens by, 
to the greatest extent practicable, considering the seven statutory 
factors discussed previously. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The new or 
amended standard must also result in significant conservation of 
energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)).
    For this final rule, DOE considered the impacts of amended 
standards for GSLs at each TSL, beginning with the maximum 
technologically feasible level, to determine whether that level was 
economically justified. Where the max-tech level was not justified, DOE 
then considered the next most efficient level and undertook the same 
evaluation until it reached the highest efficiency level that is both 
technologically feasible and economically justified and saves a 
significant amount of energy.
    To aid the reader as DOE discusses the benefits and/or burdens of 
each TSL, tables in this section present a summary of the results of 
DOE's quantitative analysis for each TSL. In addition to the 
quantitative results presented in the tables, DOE also considers other 
burdens and benefits that affect economic justification. These include 
the impacts on identifiable subgroups of consumers who may be 
disproportionately affected by a national standard and impacts on 
employment.
    DOE also notes that the economics literature provides a wide-
ranging discussion of how consumers trade off upfront costs and energy 
savings in the absence of government intervention. Much of this 
literature attempts to explain why consumers appear to undervalue 
energy efficiency improvements. There is evidence that consumers 
undervalue future energy savings as a result of (1) a lack of 
information; (2) a lack of sufficient salience of the long-term or 
aggregate benefits; (3) a lack of sufficient savings to warrant 
delaying or altering purchases; (4) excessive focus on the short term, 
in the form of inconsistent weighting of future energy cost savings 
relative to available returns on other investments; (5) computational 
or other difficulties associated with the evaluation of relevant 
tradeoffs; and (6) a divergence in incentives (for example, between 
renters and owners, or builders and purchasers). Having less than 
perfect foresight and a high degree of uncertainty about the future, 
consumers may trade off these types of investments at a higher-than-
expected rate between current consumption and uncertain future energy 
cost savings.
    Consumers value a variety of attributes in general service lamps. 
These attributes can factor into consumer purchasing decisions along 
with initial purchase and operating costs. For example, DOE analyzed 
consumer preferences for lifetime, presence of mercury, and dimmability 
in its modeling of consumer purchasing decisions for GSLs. Non-
efficiency preferences such as consumer loyalty to a particular brand 
is not captured by DOE's model. DOE also does not explicitly model 
shape or color temperature as the former is typically a function of a 
fixture and DOE assumes the latter does not typically impact price or 
efficiency; though both could theoretically factor into consumer 
decisions. General considerations for consumer welfare and preferences, 
consumer choice decision modeling, and discrete choice estimation are 
areas DOE plans to explore further in a forthcoming rulemaking action 
related to the agency's updates to its overall analytic framework.
    In DOE's current regulatory analysis, potential changes in the 
benefits and costs of a regulation due to changes in consumer purchase 
decisions are included in two ways. First, if consumers forego the 
purchase of a product in the standards case, this decreases sales for 
product manufacturers, and the impact on manufacturers attributed to 
lost revenue is included in the MIA. Second, DOE accounts for energy 
savings attributable only to products actually used by consumers in the 
standards case; if a standard decreases the number of products 
purchased by consumers, this decreases the potential energy savings 
from an energy conservation standard. DOE provides estimates of 
shipments and changes in the volume of product purchases in chapter 8 
of the final rule TSD. However, DOE's current analysis does not 
explicitly control for heterogeneity in consumer preferences, 
preferences across subcategories of products or specific features, or 
consumer price sensitivity variation according to household 
income.\100\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ P.C. Reiss and M.W. White. Household Electricity Demand, 
Revisited. Review of Economic Studies. 2005. 72(3): pp. 853-883. 
doi: 10.1111/0034-6527.00354.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While DOE is not prepared at present to provide a fuller 
quantifiable framework for estimating the benefits and costs of changes 
in consumer

[[Page 28950]]

purchase decisions due to an energy conservation standard, DOE is 
committed to developing a framework that can support empirical 
quantitative tools for improved assessment of the consumer welfare 
impacts of appliance standards. DOE has posted a paper that discusses 
the issue of consumer welfare impacts of appliance energy conservation 
standards, and potential enhancements to the methodology by which these 
impacts are defined and estimated in the regulatory process.\101\ DOE 
welcomes comments on how to more fully assess the potential impact of 
energy conservation standards on consumer choice and how to quantify 
this impact in its regulatory analysis in future rulemakings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ Sanstad, A.H. Notes on the Economics of Household Energy 
Consumption and Technology Choice. 2010. Lawrence Berkeley National 
Laboratory. Available at www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/pdfs/consumer_ee_theory.pdf (last accessed July 
1, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for GSL Standards
    Table V.30 and table V.31 summarize the quantitative impacts 
estimated for each TSL for GSLs. The national impacts are measured over 
the lifetime of GSLs purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the 
anticipated first full year of compliance with amended standards (2029-
2058). The energy savings, emissions reductions, and value of emissions 
reductions refer to full-fuel-cycle results. DOE is presenting 
monetized benefits of GHG emissions reductions in accordance with the 
applicable Executive Orders and DOE would reach the same conclusion 
presented in this document in the absence of the social cost of 
greenhouse gases, including the Interim Estimates presented by the 
Interagency Working Group. The efficiency levels contained in each TSL 
are described in section V.A of this document.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

[[Page 28951]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.062


[[Page 28952]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.063

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.064


[[Page 28953]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.065

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
    DOE first considered TSL 6, which represents the max-tech 
efficiency levels. TSL 6 would save an estimated 4.03 quads of energy, 
an amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 6, the NPV of consumer 
benefit would be $8.45 billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and 
$22.16 billion using a discount rate of 3 percent.
    In the alternative analysis scenario discussed in section IV.G.1.a 
of this document wherein the market for linear lamps declines at a 
lower rate than in the reference scenario, energy savings at TSL 6 
would be higher by 0.57 quads, while the total NPV of consumer benefit 
would increase by $0.55 billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and 
$1.75 billion using a discount rate of 3 percent. See Appendix 9D of 
the final rule TSD for details.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 6 are 70 Mt of 
CO2, 22 thousand tons of SO2, 133 thousand tons 
of NOX, 0.15 tons of Hg, 608 thousand tons of 
CH4, and 0.70 thousand tons of N2O. The estimated 
monetary value of the climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions 
(associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate) at 
TSL 6 is $3.79 billion. The estimated monetary value of the health 
benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX emissions at 
TSL 6 is $2.87 billion using a 7-percent discount rate and $7.50 
billion using a 3-percent discount rate.
    Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs, 
health benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX 
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits 
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated total NPV at TSL 6 is $15.11 
billion. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, 
the estimated total NPV at TSL 6 is $33.45 billion.
    At TSL 6 in the residential sector, the largest product classes are 
Integrated Omnidirectional Short GSLs, including traditional pear-
shaped, candle-shaped, and globe-shaped GSLs, and Integrated 
Directional GSLs, including reflector lamps commonly used in recessed 
cans, which together account for 92 percent of annual shipments. The 
average LCC impact is a savings of $0.55 and $3.17 and a simple payback 
period of 0.9 years and 0.0 years, respectively, for those product 
classes. The fraction of purchases associated with a net LCC cost is 
24.0 percent and 0.0 percent, respectively. In the commercial sector, 
the largest product classes are Integrated Omnidirectional Short GSLs 
and Integrated Omnidirectional Long GSLs, including tubular LED GSLs 
often referred to as TLEDs, which together account for 81 percent of 
annual shipments. The average LCC impact is a savings of $0.94 and 
$4.16 and a simple payback period of 0.6 years and 3.3 years, 
respectively, for those product classes. The fraction of purchases 
associated with a net LCC cost is 10.8 and 2.9 percent, respectively. 
Overall, 18.0 percent of GSL purchases are associated with a net cost 
and the average LCC savings are positive for all product classes.
    At TSL 6, an estimated 23.9 percent of purchases of Integrated 
Omnidirectional Short GSLs and 0.0 percent of purchases of Integrated 
Directional GSLs by low-income households are associated with a net 
cost. While 23.9 percent of purchases of Integrated Omnidirectional 
Short GSLs by low-income households would be associated with a net 
cost, DOE notes that a third of those purchases have a net cost of no 
more than $0.25 and nearly 75 percent of those purchases have a net 
cost of no more than $1.00. Moreover, DOE notes that the typical low-
income household has multiple Integrated Omnidirectional Short GSLs. 
Based on the average total number of lamps in a low-income household 
(23, based on RECS) and the average fraction of lamps in the 
residential sector that are Integrated Omnidirectional Short GSLs (78 
percent, based on DOE's

[[Page 28954]]

shipments analysis), DOE estimates that low-income households would 
have approximately 19 Integrated Omnidirectional Short GSLs, on 
average. An analysis accounting for multiple lamp purchases would show 
that significantly fewer low-income consumers experience a net cost at 
the household level than on a per-purchase basis. For example, assuming 
low-income households purchase two lamps per year over a period of 7 
years (corresponding to the average service life of the baseline 
Integrated Omnidirectional Short lamp), DOE estimates that only 9.0 
percent of low-income households would experience a net cost and 91.0 
percent would experience a net benefit.
    At TSL 6, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of 
$322 million to a decrease of $155 million, which corresponds to 
decreases of 15.3 percent and 7.3 percent, respectively. DOE estimates 
that approximately 83 percent of the Integrated Omnidirectional Short 
product class shipments; approximately 86 percent of the Integrated 
Omnidirectional Long product class shipments; approximately 65 percent 
of the Integrated Directional product class shipments; approximately 46 
percent of the Non-Integrated Omnidirectional Short product class 
shipments; and approximately 74 percent of the Non-Integrated 
Directional product class shipments will not meet the ELs required at 
TSL 6 in 2029, the first full year of compliance of new and amended 
standards. DOE estimates that industry must invest $430 million to 
redesign these non-compliant models into compliant models in order to 
meet the ELs analyzed at TSL 6. DOE assumed that most, if not all, LED 
lamp models would be remodeled between the publication of this final 
rule and the compliance date, even in the absence of DOE energy 
conservation standards for GSLs. Therefore, GSL energy conservation 
standards set at TSL 6 would require GSL manufacturers to remodel their 
GSL models to a higher efficacy level during their regularly scheduled 
remodel cycle, due to energy conservation standards. GSL manufacturers 
would incur additional engineering costs to redesign their LED lamps to 
meet this higher efficacy requirement. DOE did not estimate that GSL 
manufacturers would incur any capital conversion costs as the volume of 
LED lamps manufactured in 2029 (the first full year of compliance) 
would be fewer than the volume of LED lamps manufactured in the 
previous year, 2028, even at TSL 6. Additionally, DOE did not estimate 
that manufacturing more efficacious LED lamps would require additional 
or different capital equipment or tooling.
    After considering the analysis and weighing the benefits and 
burdens, the Secretary has concluded that at a standard set at TSL 6 
for GSLs is economically justified. At this TSL, the average LCC 
savings for all product classes is positive. An estimated 18.0 percent 
of all GSL purchases are associated with a net cost. While 23.9 percent 
of purchases of Integrated Omnidirectional Short GSLs by low-income 
households would be associated with a net cost, a third of those 
purchases have a net cost of no more than $0.25 and nearly 75 percent 
of those purchases have a net cost of no more than $1.00. And 
significantly fewer low-income consumers experience a net cost at the 
household level after accounting for multiple lamp purchases. The FFC 
national energy savings are significant and the NPV of consumer 
benefits is positive using both a 3-percent and 7-percent discount 
rate. Notably, the benefits to consumers vastly outweigh the cost to 
manufacturers. At TSL 6, the NPV of consumer benefits, even measured at 
the more conservative discount rate of 7 percent is over 26 times 
higher than the maximum estimated manufacturers' loss in INPV. The 
standard levels at TSL 6 are economically justified even without 
weighing the estimated monetary value of emissions reductions. When 
those emissions reductions are included--representing $3.79 billion in 
climate benefits (associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent 
discount rate), and $7.50 billion (using a 3-percent discount rate) or 
$2.87 billion (using a 7-percent discount rate) in health benefits--the 
rationale becomes stronger still.
    As stated, DOE conducts the walk-down analysis to determine the TSL 
that represents the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is 
technologically feasible and economically justified as required under 
EPCA. 86 FR 70892, 70908. Although DOE has not conducted a comparative 
analysis to select the amended energy conservation standards, DOE notes 
that the selected standard level represents the maximum improvement in 
energy efficiency for all product classes and is only $0.1 billion less 
than the maximum consumer NPV, represented by TSL 5, at both 3 and 7 
percent discount rates. Additionally, compared to TSL 5, Integrated 
Omnidirectional Long purchases are 0.2 percent more likely to be 
associated with a net cost at TSL 6, but NES is an additional 0.02 
quads in the reference scenario and an additional 0.2 quads in the 
scenario where the linear lamp market persists longer. Compared to TSL 
4, Integrated Omnidirectional Short purchases at TSL 6 are 
approximately 1 percent more likely to be associated with a net cost, 
but NES is an additional 0.3 quads and NPV is an additional $1.2 
billion at 3 percent discount rate and $0.3 billion at 7 percent 
discount rate. Compared to TSL 1 or 2, while 22 percent of Integrated 
Omnidirectional Short purchases at TSL 6 are associated with a net 
cost, compared to 1 percent at TSL 1 or 2, NES is more than 3 quads 
larger at TSL 6 and NPV is greater by more than $18 billion at 3 
percent discount rate and more than $6 billion at 7 percent discount 
rate. These additional savings and benefits at TSL 6 are significant. 
DOE considers the impacts to be, as a whole, economically justified at 
TSL 6.
    Although DOE considered proposed amended standard levels for GSLs 
by grouping the efficiency levels for each product class into TSLs, DOE 
evaluates all analyzed efficiency levels in its analysis. DOE notes 
that among all possible combinations of ELs, the proposed standard 
level represents the maximum NES and differs from the maximum consumer 
NPV by only $0.1 billion.
    Therefore, based on the previous considerations, DOE adopts the 
energy conservation standards for GSLs at TSL 6. The amended energy 
conservation standards for GSLs, which are expressed as lm/W, are shown 
in table V.32.

[[Page 28955]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.066

2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Adopted Standards
    The benefits and costs of the adopted standards can also be 
expressed in terms of annualized values. The annualized net benefit is 
(1) the annualized national economic value (expressed in 2022$) of the 
benefits from operating products that meet the adopted standards 
(consisting primarily of operating cost savings from using less 
energy), minus increases in product purchase costs, and (2) the 
annualized monetary value of the climate and health benefits.
    Table V.33 shows the annualized values for GSLs under TSL 6, 
expressed in 2022$. The results under the primary estimate are as 
follows:
    Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and 
NOX and SO2 reductions, and the 3-percent 
discount rate case for GHG social costs, the estimated cost of the 
adopted standards for GSLs is $301.4 million per year in increased 
equipment installed costs, while the estimated annual benefits are 
$1,193.6 million from reduced equipment operating costs, $217.7 million 
in GHG reductions, and $303.2 million from reduced NOX and 
SO2 emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to 
$1,413.1 million per year.
    Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the 
estimated cost of the adopted standards for GSLs is $292.2 million per 
year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits 
are $1,564.6 million in reduced operating costs, $217.7 million from 
GHG reductions, and $430.8 million from reduced NOX and 
SO2 emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to 
$1,920.9 million per year.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

[[Page 28956]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.067


[[Page 28957]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.068


[[Page 28958]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.069

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094

    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) and 
amended by E.O. 14094, ``Modernizing Regulatory Review,'' 88 FR 21879 
(April 11, 2023), 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 constitutes a 
``significant regulatory action'' within the scope of section 3(f)(1) 
of E.O. 12866, as amended by E.O. 14094. Accordingly, pursuant to 
section 6(a)(3)(C) of E.O. 12866, DOE has provided to OIRA an 
assessment, including the underlying analysis, of benefits and costs 
anticipated from the final regulatory action, together with, to the 
extent feasible, a quantification of those costs; and an assessment, 
including the underlying analysis, of costs and benefits of potentially 
effective and reasonably feasible alternatives to the planned 
regulation, and an explanation why the planned regulatory action is 
preferable to the identified potential alternatives. These assessments 
are summarized in this preamble and further detail can be found in the 
technical support document for this rulemaking.

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'') 
and a final regulatory flexibility analysis (``FRFA'') for any rule 
that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency 
certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required 
by E.O. 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency 
Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and 
policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the potential impacts of 
its rules on small entities are properly considered during the 
rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its procedures and 
policies available on the Office of the General Counsel's website 
(www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel). DOE has prepared the 
following FRFA for the products that are the subject of this 
rulemaking.
    For manufacturers of GSLs, the SBA has set a size threshold, which 
defines those entities classified as ``small businesses'' for the 
purposes of the statute. DOE used the SBA's small business size 
standards to determine whether any small entities would be subject to 
the requirements of the rule. (See 13 CFR part 121.) The size standards 
are listed by North American Industry Classification System (``NAICS'') 
code and industry description and are available at www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards. Manufacturing of GSLs is 
classified under NAICS 335139, ``electric lamp bulb and other lighting 
equipment manufacturing.'' The SBA sets a threshold of 1,250 employees 
or fewer for an entity to be considered as a small business for this 
category.
1. Need for, and Objectives of, Rule
    EPCA directs DOE to conduct two rulemaking cycles to evaluate 
energy conservation standards for GSLs. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)-(B)) 
If DOE failed to complete the first rulemaking in accordance with 42 
U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)-(iv), or if a final rule from the first 
rulemaking cycle did not produce savings greater than or equal to the 
savings from a minimum efficacy standard of 45 lm/W, the statute 
provides a ``backstop'' under which DOE was required to prohibit sales 
of

[[Page 28959]]

GSLs that do not meet a minimum 45 lm/W standard. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(i)(6)(A)(v)). As a result of DOE's failure to complete a 
rulemaking in accordance with the statutory criteria, DOE codified this 
backstop requirement in the May 2022 Backstop Final Rule. 87 FR 27439.
    EPCA further directs DOE to initiate a second rulemaking cycle by 
January 1, 2020, to determine whether standards in effect for GSILs 
(which are a subset of GSLs) should be amended with more stringent 
maximum wattage requirements than EPCA specifies, and whether the 
exemptions for certain incandescent lamps should be maintained or 
discontinued. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(B)(i)) As in the first rulemaking 
cycle, the scope of the second rulemaking is not limited to 
incandescent lamp technologies. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(B)(ii)) DOE is 
publishing this final rule pursuant to this second cycle of rulemaking, 
as well as section (m) of 42 U.S.C. 6295.
2. Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the 
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (``IRFA'')
    DOE did not receive any substantive comments on the IRFA that was 
published in the January 2023 NOPR.
3. Description and Estimated Number of Small Entities Affected
    For manufacturers of GSLs, the SBA has set a size threshold, which 
defines those entities classified as ``small businesses'' for the 
purposes of the statute. The SBA sets a threshold of 1,250 employees or 
less for an entity to be considered as a small business for this 
category.
    DOE created a database of GSLs covered by this rulemaking using 
publicly available information. DOE's research involved information 
from DOE's compliance certification database,\102\ EPA's ENERGY STAR 
Certified Light Bulbs Database,\103\ manufacturers' websites, and 
retailer websites. DOE found over 800 companies that sell GSLs covered 
in this rulemaking. Using information from D&B Hoovers, DOE screened 
out companies that have more than 1,250 employees, are completely 
foreign owned and operated, or do not manufacture GSLs in the United 
States. Based on the results of this analysis, DOE estimates there are 
approximately 261 small businesses that assemble GSLs covered by this 
rulemaking. Even though these small entities do not manufacture the 
main technological components that comprise the GSL and instead import 
the LEDs, LED packages, and LED drivers for inclusion in the GSLs, DOE 
is identifying them because they are doing some type of assembling in 
the United States. In the January 2023 NOPR, DOE included several small 
businesses that sell CFLs in the IRFA. However, as previously stated in 
section V.B.2.b of this document, there are no CFLs that are 
manufactured in the United States. The 21 companies identified in the 
January 2023 NOPR IRFA that sell CFLs do not manufacture any covered 
GSLs in the United States and therefore, do not meet the definition of 
a small business manufacturer. Based on DOE's updated analysis, DOE 
identified approximately 261 small businesses that assemble covered 
GSLs in the United States and do not manufacture the LEDs, LED 
packages, or LED drivers that are used in the LED lamps that they 
assemble. Instead, all of these small businesses purchase LEDs, LED 
packages, and LED drivers as components from component manufacturers 
abroad and then assemble these purchased components into the LED lamps 
that they sell.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data.
    \103\ ENERGY STAR Qualified Lamps Product List, 
www.energystar.gov/productfinder/product/certified-light-bulbs/results (last accessed May 2, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Description of Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements
    For the 261 small businesses that assemble GSLs covered by this 
rulemaking, these small businesses will be required to remodel many of 
the LED lamps they assemble due to the adopted energy conservation 
standards. However, since the primary driver of efficacy is the LEDs, 
LED packages, and LED drivers, these GSL assemblers are believed to be 
minimally impacted by the adopted energy conservation standards. Small 
businesses assembling GSLs could be required to spend additional 
engineering time to integrate the more efficacious components that they 
purchase from component manufacturers to be able to meet the adopted 
energy conservation standards for any LED lamp models that do not meet 
the adopted energy conservation standards. DOE anticipates that most 
small businesses will be able to meet the adopted energy conservation 
standards by using more efficacious components such as LEDs, LED 
packages, and/or LED drivers in the LED lamp models that they assemble. 
DOE was not able to identify any small businesses that manufacturer 
their own LEDs, LED packages, or LED drivers that are used in the LED 
lamps that they assemble. Therefore, small businesses would most likely 
be able to meet the adopted energy conservation standards by purchasing 
more efficacious LEDs, LED packages, and/or LED drivers as a purchased 
part to their LED lamps. Additionally, the process of assembling LED 
lamps is not likely to require any additionally production equipment or 
tooling in the assembly process, or any significant changes to the 
assembly process when using more efficacious LEDs, LED packages, or LED 
drivers in their LED lamps.
    The methodology DOE used to estimate product conversion costs for 
this final rule analysis is described in section IV.J.2.c of this 
document. At the adopted standards, TSL 6, DOE estimates that all 
manufacturers would incur approximately $430 million in product 
conversion costs. These estimated product conversion costs, at TSL 6, 
represent approximately 4.1 percent of annual revenue over the 
compliance period.\104\ While small manufacturers are likely to have 
lower per-model sales volumes than larger manufacturers, DOE was not 
able to identify any small business that manufacturers the LEDs, LED 
packages, or LED drivers used in their LED lamps--which is the primary 
technology driving the conversion expenses. Therefore, small businesses 
that assemble GSLs would most likely spend less engineering resources 
compared to GSL manufacturers that do manufacture their own LEDs, LED 
packages and/or LED drivers. Additionally, GSL manufacturer revenue 
from LED lamps is estimated to be approximately $1,735 million in 2029, 
the first full year of compliance, at TSL 6 compared to $1,547 million 
in the no-new-standards case. This represents an increase of 
approximately 12 percent in annual revenue generated from the sales of 
LED lamps, since LED lamps will be the only technology capable of 
meeting the adopted standards. DOE conservatively estimates that small 
GSL manufacturers exclusively selling LED lamps would incur no more 
than 4.1 percent of their annual revenue over the compliance period to 
redesign non-compliant LED lamps into compliant LED lamps that will 
meet the adopted standards (i.e., TSL 6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ The total estimated revenue between 2024, the final rule 
publication year, and 2028, the compliance year, is approximately, 
$10,465 million. $430 (million) / $10,465 (million) = 4.1%.

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

[[Page 28960]]

5. Significant Alternatives Considered and Steps Taken To Minimize 
Significant Economic Impacts on Small Entities
    The discussion in the previous section analyzes impacts on small 
businesses that would result from the adopted standards, represented by 
TSL 6. In reviewing alternatives to the adopted standards, DOE examined 
energy conservation standards set at lower efficiency levels. While TSL 
1 through TSL 5 would reduce the impacts on small business 
manufacturers, it would come at the expense of a reduction in energy 
savings. TSL 1 achieves 96 percent lower energy savings compared to the 
energy savings at TSL 6. TSL 2 achieves 87 percent lower energy savings 
compared to the energy savings at TSL 6. TSL 3 achieves 21 percent 
lower energy savings compared to the energy savings at TSL 6. TSL 4 
achieves 7 percent lower energy savings compared to the energy savings 
at TSL 6. TSL 5 achieves 0.4 percent lower energy savings compared to 
the energy savings at TSL 6.
    Establishing standards at TSL 6 balances the benefits of the energy 
savings at TSL 6 with the potential burdens placed on GSL 
manufacturers, including small business manufacturers. Accordingly, DOE 
is not adopting one of the other TSLs considered in the analysis, or 
the other policy alternatives examined as part of the regulatory impact 
analysis and included in chapter 16 of the final rule TSD.
    Additional compliance flexibilities may be available through other 
means. EPCA provides that a manufacturer whose annual gross revenue 
from all of its operations does not exceed $8 million may apply for an 
exemption from all or part of an energy conservation standard for a 
period not longer than 24 months after the effective date of a final 
rule establishing the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(t)) Additionally, 
manufacturers subject to DOE's energy efficiency standards may apply to 
DOE's Office of Hearings and Appeals for exception relief under certain 
circumstances. Manufacturers should refer to 10 CFR part 430, subpart 
E, and 10 CFR part 1003 for additional details.

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

    Manufacturers of GSLs must certify to DOE that their products 
comply with any applicable energy conservation standards. In certifying 
compliance, manufacturers must test their products according to the DOE 
test procedures for GSLs, including any amendments adopted for those 
test procedures. DOE has established regulations for the certification 
and recordkeeping requirements for all covered consumer products and 
commercial equipment, including GSLs. (See generally 10 CFR part 429). 
The collection-of-information requirement for the certification and 
recordkeeping is subject to review and approval by OMB under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act (``PRA''). This requirement has been approved 
by OMB under OMB control number 1910-1400. Public reporting burden for 
the certification is estimated to average 35 hours per response, 
including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data 
sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and 
reviewing the collection of information.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty 
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays 
a currently valid OMB Control Number.

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

    Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
(``NEPA''), DOE has analyzed this proposed action rule in accordance 
with NEPA and DOE's NEPA implementing regulations (10 CFR part 1021). 
DOE has determined that this rule qualifies for categorical exclusion 
under 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, appendix B5.1 because it is a 
rulemaking that establishes energy conservation standards for consumer 
products or industrial equipment, none of the exceptions identified in 
B5.1(b) apply, no extraordinary circumstances exist that require 
further environmental analysis, and it meets the requirements for 
application of a categorical exclusion. See 10 CFR 1021.410. Therefore, 
DOE has determined that promulgation of this rule is not a major 
Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human 
environment within the meaning of NEPA, and does not require an 
environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement.

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    E.O. 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), imposes 
certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and implementing 
policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism 
implications. The Executive order requires agencies to examine the 
constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would 
limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess 
the necessity for such actions. The Executive order also requires 
agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely 
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE 
published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental 
consultation process it will follow in the development of such 
regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has examined this rule and has determined 
that it would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on 
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels 
of government. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State 
regulations as to energy conservation for the products that are the 
subject of this final rule. 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

[[Page 28961]]

the extent permitted by law, this final rule 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 ``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 has concluded that this final rule may require expenditures of 
$100 million or more in any one year by the private sector. Such 
expenditures may include (1) investment in research and development and 
in capital expenditures by GSLs manufacturers in the years between the 
final rule and the compliance date for the new standards and (2) 
incremental additional expenditures by consumers to purchase higher-
efficiency GSLs, starting at the compliance date for the applicable 
standard.
    Section 202 of UMRA authorizes a Federal agency to respond to the 
content requirements of UMRA in any other statement or analysis that 
accompanies the final rule. (2 U.S.C. 1532(c)) The content requirements 
of section 202(b) of UMRA relevant to a private sector mandate 
substantially overlap the economic analysis requirements that apply 
under section 325(o) of EPCA and Executive Order 12866. This 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section and the TSD for this final rule 
respond to those requirements.
    Under section 205 of UMRA, DOE is obligated to identify and 
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before 
promulgating a rule for which a written statement under section 202 is 
required. (2 U.S.C. 1535(a)) DOE is required to select from those 
alternatives the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule unless DOE publishes an 
explanation for doing otherwise, or the selection of such an 
alternative is inconsistent with law. As required by 42 U.S.C. 
6295(i)(6)(A)-(B)), this final rule establishes amended energy 
conservation standards for GSLs that are designed to achieve the 
maximum improvement in energy efficiency that DOE has determined to be 
both technologically feasible and economically justified, as required 
by 6295(o)(2)(A) and 6295(o)(3)(B). A full discussion of the 
alternatives considered by DOE is presented in chapter 16 of the TSD 
for this final rule.

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 rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the 
family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not 
necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

    Pursuant to E.O. 12630, ``Governmental Actions and Interference 
with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,'' 53 FR 8859 (March 
18, 1988), DOE has determined that this rule 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 rule 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 OIRA at OMB, 
a Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy action. A 
``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an agency 
that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final 
rule, and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under Executive 
Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a 
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of 
energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a 
significant energy action. For any 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.
    DOE has concluded that this regulatory action, which sets forth 
amended energy conservation standards for GSLs, is not a significant 
energy action because the standards are not likely to 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 
on this final rule.

L. Information Quality

    On December 16, 2004, OMB, in consultation with the Office of 
Science and Technology Policy (``OSTP''), issued its Final Information 
Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (``the Bulletin''). 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 
14, 2005). The Bulletin establishes that certain scientific information 
shall be peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is 
disseminated by the Federal Government, including influential 
scientific information related to agency

[[Page 28962]]

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.'' 70 FR 2664, 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 prepared a report describing that peer 
review.\105\ 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 DOE's analyses. DOE is in the 
process of evaluating the resulting report.\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \105\ The 2007 ``Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Peer 
Review Report'' is available at: energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/energy-conservation-standards-rulemaking-peer-review-report-0 (last accessed March 24, 2022).
    \106\ The report is available at www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/review-of-methods-for-setting-building-and-equipment-performance-standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference

    UL 1598C-2016 is an industry accepted test standard that provides 
requirements for LED downlight retrofit kits. To clarify the scope of 
the standards adopted in this final rule, DOE is updating the 
definition for ``LED Downlight Retrofit Kit'' to reference UL 1598C-
2016 in the definition. UL 1598C-2016 is reasonably available on UL's 
website at www.shopulstandards.com/Default.aspx.
    ANSI C78.79-2014 (R2020) (``ANSI C78.79-2020'') is referenced in 
the amendatory text of this document but has already been approved for 
the sections where it appears. No changes are being made to the IBR 
material.

N. Congressional Notification

    As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the 
promulgation of this rule prior to its effective date. The report will 
state that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has 
determined that the rule meets the criteria set forth in 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).

VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final 
rule.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business 
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Small businesses.

Signing Authority

    This document of the Department of Energy was signed on April 9, 
2024, by Jeffrey M. Marootian, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for 
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority 
from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature 
and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in 
compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the 
undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to 
sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as 
an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative 
process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon 
publication in the Federal Register.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on April 9, 2024.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE amends part 430 of 
chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.


0
2. Amend Sec.  430.2 by:
0
a. Revising the definitions for ``General service incandescent lamp'' 
and ``General service lamp'';
0
b. Removing the definition ``LED Downlight Retrofit Kit'' and adding 
the definition ``LED downlight retrofit kit'' in its place;
0
c. Revising the definitions of ``Reflector lamp'', ``Showcase lamp'', 
and ``Specialty MR lamp''.
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec.  430.2   Definitions.

* * * * *
    General service incandescent lamp means a standard incandescent or 
halogen type lamp that is intended for general service applications; 
has a medium screw base; has a lumen range of not less than 310 lumens 
and not more than 2,600 lumens or, in the case of a modified spectrum 
lamp, not less than 232 lumens and not more than 1,950 lumens; and is 
capable of being operated at a voltage range at least partially within 
110 and 130 volts; however, this definition does not apply to the 
following incandescent lamps--
    (1) An appliance lamp;
    (2) A black light lamp;
    (3) A bug lamp;
    (4) A colored lamp;
    (5) A G shape lamp with a diameter of 5 inches or more as defined 
in ANSI C78.79-2020 (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3);
    (6) An infrared lamp;
    (7) A left-hand thread lamp;
    (8) A marine lamp;
    (9) A marine signal service lamp;
    (10) A mine service lamp;
    (11) A plant light lamp;
    (12) An R20 short lamp;
    (13) A sign service lamp;
    (14) A silver bowl lamp;
    (15) A showcase lamp; and
    (16) A traffic signal lamp.
    General service lamp means a lamp that has an ANSI base; is able to 
operate at a voltage of 12 volts or 24 volts, at or between 100 to 130 
volts, at or between 220 to 240 volts, or of 277 volts for integrated 
lamps (as set out in this definition), or is able to operate at any 
voltage for non-integrated lamps (as set out in this definition); has 
an initial lumen output of greater than or equal to 310 lumens (or 232 
lumens for modified spectrum general service incandescent lamps) and 
less than or equal to 3,300 lumens; is not a light fixture; is not an 
LED downlight retrofit kit; and is used in general lighting 
applications. General service lamps include, but are not limited to, 
general service incandescent lamps, compact fluorescent lamps, general 
service light-emitting diode lamps, and general service organic light 
emitting diode lamps. General service lamps do not include:
    (1) Appliance lamps;

[[Page 28963]]

    (2) Black light lamps;
    (3) Bug lamps;
    (4) Colored lamps;
    (5) G shape lamps with a diameter of 5 inches or more as defined in 
ANSI C78.79-2020 (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3);
    (6) General service fluorescent lamps;
    (7) High intensity discharge lamps;
    (8) Infrared lamps;
    (9) J, JC, JCD, JCS, JCV, JCX, JD, JS, and JT shape lamps that do 
not have Edison screw bases;
    (10) Lamps that have a wedge base or prefocus base;
    (11) Left-hand thread lamps;
    (12) Marine lamps;
    (13) Marine signal service lamps;
    (14) Mine service lamps;
    (15) MR shape lamps that have a first number symbol equal to 16 
(diameter equal to 2 inches) as defined in ANSI C78.79-2020 
(incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3), operate at 12 volts, and 
have a lumen output greater than or equal to 800;
    (16) Other fluorescent lamps;
    (17) Plant light lamps;
    (18) R20 short lamps;
    (19) Reflector lamps (as set out in this definition) that have a 
first number symbol less than 16 (diameter less than 2 inches) as 
defined in ANSI C78.79-2020 (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  
430.3) and that do not have E26/E24, E26d, E26/50x39, E26/53x39, E29/
28, E29/53x39, E39, E39d, EP39, or EX39 bases;
    (20) S shape or G shape lamps that have a first number symbol less 
than or equal to 12.5 (diameter less than or equal to 1.5625 inches) as 
defined in ANSI C78.79-2014 (R2020) (incorporated by reference; see 
Sec.  430.3);
    (21) Sign service lamps;
    (22) Silver bowl lamps;
    (23) Showcase lamps;
    (24) Specialty MR lamps;
    (25) T shape lamps that have a first number symbol less than or 
equal to 8 (diameter less than or equal to 1 inch) as defined in ANSI 
C78.79-2020 (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3), nominal 
overall length less than 12 inches, and that are not compact 
fluorescent lamps (as set out in this definition);
    (26) Traffic signal lamps.
* * * * *
    LED downlight retrofit kit means a product designed and marketed to 
install into an existing downlight, replacing the existing light source 
and related electrical components, typically employing an ANSI standard 
lamp base, either integrated or connected to the downlight retrofit by 
wire leads, and is a retrofit kit classified or certified to UL 1598C-
2016 (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3). LED downlight 
retrofit kit does not include integrated lamps or non-integrated lamps.
* * * * *
    Reflector lamp means a lamp that has an R, PAR, BPAR, BR, ER, MR, 
or similar bulb shape as defined in ANSI C78.79-2020 (incorporated by 
reference; see Sec.  430.3) and is used to provide directional light.
* * * * *
    Showcase lamp means a lamp that has a T shape as specified in ANSI 
C78.79-2020 (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3), is designed 
and marketed as a showcase lamp, and has a maximum rated wattage of 75 
watts.
* * * * *
    Specialty MR lamp means a lamp that has an MR shape as defined in 
ANSI C78.79-2020 (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3), a 
diameter of less than or equal to 2.25 inches, a lifetime of less than 
or equal to 300 hours, and that is designed and marketed for a 
specialty application.
* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  430.3 by adding paragraph (y)(4) to read as follows:


Sec.  430.3   Materials incorporated by reference.

* * * * *
    (y) * * *
    (4) UL 1598C (``UL 1598C-2016''), Standard for Safety for Light-
Emitting Diode (LED) Retrofit Luminaire Conversion Kits, First edition, 
dated January 16, 2014 (including revisions through November 17, 2016); 
IBR approved for Sec.  430.2.

0
4. Amend Sec.  430.32 by:
0
a. Removing and reserving paragraph (u); and
0
b. Revising paragraphs (x) and (dd).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  430.32   Energy and water conservation standards and their 
compliance dates.

* * * * *
    (x) Intermediate base incandescent lamps and candelabra base 
incandescent lamps. (1) Subject to the sales prohibition in paragraph 
(dd) of this section, each candelabra base incandescent lamp shall not 
exceed 60 rated watts.
    (2) Subject to the sales prohibition in paragraph (dd) of this 
section, each intermediate base incandescent lamp shall not exceed 40 
rated watts.
* * * * *
    (dd) General service lamps. Beginning July 25, 2022, the sale of 
any general service lamp that does not meet a minimum efficacy standard 
of 45 lumens per watt is prohibited.
    (1) Energy conservation standards for general service lamps:
    (i) General service incandescent lamps manufactured after the dates 
specified in the following tables, except as described in paragraph 
(dd)(1)(ii) of this section, shall have a color rendering index greater 
than or equal to 80 and shall have a rated wattage no greater than, and 
a lifetime no less than the values shown in the table as follows:

                                       General Service Incandescent Lamps
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Minimum lifetime     Maximum rate
                   Rated lumen ranges                         * (hrs)            wattage        Compliance date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) 1490-2600..........................................              1,000                 72           1/1/2012
(B) 1050-1489..........................................              1,000                 53           1/1/2013
(C) 750-1049...........................................              1,000                 43           1/1/2014
(D) 310-749............................................              1,000                 29           1/1/2014
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Use lifetime determined in accordance with Sec.   429.66 of this chapter to determine compliance with this
  standard.

    (ii) Modified spectrum general service incandescent lamps 
manufactured after the dates specified in the following table shall 
have a color rendering index greater than or equal to 75 and shall have 
a rated wattage no greater than, and a lifetime no less than the values 
shown in the table as follows:

[[Page 28964]]



                              Modified Spectrum General Service Incandescent Lamps
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Minimum lifetime     Maximum rate
                   Rated lumen ranges                        \1\ (hrs)           wattage        Compliance date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) 1118-1950..........................................              1,000                 72           1/1/2012
(B) 788-1117...........................................              1,000                 53           1/1/2013
(C) 563-787............................................              1,000                 43           1/1/2014
(D) 232-562............................................              1,000                 29           1/1/2014
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Use lifetime determined in accordance with Sec.   429.66 of this chapter to determine compliance with this
  standard.

    (iii) A bare or covered (no reflector) medium base compact 
fluorescent lamp manufactured on or after January 1, 2006, must meet or 
exceed the following requirements:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Factor                                       Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Minimum initial lamp
                                 Labeled wattage    efficacy (lumens per
      Configuration \1\              (watts)          watt) must be at
                                                           least:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) Bare Lamp:
                              (1) Labeled Wattage                   45.0
                               <15.
                              (2) Labeled Wattage                   60.0
                               >=15.
(B) Covered Lamp (no
 reflector):
                              (1) Labeled Wattage                   40.0
                               <15.
                              (2) 15<= Labeled                      48.0
                               Wattage <19.
                              (3) 19<= Labeled                      50.0
                               Wattage <25.
                              (4) Labeled Wattage                   55.0
                               >=25.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Use labeled wattage to determine the appropriate efficacy
  requirements in this table; do not use measured wattage for this
  purpose.

    (iv) Each general service lamp manufactured on or after July 25, 
2028 must have:
    (A) A power factor greater than or equal to 0.7 for integrated LED 
lamps (as defined in Sec.  430.2) and 0.5 for medium base compact 
fluorescent lamps (as defined in Sec.  430.2); and
    (B) A lamp efficacy greater than or equal to the values shown in 
the table as follows:

 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Standby mode
            Lamp type                          Length                  operation \3\         Efficacy (lm/W)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Integrated Omnidirectional..  Short (<45 inches)..............  No Standby Mode      123/(1.2+e-
                                                                     Operation.           \0.005*\(\Lumens-
                                                                                          200\))) + 25.9
(2) Integrated Omnidirectional..  Long (>=45 inches)..............  No Standby Mode      123/(1.2+e-
                                                                     Operation.           \0.005*\(\Lumens-
                                                                                          200\))) + 71.7
(3) \1\ Integrated Directional..  All Lengths.....................  No Standby Mode      73/(0.5+e-
                                                                     Operation.           \0.0021*\(\Lumens+1000
                                                                                          \))) - 47.2
(4) \2\ Non-integrated            Short (<45 inches)..............  No Standby Mode      122/(0.55+e-
 Omnidirectional.                                                    Operation.           \0.003*\(\Lumens+250\)
                                                                                          )) - 83.4
(5) \1\ Non-integrated            All Lengths.....................  No Standby Mode      67/(0.45+e-
 Directional.                                                        Operation.           \0.00176*\(\Lumens+131
                                                                                          0\))) - 53.1
(6) Integrated Omnidirectional..  Short (<45 inches)..............  Standby Mode         123/(1.2+e-
                                                                     Operation.           \0.005*\(\Lumens-
                                                                                          200\))) + 17.1
(7) \1\ Integrated Directional..  All Lengths.....................  Standby Mode         73/(0.5+e-
                                                                     Operation.           \0.0021*\(\Lumens+1000
                                                                                          \)) - 50.9
(8) Non-integrated                Long (>=45 inches)..............  No Standby Mode      123/(1.2+e-
 Omnidirectional.                                                    Operation.           \0.005*\(\Lumens-
                                                                                          200\))) + 93.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This lamp type comprises of directional lamps. A directional lamp is a lamp that meets the definition of
  reflector lamp as defined in Sec.   430.2.
\2\ This lamp type comprises of, but is not limited to, lamps that are pin base compact fluorescent lamps
  (``CFLs'') and pin base light-emitting diode (``LED'') lamps designed and marketed as replacements of pin base
  CFLs.
\3\ Indicates whether or not lamps are capable of operating in standby mode operation.

    (C) The standards described in paragraph (dd)(1)(iv) of this 
section do not apply to a general service lamp that:
    (1) Is a general service organic light-emitting diode (OLED) lamps 
(as defined in Sec.  430.2);
    (2) Is a non-integrated lamp that is capable of operating in 
standby mode and is sold in packages of two lamps or less;
    (3) Is designed and marketed as a lamp that has at least one 
setting that allows the user to change the lamp's correlated color 
temperature (CCT) and has no setting in which the lamp meets the 
definition of a colored lamp (as defined in Sec.  430.2); and is sold 
in packages of two lamps or less;

[[Page 28965]]

    (4) Is designed and marketed as a lamp that has at least one 
setting in which the lamp meets the definition of a colored lamp (as 
defined in Sec.  430.2) and at least one other setting in which it does 
not meet the definition of colored lamp (as defined in Sec.  430.2) and 
is sold in packages of two lamps or less; or
    (5) Is designed and marketed as a lamp that has one or more 
component(s) offering a completely different functionality (e.g., a 
speaker, a camera, an air purifier, etc.) where each component is 
integrated into the lamp but does not affect the light output of the 
lamp (e.g., does not turn the light on/off, dim the light, change the 
color of the light, etc.), is capable of operating in standby mode, and 
is sold in packages of two lamps or less.
    (2) Medium base CFLs (as defined in Sec.  430.2) manufactured on or 
after the dates specified in the following table shall meet or exceed 
the following standards:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Requirements for    Requirements for
                                        MBCFLs              MBCFLs
             Metrics              manufactured on or  manufactured on or
                                   after January 1,     after July 25,
                                         2006                2028
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Lumen Maintenance at 1,000    >=90.0%...........  >=90.0%.
 Hours.
(ii) Lumen Maintenance at 40      >=80.0%...........  >=80.0%.
 Percent of Lifetime\1\.
(iii) Rapid Cycle Stress Test...  At least 5 lamps    At least 5 lamps
                                   must meet or        must meet or
                                   exceed the          exceed the
                                   minimum number of   minimum number of
                                   cycles.             cycles.
                                  All MBCFLs: Cycle   MBCFLs with start
                                   once per every      time >100 ms:
                                   two hours of        Cycle once per
                                   lifetime \1\.       hour of lifetime
                                                       \1\ or a maximum
                                                       of 15,000 cycles.
                                                      MBCFLs with a
                                                       start time of
                                                       <=100 ms: Cycle
                                                       once per every
                                                       two hours of
                                                       lifetime.\1\
(iv) Lifetime \1\...............  >=6,000 hours.....  >=10,000 hours.
(v) Start time..................  No requirement....  The time needed
                                                       for a MBCFL to
                                                       remain
                                                       continuously
                                                       illuminated must
                                                       be within:
                                                       {1{time}  one
                                                       second of
                                                       application of
                                                       electrical power
                                                       for lamp with
                                                       standby mode
                                                       power {2{time}
                                                       750 milliseconds
                                                       of application of
                                                       electrical power
                                                       for lamp without
                                                       standby mode
                                                       power.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Lifetime refers to lifetime of a compact fluorescent lamp as defined
  in Sec.   430.2.


    Note: The following appendix will not appear in the Code of 
Federal Regulations.

Appendix A--Letter From Department of Justice to the Department of 
Energy

U.S. Department of Justice
Antitrust Division
RFK Main Justice Building
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001

March 13, 2023

Ami Grace-Tardy
Assistant General Counsel for Legislation,
Regulation and Energy Efficiency
U.S. Department of Energy
1000 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20585

Dear Assistant General Counsel Grace-Tardy:

    I am responding to your January 11, 2023 letter seeking the 
views of the Attorney General about the potential impact on 
competition of proposed energy conservation standards for general 
service lamps.
    Your request was submitted under Section 325(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) of 
the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (ECPA), 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V), which requires the Attorney General to make a 
determination of the impact of any lessening of competition that is 
likely to result from the imposition of proposed energy conservation 
standards. The Attorney General's responsibility for responding to 
requests from other departments about the effect of a program on 
competition has been delegated to the Assistant Attorney General for 
the Antitrust Division in 28 CFR 0.40(g). The Assistant Attorney 
General for the Antitrust Division has authorized me, as the Policy 
Director for the Antitrust Division, to provide the Antitrust 
Division's views regarding the potential impact on competition of 
proposed energy conservation standards on his behalf.
    In conducting its analysis, the Antitrust Division examines 
whether a proposed standard may lessen competition, for example, by 
substantially limiting consumer choice or increasing industry 
concentration. A lessening of competition could result in higher 
prices to manufacturers and consumers.
    We have studied in detail the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(NOPR) regarding energy conservation standards for general service 
lamps, as well as the Technical Support Document (TSD) that 
accompanied it, both of which you transmitted to us under cover of 
your January 11 letter. We also attended via Webinar the February 1, 
2023 Public Meeting held by the Department of Energy on the general 
service lamps NOPR and reviewed the related public comments.
    The Division previously reviewed a related standard, contained 
in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published at 81 FR 14,528, on 
Mar. 17, 2016. Subsequently, the Division advised that it did not 
have evidentiary basis to conclude that that proposed standard for 
general service lamps was likely to adversely impact competition. 
The Division also advised that its conclusion was subject to 
significant uncertainty due to substantial marketplace changes that 
the standard would likely cause. Similarly, based on our review of 
the new standard, the Division does not have evidence that the new 
proposed standard for general service lamps are substantially likely 
to adversely impact competition.

Sincerely,

David G.B. Lawrence,

Policy Director.

[FR Doc. 2024-07831 Filed 4-18-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P