Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for General Service Incandescent Lamps, 46830-46862 [2019-18941]
Download as PDF
46830
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 172 / Thursday, September 5, 2019 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 430
EERE–2019–BT–STD–0022]
RIN 1904–AE76
Energy Conservation Program: Energy
Conservation Standards for General
Service Incandescent Lamps
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of proposed
determination and request for comment.
AGENCY:
The Energy Policy and
Conservation Act of 1975, as amended
(EPCA), directs DOE to initiate a
rulemaking for general service lamps
(GSLs) that, among other requirements,
determines whether standards in effect
for general service incandescent lamps
(GSILs, a subset of GSLs) should be
amended. In this notice of proposed
determination (NOPD), DOE has
initially determined that energy
conservation standards for GSILs do not
need to be amended and asks for
comment on this proposed
determination and associated analyses
and results.
DATES:
Comments: Written comments and
information are requested and will be
accepted on or before November 4,
2019.
Meeting: DOE will hold a public
meeting on Tuesday, October 15, 2019,
from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., in
Washington, DC. The meeting will also
be broadcast as a webinar. See section
VII, ‘‘Public Participation,’’ for webinar
registration information, participant
instructions, and information about the
capabilities available to webinar
participants.
SUMMARY:
The public meeting will be
held at the U.S. Department of Energy,
Forrestal Building, Room 8E–089, 1000
Independence Avenue SW, Washington,
DC 20585.
Interested persons are encouraged to
submit comments using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Alternatively, interested persons may
submit comments, identified by docket
number EERE–BT–STD–0022, by any of
the following methods:
(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
(2) Email: GSIL2019STD0022@
ee.doe.gov. Include the docket number
EERE–BT–STD–0022 in the subject line
of the message.
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
ADDRESSES:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Sep 04, 2019
Jkt 247001
(3) Postal Mail: Appliance and
Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building
Technologies Office, Mailstop EE–5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 287–1445. If possible,
please submit all items on a compact
disc (CD), in which case it is not
necessary to include printed copies.
(4) Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance
and Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building
Technologies Office, 950 L’Enfant Plaza
SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024.
Telephone: (202) 287–1445. If possible,
please submit all items on a CD, in
which case it is not necessary to include
printed copies.
No telefacsimiles (faxes) will be
accepted. For detailed instructions on
submitting comments and additional
information on this process, see section
VII of this document.
Docket: The docket, which includes
Federal Register notices, comments,
and other supporting documents/
materials, is available for review at
https://www.regulations.gov. All
documents in the docket are listed in
the https://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
https://www.regulations.gov/
docket?D=EERE-2019-BT-STD-0022.
The docket web page contains
instructions on how to access all
documents, including public comments,
in the docket. See section VII, ‘‘Public
Participation,’’ for further information
on how to submit comments through
https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Lucy deButts, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000
Independence Avenue SW, Washington,
DC 20585–0121. Email:
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
Ms. Celia Sher, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of the General Counsel,
GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 287–6122. Email:
Celia.Sher@hq.doe.gov.
For further information on how to
submit a comment, review other public
comments and the docket, or participate
in the public meeting, contact the
Appliance and Equipment Standards
Program staff at (202) 287–1445 or by
email: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Synopsis of the Proposed Determination
II. Introduction
A. Authority and Background
1. Current Standards
2. History of Standards Rulemakings for
GSILs
III. General Discussion
A. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage
B. Test Procedure
C. Technological Feasibility
1. General
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible
Levels
D. Energy Savings
1. Determination of Savings
2. Significance of Savings
E. Economic Justification
1. Specific Criteria
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and
Consumers
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to
Increase in Price
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. Market and Technology Assessment
1. Scope of Coverage
2. Metric
3. Technology Options
4. Screening Analysis
5. Product Classes
B. Engineering Analysis
1. Representative Product Classes
2. Baseline Lamps
3. More-Efficacious Substitutes
4. Efficacy Levels
5. Scaling to Other Product Classes
6. Product Substitutes
C. Product Price Determination
D. Energy Use Analysis
1. Operating Hours
a. Residential Sector
b. Commercial Sector
2. Input Power
3. Lighting Controls
E. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
Analysis
1. Product Cost
2. Installation Cost
3. Annual Energy Consumption
4. Energy Prices
5. Energy Price Trends
6. Product Lifetime
7. Discount Rates
8. Efficacy Distribution
9. LCC Savings Calculation
10. Payback Period Analysis
F. Shipments Analysis
1. Shipments Model
a. Lamp Demand Module
b. Price-Learning Module
c. Market-Share Module
G. National Impact Analysis
1. National Energy Savings
2. Net Present Value Analysis
H. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
1. Manufacturer Production Costs
E:\FR\FM\05SEP2.SGM
05SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 172 / Thursday, September 5, 2019 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
2. Shipments Projections
3. Product and Capital Conversion Costs
4. Markup Scenarios
V. Analytical Results and Conclusions
A. Trial Standard Levels
B. Economic Impacts on Individual
Consumers
1. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
2. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
C. National Impact Analysis
1. Energy Savings
2. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs
and Benefits
D. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
1. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results
2. Direct Impacts on Employment
3. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
4. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers
5. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
E. Proposed Determination
1. Technological Feasibility
2. Significant Conservation of Energy
3. Economic Justification
4. Summary
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
B. Review Under Executive Orders 13771
and 13777
C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility
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
VII. Public Participation
A. Attendance at Public Meeting
B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared
General Statements for Distribution
C. Conduct of Public Meeting
D. The Time and Date of the Public
Meeting and Submission of Comments
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Synopsis of the Proposed
Determination
Title III, Part B 1 of the Energy Policy
and Conservation Act of 1975, as
amended (EPCA),2 established the
Energy Conservation Program for
Consumer Products Other Than
Automobiles. (42 U.S.C. 6291–6309)
These products include GSILs, the
subject of this NOPD.
DOE is issuing this NOPD pursuant to
the EPCA requirement that DOE must
initiate a rulemaking for GSLs that,
among other requirements, determines
whether standards in effect for GSILs (a
1 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the
U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A.
2 All references to EPCA in this document refer
to the statute as amended through America’s Water
Infrastructure Act of 2018, Public Law 115–270
(October 23, 2018).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Sep 04, 2019
Jkt 247001
subset of GSLs) should be amended. (42
U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A))
For this proposed determination, DOE
analyzed GSILs defined at title 10 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part
430, subpart A, section 430.2 and
subject to standards specified in 10 CFR
430.32(x). DOE first analyzed the
technological feasibility of more
efficient GSILs. For those GSILs for
which DOE determined higher
standards to be technologically feasible,
DOE estimated energy savings that
would result from potential energy
conservation standards by conducting a
national impacts analysis (NIA). DOE
evaluated whether higher standards
would be economically justified by
conducting life-cycle cost (LCC) and
payback period (PBP) analyses, and
estimated the net present value (NPV) of
the total costs and benefits experienced
by consumers. In addition to the
consideration of these criteria, DOE
conducted a manufacturer impact
analyses (MIA).
Based on the results of these analyses,
summarized in section V of this
document, DOE has tentatively
determined that current standards for
GSILs do not need to be amended
because more stringent standards are
not economically justified.
II. Introduction
The following section briefly
discusses the statutory authority
underlying this proposed determination,
as well as some of the relevant historical
background related to standards for
GSLs.
A. Authority and Background
Title III, Part B of EPCA established
the Energy Conservation Program for
Consumer Products Other Than
Automobiles, which includes GSILs (a
subset of GSLs) as covered products. (42
U.S.C. 6292(a)(14)) Amendments to
EPCA in the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007)
directed DOE to conduct two
rulemaking cycles to evaluate energy
conservation standards for GSLs. (42
U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)–(B)) GSLs are
currently defined in EPCA to include
GSILs, compact fluorescent lamps
(CFLs), general service light-emitting
diode (LED) lamps and organic lightemitting diode (OLED) lamps, and any
other lamps that the Secretary of Energy
(Secretary) determines are used to
satisfy lighting applications
traditionally served by GSILs. (42 U.S.C.
6291(30)(BB))
For the first rulemaking cycle,
Congress instructed DOE to initiate a
rulemaking process prior to January 1,
2014, to consider two questions: (1)
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
46831
Whether to amend energy conservation
standards for general service lamps and
(2) whether ‘‘the exemptions for certain
incandescent lamps should be
maintained or discontinued.’’ (42 U.S.C.
6295(i)(6)(A)(i)) Further, if the Secretary
determines that the standards in effect
for GSILs should be amended, EPCA
provides that 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))
In developing such a rule, DOE must
consider a minimum efficacy standard
of 45 lumens per watt (lm/W). (42
U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(ii)) If DOE fails to
complete a rulemaking in accordance
with 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)–(iv) or a
final rule from the first rulemaking cycle
does 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 must prohibit sales of GSLs that do
not meet a minimum 45 lm/W standard
beginning on January 1, 2020. (42 U.S.C.
6295(i)(6)(A)(v))
The EISA-prescribed amendments
further directed DOE to initiate a second
rulemaking cycle by January 1, 2020, to
determine whether standards in effect
for GSILs should be amended with
more-stringent requirements and if the
exemptions for certain incandescent
lamps should be maintained or
discontinued. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(B)(i))
For the second review of energy
conservation standards, the scope is not
limited to incandescent lamp
technologies. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(B)(ii))
The energy conservation program for
covered products 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. The Federal Trade
Commission (FTC) is primarily
responsible for labeling, and DOE
implements the remainder of the
program.
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
(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
E:\FR\FM\05SEP2.SGM
05SEP2
46832
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 172 / Thursday, September 5, 2019 / Proposed Rules
determine whether the products comply
with standards adopted pursuant to
EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The DOE test
procedures for GSILs appear at 10 CFR
part 430, subpart B, appendix R.
Federal energy conservation
requirements generally supersede State
laws or regulations concerning energy
conservation testing, labeling, and
standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)–(c))
Absent limited exceptions, states
generally are precluded from adopting
energy conservation standards for
covered products both before an energy
conservation standard becomes
effective, and after an energy
conservation standard becomes
effective. (42 U.S.C. 6297(b) and (c))
However, the statute contains three
narrow exceptions to this general
preemption provision specific to GSLs
in 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(vi). Under the
limited exceptions from preemption
specific to GSLs that Congress included
in EPCA, only California and Nevada
have authority to adopt, with an
effective date beginning January 1, 2018
or after, either: (1) A final rule adopted
by the Secretary in accordance with 42
U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)–(iv); (2) if a final
rule has not been adopted in accordance
with 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)–(iv), the
backstop requirement under 42 U.S.C.
6295(i)(6)(A)(v); or (3) in the case of
California only, if a final rule has not
been adopted in accordance with 42
U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)–(iv), any
California regulations related to ‘‘these
covered products’’ adopted pursuant to
state statute in effect as of the date of
enactment of EISA 2007. (42 U.S.C.
6295(i)(6)(A)(vi)) Because none of these
narrow exceptions from preemption are
available to California and Nevada, all
states, including California and Nevada,
are prohibited from adopting energy
conservation standards for GSLs.3
Pursuant to the amendments
contained in EISA 2007, 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’s current test
procedure for GSILs does not address
standby mode and off mode energy use
because DOE concluded in a 2009 final
rule that these modes of energy
consumption were not applicable to the
lamps. 74 FR 31829, 31833 (July 6,
2009). In this analysis DOE only
considers active mode energy use in its
determination of whether energy
conservation standards for GSILs need
to be amended.
DOE is prohibited from prescribing an
amended standard that DOE determines
will not result in significant
conservation of energy, is not
technologically feasible, or is not
economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(3)) An evaluation of economic
justification requires that DOE
determine whether the benefits of a
standard exceed its burdens through
consideration, 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))
DOE is publishing this NOPD in
satisfaction of EPCA’s requirement to
determine whether the standards in
effect for GSILs should be amended. (42
U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i) and (iii))
1. Current Standards
In a final rule published on March 23,
2009, DOE codified the current energy
conservation standards, prescribed by
EISA, for GSILs manufactured after
January 1, 2012; January 1, 2013; or
January 1, 2014. 74 FR 12058. These
standards require a color rendering
index (CRI) greater than or equal to 80
for standard spectrum lamps (or greater
than or equal to 75 for modified
spectrum lamps) and, for four specified
lumen ranges, a rated wattage no greater
than and a rated lifetime no less than
the values set forth in DOE’s regulations
at 10 CFR 430.32(x)(1) and repeated in
the tables below.
TABLE II.1—FEDERAL ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR STANDARD SPECTRUM GSILS
Maximum
rate wattage
Rated lumen ranges
1490–2600 ...................................................................................................................................
1050–1489 ...................................................................................................................................
750–1049 .....................................................................................................................................
310–749 .......................................................................................................................................
72
53
43
29
Minimum
rate life-time
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
hrs
hrs
hrs
hrs
Effective
date
1/1/2012
1/1/2013
1/1/2014
1/1/2014
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
TABLE II.2—FEDERAL ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR MODIFIED SPECTRUM GSILS
Maximum
rate wattage
Rated lumen ranges
1118–1950 ...................................................................................................................................
788–1117 .....................................................................................................................................
563–787 .......................................................................................................................................
232–562 .......................................................................................................................................
3 DOE provides a more detailed explanation as to
why the preemption exceptions are not available to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Sep 04, 2019
Jkt 247001
California and Nevada in its General Service Lamps
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
72
53
43
29
Minimum
rate life-time
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
hrs
hrs
hrs
hrs
Effective
date
1/1/2012
1/1/2013
1/1/2014
1/1/2014
Definition Rule published elsewhere in today’s
Federal Register.
E:\FR\FM\05SEP2.SGM
05SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 172 / Thursday, September 5, 2019 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
2. History of Standards Rulemakings for
GSILs
GSILs are a subset of GSLs. As
described in section II.A, EPCA directed
DOE to conduct two rulemaking cycles
to evaluate energy conservation
standards for GSLs and outlined several
specific criteria for each rulemaking
cycle. DOE initiated the first GSL
standards rulemaking process by
publishing in the Federal Register a
notice of a public meeting and
availability of a framework document.
78 FR 73737 (December 9, 2013); see
also 79 FR 73503 (December 11, 2014)
(notice of public meeting and
availability of preliminary analysis).
DOE later issued a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NOPR) to propose amended
energy conservation standards for GSLs.
81 FR 14528, 14629–14630 (March 17,
2016) (the March 2016 GSL NOPR). The
March 2016 GSL NOPR focused on the
first question that Congress directed
DOE to consider—whether to amend
energy conservation standards for
general service lamps. (42 U.S.C.
6295(i)(6)(A)(i)(I)) In the March 2016
GSL NOPR proposing energy
conservation standards for GSLs, 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 4)
on the use of appropriated funds to
implement or enforce 10 CFR 430.32(x).
81 FR 14528, 14540–14541 (March 17,
2016). Notably, the applicability of this
Appropriations Rider, which had been
extended in multiple appropriations
through 2017, is no longer in effect.5
In response to comments on the
March 2016 GSL NOPR, DOE conducted
additional research and published a
notice of proposed definition and data
availability (NOPDDA), which proposed
to amend the definitions of GSIL, GSL,
and other supporting terms. 81 FR
71794, 71815 (Oct. 18, 2016). DOE
explained that the October 2016
NOPDDA related to the second question
that Congress directed DOE to
consider—whether ‘‘the exemptions for
certain incandescent lamps should be
4 Section 312 of the Consolidated and Further
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2016 (Pub. L. 114–
113, 129 Stat. 2419) prohibits 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.
5 See, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of
2017 (Pub. L. 115–31, div. D, tit. III); See also,
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (Pub. L.
115–141); Continuing Appropriations Act, 2019
(Pub. L. 115–245).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Sep 04, 2019
Jkt 247001
maintained or discontinued,’’ and stated
explicitly that the NOPDDA was not a
rulemaking to establish an energy
conservation standard for GSLs. (42
U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)(II)); see also 81
FR 71798. The relevant ‘‘exemptions,’’
DOE explained, referred to the 22
categories of incandescent lamps that
are statutorily excluded from the
definitions of GSIL and GSL. 81 FR
71798. In the NOPDDA, DOE clarified
that it was defining what lamps
constitute GSLs so that manufacturers
could understand how any potential
energy conservation standards might
apply to the market. Id.
On January 19, 2017, DOE published
two final rules concerning the definition
of GSL and related terms. 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. Like 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, regarding
whether to maintain or discontinue
certain ‘‘exemptions.’’ (42 U.S.C.
6295(i)(6)(A)(i)(II)). That is, neither of
the two final rules issued on January 19,
2017, purported to establish energy
conservation standards applicable to
GSLs.
With the removal of the
Appropriations Rider in the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017,
DOE is no longer restricted from
undertaking analysis and decision
making required by the first question
presented by Congress, i.e., whether to
amend energy conservation standards
for general service lamps, 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. 82 FR 38613
(August 2017 NODA). The purpose of
this NODA was to assist DOE in making
a decision on the first question posed to
DOE by Congress; i.e., a determination
regarding whether standards for GSILs
should be amended. Comments
submitted in response to the NODA also
led DOE to re-consider the decisions it
had already made with respect to the
second question presented to DOE; i.e.,
whether the exemptions for certain
incandescent lamps should be
maintained or discontinued. As a result
of the comments received in response to
the August 2017 NODA, DOE reassessed the legal interpretations
underlying certain decisions made in
the January 2017 definition final rules
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
46833
and issued a NOPR on February 11,
2019 to withdraw the revised
definitions of GSL, GSIL, and the
supporting definitions established in the
January 2017 definition rules (the
February 2019 NOPR). 84 FR 3120. DOE
held a public meeting on February 28,
2019 to hear oral comments and solicit
information and data relevant to the
February 2019 NOPR. Representatives
for manufacturers, trade associations,
environmental and energy efficiency
advocates, and other interested parties
attended the meeting.6
The determination on whether to
amend standards for GSILs remains a
decision DOE is obligated to make and
is addressed in this NOPD. DOE has
used the data and comments received in
response to the August 2017 NODA and
any relevant data and comments
received in response to the February
2019 NOPR to conduct its analysis of
whether energy conservation standards
for GSILs need to be amended.
III. General Discussion
DOE developed this proposed
determination after considering oral and
written comments, data, and
information from interested parties that
represent a variety of interests. This
NOPD addresses issues raised by these
commenters.
A. Product Classes and Scope of
Coverage
When evaluating and establishing
energy conservation standards, DOE
divides covered products into product
classes by the type of energy used or by
capacity or other performance-related
features that justify differing standards.
In making a determination whether a
performance-related feature justifies a
different standard, DOE must consider
such factors as the utility of the feature
to the consumer and other factors DOE
determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C.
6295(q)) The product classes for this
proposed determination are discussed
in further detail in section IV.A.5 of this
document. This proposed determination
covers GSILs as currently defined in 10
CFR 430.2, which is the same as the
statutory definition for GSIL. The scope
of coverage is discussed in further detail
in section IV.A.1 of this document.
B. Test Procedure
EPCA sets forth generally applicable
criteria and procedures for DOE’s
adoption and amendment of test
procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6293)
Manufacturers of covered products must
6 A transcript of the public meeting and
supporting documents are available in the docket
at: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE2018-BT-STD-0010.
E:\FR\FM\05SEP2.SGM
05SEP2
46834
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 172 / Thursday, September 5, 2019 / Proposed Rules
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 GSILs are expressed in
terms of a maximum rated wattage and
a minimum rated lifetime. (See 10 CFR
430.32(x))
A final rule published on July 6, 2009
revised the test procedure for GSILs to
reflect the energy conservation
standards prescribed by EISA. The July
2009 final rule concluded that GSILs do
not operate in standby or off mode. 74
FR 31829. DOE published a test
procedure final rule on January 27,
2012, establishing revised active mode
test procedures for GSILs. 77 FR 4203.
The test procedure for GSILs is codified
in appendix R to subpart B of 10 CFR
part 430.
DOE has since published a request for
information (RFI) to initiate a data
collection process to consider whether
to amend DOE’s test procedures for
general service fluorescent lamps,
GSILs, and incandescent reflector
lamps. 82 FR 37031 (August 8, 2017).
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
C. Technological Feasibility
1. General
In evaluating potential amendments
to energy conservation standards, DOE
conducts a screening analysis based on
information gathered on all current
technology options and prototype
designs that could improve the
efficiency of the products or equipment
that are the subject of the 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. 10 CFR part
430, subpart C, appendix A, section
4(a)(4)(i)
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; and (3) adverse impacts on
health or safety. 10 CFR part 430,
subpart C, appendix A, section
4(a)(4)(ii)–(iv) Additionally, it is DOE
policy not to include in its analysis any
proprietary technology that is a unique
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Sep 04, 2019
Jkt 247001
pathway to achieving a certain efficacy
level. Section IV.A.4 of this document
discusses the results of the screening
analysis for GSILs, particularly the
designs DOE considered, those it
screened out, and those that are the
basis for the standards considered in
this proposed determination.
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible
Levels
As when DOE proposes to adopt an
amended standard for a type or class of
covered product, in this analysis it must
determine the maximum improvement
in energy efficiency or maximum
reduction in energy use that is
technologically feasible for such a
product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1))
Accordingly, in the engineering
analysis, DOE determined the maximum
technologically feasible (‘‘max-tech’’)
improvements in energy efficiency for
GSILs, using the design parameters for
the most efficient products available on
the market or in working prototypes.
The max-tech levels that DOE
determined for this analysis are
described in section IV.B of this
proposed determination.
D. Energy Savings
1. Determination of Savings
For the trial standard level (TSL)
evaluated, DOE projected energy savings
from application of the TSL to the GSIL
purchased in the 30-year period that
begins in the assumed year of
compliance with the potential standards
(2023–2052). The savings are measured
over the entire lifetime of the GSILs and
substitute lamps purchased in the 30year period. DOE quantified the energy
savings attributable to TSL 1 as the
difference in energy consumption
between the standards case with
substitution effects and the no-newstandards 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. In this
case, the standards case represents
energy savings not from the technology
outlined in TSL 1, but from product
substitution as consumers are priced out
of the market for GSILs. DOE used its
NIA spreadsheet model to estimate
national energy savings (NES) from
potential amended standards for GSILs.
The NIA spreadsheet model (described
in section IV.G of this document)
calculates energy savings in terms of site
energy, which is the energy directly
consumed by products at the locations
where they are used. For electricity,
DOE reports NES in terms of site energy
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
savings and source energy savings, the
latter of which is the savings in the
energy that is used to generate and
transmit the site electricity. DOE also
calculates NES in terms of full-fuelcycle (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.7 DOE’s
approach is based on the calculation of
an FFC multiplier for each of the energy
types used by covered products or
equipment. For more information on
FFC energy savings, see section IV.G of
this document.
2. Significance of Savings
In determining whether amended
standards are needed, DOE must
consider whether such standards will
result in significant conservation of
energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A))
Although the term ‘‘significant’’ is not
defined in EPCA, DOE recently
proposed to define a significant energy
savings threshold (‘‘Process Rule’’). 84
FR 3910 (February 13, 2019).
Specifically, DOE stated that it is
considering using a two-step approach
that would consider both a quad
threshold value (over a 30-year period)
and a percentage threshold value to
ascertain whether a potential standard
satisfies 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B) to
ensure that DOE avoids setting a
standard that ‘‘will not result in
significant conservation of energy.’’ 84
FR 3901, 3924. DOE’s updates to the
Process Rule have not yet been
finalized.
E. Economic Justification
1. Specific Criteria
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)) 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 a
potential amended standard on
manufacturers, DOE conducts an MIA,
as discussed in section IV.H. 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
7 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).
E:\FR\FM\05SEP2.SGM
05SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 172 / Thursday, September 5, 2019 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
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 industrywide impacts analyzed include industry
net present value (INPV), which values
the industry based on expected future
cash flows; cash flows by year; changes
in revenue and income; and 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 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 economic impacts
applicable to a particular rulemaking.
DOE also evaluates the LCC impacts of
potential standards on identifiable
subgroups of consumers that may be
affected disproportionately by a national
standard. However, because DOE has
tentatively concluded amended
standards for GSILs would not result in
significant energy savings and, as
discussed further in section V.E.3,
would not be economically justified for
one of the potential standard levels
evaluated based on the PBP analysis,
DOE did not conduct an LCC subgroup
analysis for this notice.
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared
to Increase in Price
EPCA requires DOE to consider the
savings in operating costs throughout
the estimated average life of the covered
product compared to any increase in the
price of the covered product that is
likely to result from the imposition of
the 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 expense
(including energy, maintenance, and
repair expenditures) discounted over
the lifetime of the product. To account
for uncertainty and variability in
specific inputs, such as product lifetime
and discount rate, DOE uses a
distribution of values, with probabilities
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Sep 04, 2019
Jkt 247001
attached to each value. For its analysis,
DOE assumes that consumers will
purchase the covered products in the
first year of compliance with amended
standards. In this analysis, DOE
estimates the consumer LCC of the
covered product under a standards
scenario and, as an input to the NPV,
the consumer LCC of switching to
substitute products as a replacement for
the covered product. However, as
described above the statutory factor
addressed in this analysis is the savings
in operating costs throughout the
estimated average life of the covered
product in the type (or class) compared
to any increase in the price of, or in the
initial charges for, or maintenance
expenses of, the covered products which
are likely to result from the imposition
of the standard (emphasis added).
Moreover, EPCA prohibits DOE from
prescribing an amended or new
standard if doing so 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 at the time of the
Secretary’s finding (emphasis added).
As such, while DOE presents the LCC of
switching to substitute products as a
replacement for the covered product,
DOE cannot, in this determination,
consider those LCC savings in making a
determination as to whether amended
standards for the covered product are
economically justified because those
LCC savings result from the
unavailability of the covered product.
Rather, DOE’s determination regarding
economic justification must be based on
LCC savings resulting from establishing
an amended standard for the covered
product, i.e., GSILs.
The LCC savings for the considered
standard levels are calculated relative to
the no-new-standards case and the PBP
for the considered efficacy levels are
calculated relative to the baseline.
DOE’s LCC and PBP analysis is
discussed in further detail in section
IV.E 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.G, DOE uses
the NIA spreadsheet to project national
site energy savings.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
46835
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of
Products
In establishing classes of products,
and in evaluating design options and
the impact of potential standard levels,
DOE evaluates 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
considered in this proposed
determination would not reduce the
utility or performance of the products
under consideration in this proposed
determination.
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 proposed 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)) Because DOE is
not proposing standards for GSILs, DOE
did not transmit a copy of its proposed
determination to the Attorney General.
f. Need for National Energy
Conservation
In evaluating the need for national
energy conservation, DOE expects that
energy savings from amended standards
would likely 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. Energy savings from amended
standards also would likely result in
environmental benefits in the form of
reduced emissions of air pollutants and
greenhouse gases primarily associated
with fossil-fuel based energy
production. Because DOE has
tentatively concluded amended
standards for GSILs would not be
economically justified for the potential
standard level evaluated based on the
PBP analysis, DOE did not conduct a
utility impact analysis or emissions
analysis for this NOPD.
g. Other Factors
EPCA allows the Secretary of Energy,
in determining whether a standard is
economically justified, to consider any
other factors that the Secretary deems to
E:\FR\FM\05SEP2.SGM
05SEP2
46836
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 172 / Thursday, September 5, 2019 / Proposed Rules
be relevant. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII))
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
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 rebuttablepresumption payback calculation is
discussed in section V.B.2 of this
document.
IV. Methodology and Discussion of
Related Comments
This section addresses the analyses
DOE has performed for this proposed
determination with regard to GSILs.
Separate subsections address each
component of DOE’s analyses. DOE
used several analytical tools to estimate
the impact of potential energy
conservation standards. The first tool is
a spreadsheet that calculates the LCC
savings and PBP of potential energy
conservation standards. The NIA uses a
second spreadsheet set that provides
shipments projections and calculates
NES and net present value of total
consumer costs and savings expected to
result from potential energy
conservation standards. 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 in the docket (see Docket
section at the beginning of this NOPD).
A. Market and Technology Assessment
DOE develops information in the
market and technology assessment that
provides an overall picture of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Sep 04, 2019
Jkt 247001
market for the products concerned,
including the purpose of the products,
the industry structure, manufacturers,
market characteristics, and technologies
used in the products. This activity
includes both quantitative and
qualitative assessments, based primarily
on publicly available information. The
subjects addressed in the market and
technology assessment for this proposed
determination include (1) a
determination of the scope and product
classes, (2) manufacturers and industry
structure, (3) existing efficiency
programs, (4) shipments information, (5)
market and industry trends, and (6)
technologies or design options that
could improve the energy efficiency of
GSILs. The key findings of DOE’s
market assessment are summarized in
the following sections.
1. Scope of Coverage
GSIL 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) An infrared lamp; (6) A lefthand thread lamp; (7) A marine lamp;
(8) A marine signal service lamp; (9) A
mine service lamp; (10) A plant light
lamp; (11) A reflector lamp; (12) A
rough service lamp; (13) A shatterresistant lamp (including a shatter-proof
lamp and a shatter-protected lamp); (14)
A sign service lamp; (15) A silver bowl
lamp; (16) A showcase lamp; (17) A 3way incandescent lamp; (18) A traffic
signal lamp; (19) A vibration service
lamp; (20) A G shape lamp with a
diameter of 5 inches or more; (21) A T
shape lamp that uses not more than 40
watts or has a length of more than 10
inches; and (22) A B, BA, CA, F, G16–
1/2, G–25, G30, S, or M–14 lamp of 40
watts or less. 10 CFR 430.2 In this
analysis, DOE relied on the definition of
‘‘general service incandescent lamp’’
currently in 10 CFR 430.2.
2. Metric
Current energy conservation
standards for GSILs are applicable to
active mode energy use and are based
on a maximum wattage for a given
lumen range. In this proposed
determination, DOE used efficacy
(lumens divided by watts, or lm/W) to
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
assess active mode energy use. The
measurement of lumens and watts and
the calculation of lamp efficacy for
GSILs is included in the current test
procedure at appendix R to subpart B of
10 CFR part 430.
3. Technology Options
To develop a list of technology
options, DOE reviewed manufacturer
catalogs, recent trade publications,
technical journals, and the 2015 IRL
final rule 8 for incandescent reflector
lamps (IRLs), and consulted with
technical experts. Based on DOE’s
review of product offerings and their
efficacies in manufacturer catalogs and
DOE’s Compliance Certification
Management System (CCMS) database,
GSILs are not commercially available at
efficacy levels above that which is
currently required. However, DOE
identified an infrared coatings
technology previously used in
commercially available IRLs that could
be used to improve the efficiency of
currently commercially available GSILs.
Infrared (IR) coatings on incandescent
lamps are used to reflect some of the
radiant energy emitted back onto the
filament. This infrared radiation then
supplies heat to the filament and the
operating temperature increases. An
increase in operating temperature
results in a higher light output and
therefore an increase in efficacy. These
infrared coatings are most commonly
applied directly to the burner, or
capsule, of a halogen lamp, which
achieves the greatest directed reflection
back onto the filament for the lowest
infrared coating usage. For more detail,
see chapter 3 of the technical support
document (TSD) for the 2015 IRL final
rule.9
In response to the August 2017 NODA
and the February 2019 NOPR, several
stakeholders commented on potential
pathways to improve the efficacy of
GSILs. The National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (NEMA) and
General Electric (GE) stated that there
are no GSILs available that are more
efficacious than the current GSILs on
the market. (NEMA, No. 4 at p. 31; 10
8 Documents from DOE’s rulemaking for IRLs are
available here: https://www.regulations.gov/
docket?D=EERE-2011-BT-STD-0006.
9 The TSD for the 2015 IRL final rule is available
at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE2011-BT-STD-0006-0066.
10 A notation in this form provides a reference for
information that is in the docket of either the
August 2017 NODA (Docket No. EERE–2017–BT–
NOA–0052) or the February 2019 NOPR (Docket
No. EERE–2018–BT–STD–0010). This notation
indicates that the statement preceding the reference
is document number 4 in the applicable docket, and
appears at page 31 of that document.
E:\FR\FM\05SEP2.SGM
05SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 172 / Thursday, September 5, 2019 / Proposed Rules
GE, No. 3 at p. 7) 11 However, NEMA
and GE both noted that more efficacious
GSILs were previously manufactured
and distributed in commerce. (NEMA,
No. 4 at p. 32; GE, No. 3 at p. 14) 11 GE,
several years ago, offered two GSILs that
used a halogen capsule with an infrared
coating, referred to as halogen infrared
(HIR) technology. Both HIR lamps had
rated lifetimes of 3,000 hours and the
60-watt equivalent had a rated wattage
of 45 watts whereas the 100-watt
equivalent had a rated wattage of 65
watts. GE stated that neither of the
products were commercially successful
and both were discontinued after
several years. (GE, No. 3 at p. 14) 11 GE
also noted that the lifetime of the HIR
lamp could be shortened to reduce its
wattage and therefore make it more
efficacious but the purchase price
would not change and there would be
fewer hours over which to recover the
high initial purchase price. (GE, No. 3
at p. 16) 11 NEMA added in response to
the February 2019 NOPR that Venture
Lighting had also sold but then
discontinued a more efficacious halogen
GSIL and that TCP had never
introduced a more efficacious halogen
GSIL because it determined the cost of
the product was too high. (NEMA, No.
329 at pp. 37–38) 12
Because HIR technology was used in
GSILs in the past and is still used in
commercially available IRLs, it is a
technology that could be used to
improve the efficiency of currently
commercially available GSILs. Although
IRLs include a reflector to direct light,
the presence of a reflector is not
necessary to employ HIR technology. An
IR coating is applied directly to a
halogen capsule, which is present in
46837
lamps both with and without reflectors.
Indeed, currently commercially
available GSILs and IRLs include
halogen capsules. GE stated that the
lamps were not commercially successful
because they could not be
‘‘economically justified’’ (GE, No. 3 at
pp. 14–16),11 and DOE is directed by
EPCA to consider enumerated factors in
evaluating whether standards are
economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The analysis
corresponding to the EPCA
requirements and the results are
presented in section V. DOE does not
consider cost when identifying
technology options.
In summary, for this analysis, DOE
considers the technology options shown
in Table IV.1.
TABLE IV.1—GSIL TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS
Name of technology option
Description
Higher Temperature Operation ...........................
Operating the filament at higher temperatures, the spectral output shifts to lower wavelengths,
increasing its overlap with the eye sensitivity curve.
Texturing, surface perforations, microcavity holes with material fillings, increasing surface area
and thereby light output.
More efficient filament alloys that have a high melting point, low vapor pressure, high strength,
high ductility, or good radiating characteristics.
Thinner filaments to increase operating temperature. This measure may shorten the operating
life of the lamp.
Layers of micron or submicron crystallites deposited on the filament surface that increases
emissivity of the filament.
Filling lamps with alternative gases, such as Krypton, to reduce heat conduction.
Increased halogen bulb burner pressurization, allowing higher temperature operation.
Novel filament materials that regenerate.
When used with a halogen burner, this is referred to as an HIR lamp. Infrared coatings on the
inside of the bulb to reflect some of the radiant energy back onto the filament.
Phosphor coatings that can absorb infrared radiation and re-emit it at shorter wavelengths
(visible region of light), increasing the lumen output.
Phosphor coatings that convert ultraviolet radiation into longer wavelengths (visible region of
light), increasing the lumen output.
Filament supports that include a reflective face that reflects light to another filament, the reflective face of another filament support, or radially outward.
Permanent shroud with an IR reflector coating and a removable and replaceable lamp can increase efficiency while reducing manufacturing costs by allowing IR reflector coatings to be
reused.
A double-ended burner that features a lead wire outside of the burner, where it does not interfere with the reflectance of energy from the burner wall back to the burner filament in HIR
lamps.
Microcavity Filaments ..........................................
Novel Filament Materials .....................................
Thinner Filaments ................................................
Crystallite Filament Coatings ..............................
Higher Efficiency Inert Fill Gas ...........................
Higher Pressure Tungsten-Halogen Lamps ........
Non-Tungsten-Halogen Regenerative Cycles .....
Infrared Glass Coatings ......................................
Infrared Phosphor Glass Coatings ......................
Ultraviolet Phosphor Glass Coatings ..................
High Reflectance Filament Supports ..................
Permanent Infrared Reflector Coating Shroud ...
Higher Efficiency Burners ....................................
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
4. 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 working
prototypes will not be considered
further.
11 These documents were submitted to the docket
of DOE’s request for data regarding incandescent
lamps (Docket No. EERE–2017–BT–NOA–0052).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Sep 04, 2019
Jkt 247001
(2) Practicability to manufacture,
install, and service. If it is determined
that mass production and reliable
installation and servicing of a
technology in commercial products
could not be achieved on the scale
necessary to serve the relevant market at
the time of the projected compliance
date of the standard, then that
technology will not be considered
further.
(3) Impacts on product utility or
product availability. If it is determined
that a technology would have significant
adverse impact on the utility of the
product to significant subgroups of
consumers or would result in the
unavailability of any covered product
type with performance characteristics
(including reliability), features, sizes,
capacities, and volumes that are
substantially the same as products
12 This document was submitted to the docket of
DOE’s proposal to withdraw the revised definitions
of GSL and GSIL that take effect on January 1, 2020.
(Docket No. EERE–2018–BT–STD–0010)
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05SEP2.SGM
05SEP2
46838
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 172 / Thursday, September 5, 2019 / Proposed Rules
generally available in the United States
at the time, it will not be considered
further.
(4) Adverse impacts on health or
safety. If it is determined that a
technology would have significant
adverse impacts on health or safety, it
will not be considered further.
10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A,
4(a)(4) and 5(b)
In summary, if DOE determines that a
technology, or a combination of
technologies, fails to meet one or more
of the listed four criteria, it will be
excluded from further consideration in
the engineering analysis. Additionally,
it is DOE policy not to include in its
analysis any proprietary technology that
is a unique pathway to achieving a
certain efficacy level.
DOE reviewed the technology options
identified in Table IV.1 and screened
out several because DOE could not find
evidence of their existence in working
prototypes or commercially available
products. For several of them, DOE also
screened them out based on the
practicability to manufacture and/or
impacts on product utility. Table IV.2
summarizes the technology options
screened out.
TABLE IV.2—GSIL TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS SCREENED OUT OF THE ANALYSIS
Design option excluded
Screening criteria
Novel Filament Materials .....................................
Technological feasibility, Practicability to manufacture, install, and service, Adverse impact on
product utility.
Technological feasibility, Practicability to manufacture, install, and service, Adverse impact on
product utility.
Technological feasibility, Practicability to manufacture, install, and service.
Technological feasibility, Practicability to manufacture, install, and service.
Technological feasibility, Practicability to manufacture, install, and service, Adverse impact on
product utility.
Technological feasibility, Practicability to manufacture, install, and service.
Technological feasibility, Practicability to manufacture, install, and service.
Technological feasibility, Practicability to manufacture, install, and service.
Microcavity Filaments ..........................................
Crystallite Filament Coatings ..............................
High Reflectance Filament Supports ..................
Non-Tungsten-Halogen Regenerative Cycles .....
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Permanent Infrared Reflector Coating Shroud ...
Infrared Phosphor Glass Coating ........................
Ultraviolet Phosphor Glass Coating ....................
DOE did not screen out infrared glass
coatings. As noted in section IV.A.3,
infrared glass coatings were previously
used to improve the efficiency of GSILs;
however those products were not
commercially viable and are no longer
available. The existence of a
commercially available GSIL that
employed the technology in the recent
past, in addition to the existence of a
commercially available IRL that
currently employs the technology on
halogen capsules that could be used in
GSILs, indicates that infrared glass
coatings are technologically feasible and
practicable to manufacture, install, and
service. DOE is not aware of any adverse
impacts on product utility or adverse
impacts on health or safety; IRLs that
use the technology have been available
for at least 10 years with no significant
issues. As described by GE, it was a
business decision to discontinue the
GSILs that utilized infrared glass
coatings because of their high costs.
DOE considers economic impacts on
consumers, manufacturers, and the
nation as described in sections IV.E,
IV.H, and IV.G.
DOE tentatively concludes that the
remaining technologies pass all four
screening criteria to be examined further
as design options in this analysis. In
summary, DOE did not screen out the
following technology options and
considers them as design options in the
engineering analysis:
• Higher Temperature Operation
• Thinner Filaments
• Higher Efficiency Inert Fill Gas
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Sep 04, 2019
Jkt 247001
• Higher Pressure Tungsten-Halogen
Lamps
• Infrared Glass Coatings
• Higher Efficiency Burners
5. Product Classes
In general, when evaluating and
establishing energy conservation
standards, DOE divides the covered
product into classes by (1) the type of
energy used, (2) the capacity of the
product, or (3) any other performancerelated feature that affects energy
efficiency and justifies different
standard levels, considering factors such
as consumer utility. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q))
Product classes for GSILs are currently
divided based on lamp spectrum and
lumen output.
DOE proposes to maintain separate
product classes based on lamp
spectrum. Modified spectrum 13 lamps
provide unique utility to consumers by
providing a different type of light than
standard spectrum lamps, much like
fluorescent and light-emitting diode
(LED) lamps with different correlated
color temperature (CCT) values.
However, the same technologies that
modify the spectral emission of a lamp
also decrease lamp efficacy. To modify
the spectrum, the coating absorbs a
portion of the light emission from the
filament. Neodymium coatings or other
coatings on modified spectrum lamps
absorb some of the visible emission
from the incandescent filament (usually
red), creating a modified, reduced
13 See CFR 430.2 for the definition of ‘‘modified
spectrum’’ with respect to an incandescent lamp.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
spectral emission. Since the neodymium
or other coatings absorb some of the
lumen output from the filament, these
coatings decrease the efficacy of the
lamp. Because of the impact on both
efficacy and utility, DOE is proposing to
maintain separate product classes based
on spectrum. DOE is proposing separate
product classes for standard spectrum
GSILs (those without modification to
the spectral emission) and modified
spectrum GSILs (some portion of the
spectral emission is absorbed).
DOE did not separate product classes
based on lumen output for the
evaluation under this proposed
determination. As described in section
IV.B.4, DOE evaluated efficacy levels
(ELs) that use an equation to determine
the minimum required efficacy based on
the lamp’s lumen output. Current
product classes for GSILs are separated
based on lumen output, with a constant
maximum wattage specified for a given
lumen range. This results in the
minimum efficacy requirement
increasing as lumen output increases
across a given lumen range. DOE
evaluated efficacy levels that follow the
same trend; that is, minimum required
efficacy increases as lumen output
increases. Because DOE is evaluating
efficacy levels based on an equation in
which the minimum efficacy
requirement changes based on the
lumen output of the lamp, DOE did not
evaluate separate product classes based
on lumen output.
In summary, DOE evaluated two
product classes for GSILs—one for
GSILs that meet the definition of
E:\FR\FM\05SEP2.SGM
05SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 172 / Thursday, September 5, 2019 / Proposed Rules
modified spectrum in 10 CFR 430.2 and
one for standard spectrum GSILs (i.e.,
do not meet the definition of modified
spectrum). See chapter 3 of the NOPD
TSD for further discussion.
B. Engineering Analysis
In the engineering analysis, DOE
selects representative product classes to
analyze. It then selects baseline lamps
within those representative product
classes and identifies more-efficacious
substitutes for the baseline lamps. DOE
uses these more-efficacious lamps to
develop efficacy levels.
For this proposed determination, DOE
selected more efficacious substitutes in
the engineering analysis and determined
the consumer prices of those substitutes
in the product price determination. DOE
estimated the consumer price of lamps
directly because reverse-engineering is
impractical since the lamps are not
easily disassembled. By combining the
results of the engineering analysis and
the product price determination, DOE
derived typical inputs for use in the
LCC analysis and NIA. Section IV.C
discusses the product price
determination.
The methodology for the engineering
analysis consists of the following steps:
(1) Select representative product classes,
(2) select baseline lamps, (3) identify
more efficacious substitutes, (4) develop
efficacy levels by directly analyzing
representative product classes, and (5)
scale efficacy levels to nonrepresentative product classes. The
details of the engineering analysis are
discussed in chapter 5 of the NOPD
TSD.
1. 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.
Based on its assessment of product
offerings, DOE analyzed as
representative standard spectrum GSILs
(only 3 percent of commercially
available halogen GSILs were marketed
as having a modified spectrum). This is
consistent with the 2015 IRL rulemaking
in which DOE analyzed, with support
from NEMA, standard spectrum IRLs as
representative. 79 FR 24068, 24107
(April 29, 2014).
2. Baseline Lamps
For each representative product class,
DOE selects a baseline lamp as a
reference point against which to
measure changes resulting from energy
conservation standards. Typically the
baseline lamp is the most common, least
efficacious lamp that meets existing
energy conservation standards. In this
analysis, DOE selected as a baseline the
least efficacious lamp meeting standards
with the most common lumen output
and, where possible, with the most
common wattage, lifetime, input
voltage, and shape for the product class.
DOE reviewed certified GSILs in
DOE’s compliance certification database
and also used a database of
commercially available products to
identify the baseline lamp. DOE
identified 60 watt equivalent lamps, or
lamps with a lumen output between 750
and 1,049 lumens, to be the most
common lamps based on the number of
products certified within this lumen
range in the compliance certification
database. This is consistent with DOE’s
conclusion in the March 2016 GSL
NOPR that 60-watt equivalent lamps
were the most popular lamps within the
310 to 2,000 lumen product class. 81 FR
14528, 14568–14569 (March 17, 2016).
DOE also analyzed certified GSILs to
identify a common wattage and lifetime.
For lamps with a lumen output between
46839
750 and 1,049 lumens, DOE found
certified rated wattage values to range
from 41.9 to 43 watts and certified rated
lifetime values to range from 1,000 to
2,056 hours. The wattage values were
distributed among the range and about
equally distributed between values that
would round to 42 watts and values that
would round to 43 watts. Products
available in catalogs and on websites
reported rated wattage to the nearest
whole number rather than the nearest
tenth of a watt. A database of
commercially available products
showed the most popular wattage to be
43 watts (92 percent of all halogen
GSILs within the lumen range, 100
percent of all GSILs marketed as a 60
watt equivalent). Among GSILs with a
lumen output between 750 and 1,049
lumens, the most common rated lifetime
was 1,000 hours (76 percent of all
certified GSILs within the lumen range).
This was consistent with the database
for commercially available products—
over 80 percent of halogen lamps with
a lumen output between 750 and 1,049
lumens had a lifetime of 1,000 hours
and all halogen lamps in the designated
lumen range that were marketed as 60
watt equivalents also had a lifetime of
1,000 hours. In addition to rated wattage
and rated lifetime, 95 percent of
commercially available halogen lamps
(100 percent of commercially available
halogen lamps marketed as 60 watt
equivalents) within the designated
lumen range had an input voltage of 120
volts and 70 percent of commercially
available halogen lamps within the
designated lumen range had an A19
bulb shape.
DOE selected the baseline lamp
shown in Table IV.3 because it just
meets existing standards within the
most common lumen range and also has
other common characteristics described
in the preceding paragraph. See chapter
5 of the NOPD TSD for more detail.
TABLE IV.3—BASELINE GSIL
EL
Technology
EL 0/Baseline ......................
Halogen ..............................
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
3. More-Efficacious Substitutes
Because few, if any, consumers are
anticipated to buy HIR lamps under TSL
1, DOE expects that consumers who
presently buy GSILs would substitute
less expensive lamps, such as CFLs and
LEDs. DOE evaluated more-efficacious
lamps as replacements for the baseline
lamp by considering commercially
available products and technologies not
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Sep 04, 2019
Jkt 247001
Wattage
Bulb shape
43
A19
eliminated in the screening analysis.
DOE could not use data in the
compliance certification database to
evaluate more efficacious lamps because
the information required to calculate
efficacy was not included; rated wattage
was reported for a given lumen range
rather than for an exact lumen output.
Instead, DOE reviewed its database of
commercially available GSILs for lamps
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Initial lumens
750
Rated lifetime
(hrs)
1,000
Efficacy
(lm/W)
17.4
that met the definition of a GSIL, had a
lumen output between 750 and 1,049
lumens, had an A-shape, and had a
higher efficacy than the baseline lamp
while still exceeding the minimum
standard established by EISA. DOE did
not identify any commercially available
GSILs that could serve as more
efficacious substitutes for the baseline
lamp.
E:\FR\FM\05SEP2.SGM
05SEP2
46840
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 172 / Thursday, September 5, 2019 / Proposed Rules
Because no commercially available
products could serve as a more
efficacious substitute for the baseline
lamp, DOE modeled a more efficacious
substitute based on design options
identified in the screening analysis. As
noted in section IV.A.4, the technology
options identified as design options
must be technologically feasible;
practicable to manufacture, install, and
service; have no adverse impacts on
product utility or product availability;
and have no adverse impacts on health
or safety.
DOE modeled a more efficacious
substitute for the baseline lamp
assuming that the modeled lamp
utilized IR coatings on the halogen
capsule within the baseline lamp. In
this instance, the model is based on an
actual lamp that previously had been
commercially available but was taken
off the market for economic reasons,
including high upfront cost. The
inclusion of an IR coating also increases
the lamp’s operating temperature and
pressure (two other identified design
options). DOE’s modeled lamp did not
incorporate thinner filaments, higher
efficiency inert fill gas, or higher
efficiency burners because it did not
believe including those design options
would increase the efficacy beyond that
achieved by the combination of an IR
coating and higher temperature and
pressure operation.
DOE reviewed information submitted
by GE regarding GSILs that it previously
offered for sale. GE’s 60 watt equivalent
GSIL that employed IR coatings had a
rated wattage of 45 watts and a lifetime
of 3,000 hours. DOE reviewed
information on discontinued products
and found a label that indicated this
product had a lumen output of 870
lumens. DOE used a similar
methodology as in the 2009 IRL
rulemaking 14 and the 2015 IRL
rulemaking 15 to adjust the lumen
output and lifetime of the lamp to be
equal to that of the baseline lamp (see
chapter 5 of the TSD for the 2009 IRL
final rule). Making these adjustments
lowered the rated wattage of the
modeled lamp to 34.3 watts. This
decrease in wattage in consistent with
GE’s comment that lowering the lifetime
of the HIR lamp would reduce its
wattage and therefore make it more
efficacious. (GE, No. 3 at p. 16) 11 DOE
identifies only energy-saving substitutes
in the engineering analysis. The
performance characteristics of the
modeled HIR lamp are shown in Table
IV.4.
TABLE IV.4—MORE EFFICACIOUS GSIL SUBSTITUTES
EL
Technology
EL 1 .....................................
HIR .....................................
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
4. Efficacy Levels
After identifying more-efficacious
substitutes for the baseline lamp, DOE
developed ELs based on the
consideration of several factors,
including: (1) The design options
associated with the specific lamps being
studied, (2) the ability of lamps across
lumen outputs to comply with the
standard level of a given product class,
and (3) the max-tech level.
DOE is employing an equation-based
approach in this NOPD. DOE is relying
on a continuous equation based on its
assessment that a step function, where
efficacy rises significantly at certain
increments in lumen output, is not
representative of the technology used by
the products covered by this proposed
determination. DOE recognizes that a
step function increases the potential for
products to be introduced at the lowest
possible efficacy point in each step.
While this could potentially encourage
the development of similar-wattage
products across the industry, a wide
variety of replacement wattages would
offer the consumer a greater number of
choices. For example, LED lamps exist
in many different wattages and
consumer choice has been positively
impacted. For these reasons, the
14 DOE published a final rule on July 14, 2009
amending energy conservation standards for IRLs.
The docket for the 2009 rulemaking is available at
https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2006STD-0131.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Sep 04, 2019
Jkt 247001
Wattage
Bulb shape
34.3
A19
limitations of a step function outweigh
its benefits and DOE is therefore
evaluating a standard based on a
smooth, continuous equation.
DOE is evaluating a lumens-based
approach in this notice. The primary
utility provided by a lamp is lumen
output, which can be achieved through
a wide range of wattages depending on
the lamp technology. For this reason,
lamps providing equivalent lumen
output and therefore intended for the
same applications should be subject to
the same minimum efficacy
requirements. Thus, DOE is considering
a continuous equation for ELs that
develops a relationship between lumen
output and efficacy.
DOE reviewed the equation form used
in the March 2016 GSL NOPR to
evaluate its applicability to GSILs.
Specifically, DOE considered the
following equation that relates the
lumen output of a lamp to lamp
efficacy:
Efficacy = A¥29.42 * 0.9983initial lumen
output
Where A is a constant that varies by EL.
In the preliminary analysis 16 for the
GSL energy conservation standards
rulemaking, DOE utilized a database of
commercially available lamps to
15 Chapter 5 of the TSD for the 2015 IRL final rule
is available at https://www.regulations.gov/
document?D=EERE-2011-BT-STD-0006-0066.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Initial lumens
750
Rated lifetime
(hrs)
1,000
Efficacy
(lm/W)
21.9
evaluate efficacy trends of GSLs across
a range of lumen outputs in order to fit
the curve. DOE confirmed the curve fit
matched product performance,
particularly in the low and high ends of
the GSL lumen range. Although GSILs
were not included in that analysis
because it was legally prohibited by an
Appropriations Rider from doing so, the
relationship characterized by the
equation is consistent with the current
standards for GSILs. The structure of the
current standards, with a maximum
wattage for a given lumen range, results
in the least stringent requirement being
at the lowest lumen output within each
lumen range. Since the current
standards have required compliance,
products on the market have generally
been offered at the lowest lumen output
within given lumen range, likely
because it is easiest to comply with
these requirements. When plotting these
commercially available lamps, the
efficacy increases as lumen output
increases, with the largest jump in
efficacy occurring between the lowest
and next-lowest lumen output range and
each successive jump in efficacy being
smaller than the one prior to it. The
equation under consideration
characterizes the same trend; that is,
efficacy sharply increases as lumen
16 Prior to publishing the March 2016 GSL NOPR,
DOE published a notice in the Federal Register
announcing the availability of the preliminary
analysis. 79 FR 73503 (Dec. 11, 2014).
E:\FR\FM\05SEP2.SGM
05SEP2
46841
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 172 / Thursday, September 5, 2019 / Proposed Rules
output increases at the lowest part of the
lumen range and then the increases
slow down such that a curve is formed
with a steep slope at the low end of the
lumen range and a flatter slope at the
high end of the lumen range. Because
the equation from the March 2016 GSL
NOPR characterizes the same lumen
output-efficacy relationship shown by
the current GSIL standards, DOE has
used this equation form to establish ELs
for GSILs.
As described in section IV.B.3, DOE
identified, through modeling, one GSIL
technology that could perform at an
efficacy higher than existing standards.
DOE developed one EL based on the
efficacy of the more modeled lamp.
Based on a lumen output of 750 lumens
and an efficacy of 21.9 lm/W (see Table
IV.4), DOE determined EL 1 to have an
A value of 30.0. Table IV.5 summarizes
the EL developed by the engineering
analysis.
TABLE IV.5—EL FOR GSIL REPRESENTATIVE PRODUCT CLASS BASED ON ENGINEERING ANALYSIS
Efficacy
Representative product class
Efficacy level
lm/W
Standard Spectrum GSILs .....................................................................
5. Scaling to Other Product Classes
DOE identifies and selects certain
product classes as representative and
analyzes these product classes directly.
DOE chooses representative product
classes primarily due to their high
market volumes. The ELs for product
classes that are not directly analyzed
(‘‘non-representative product classes’’)
are then determined by scaling the ELs
of the representative product classes.
EL 1 ............................
For this analysis DOE directly analyzed
standard spectrum GSILs but did not
directly analyze modified spectrum
GSILs.
DOE developed an EL for the
modified spectrum product class by
scaling the EL of the standard spectrum
product class. The primary difference
between these product classes is the
lamp spectrum; a coating applied to the
lamp modifies its spectral emission but
also decreases its efficacy. DOE
30.0¥29.42 * 0.9983
∧
Initial Lumen Output.
developed a scaling factor by comparing
existing standards for standard
spectrum GSILs to similar modified
spectrum GSILs. From this analysis DOE
determined that the modified spectrum
lamps are 25 percent less efficacious
than standard spectrum lamps. DOE
applied this reduction to the A-value for
the EL developed in section IV.B.4.
Table IV.6 summarizes the efficacy
requirements for the non-representative
product class.
TABLE IV.6—EL FOR GSIL NON-REPRESENTATIVE PRODUCT CLASS BASED ON ENGINEERING ANALYSIS
Efficacy
Non-representative product class
Efficacy level
lm/W
Modified Spectrum GSILs ......................................................................
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
6. Product Substitutes
If energy conservation standards for
GSILs are amended, consumers may
substitute alternative lamps that are not
GSILs due to the high upfront cost and
long PBP associated with HIR
technology. DOE notes that EPCA
prohibits DOE from prescribing an
amended or new standard if that
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 at the time of the
Secretary’s finding. 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4)
As such, DOE could not set a standard
applicable to GSILs that results in
EL 1 ............................
consumers being left with no choice but
an alternative lamp that is a different
product type or has different
performance characteristics or features
than GSILs.
In this analysis, DOE considered
several alternatives available to
consumers that have the same base type
(medium screw base) and input voltage
(120 volts) as the baseline lamp. DOE
considered two more efficacious lamps
that consumers may choose if standards
for GSILs are amended: A CFL and an
LED lamp. As noted by GE and NEMA,
CFLs and LED lamps can be used to
satisfy lighting applications
traditionally served by incandescent
general service lamps. (GE, No. 3 at p.
7; NEMA, No. 4 at p. 31) 11 For
consumers who are resistant to changing
22.5¥29.42 * 0.9983
∧
Initial Lumen Output.
technology, and for those who are trying
to replace a 60 watt incandescent lamp
with a 60 watt replacement, DOE also
considered a shatter-resistant
incandescent lamp that is exempt from
the definition of GSIL. Because this
lamp is not a GSIL, it would not be
subject to amended standards for GSILs
and would remain available on the
market. However, all of the lamps
considered in this consumer choice
analysis represent a change in product
type, technology and performance
characteristics compared to a halogen or
HIR lamp, and, thus are provided for
informational purposes only. Table IV.7
summarizes the performance
characteristics of the GSIL alternatives
that consumers can choose if GSIL
standards are amended.
TABLE IV.7—ALTERNATIVE LAMPS CONSUMERS MAY SUBSTITUTE FOR GSILS
Option
Technology
A ...................................
B ...................................
C ...................................
Incandescent ...............
CFL .............................
LED .............................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Sep 04, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Wattage
Bulb shape
60
13
9
Frm 00013
Initial lumens
A19 ..............................
Spiral ...........................
A19 ..............................
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05SEP2.SGM
587
900
800
05SEP2
Rated lifetime
(hrs)
4,000
10,000
15,000
Efficacy
(lm/W)
9.8
69.2
88.9
46842
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 172 / Thursday, September 5, 2019 / Proposed Rules
C. Product Price Determination
Typically, DOE develops
manufacturer selling prices (MSPs) for
covered products and applies markups
to create end-user prices to use as inputs
to the LCC analysis and NIA. Because
GSILs are difficult to reverse-engineer
(i.e., not easily disassembled), DOE
directly derives end-user prices for
GSILs. End-user price refers to the
product price a consumer pays before
tax and installation.
In the March 2016 GSL NOPR, DOE
observed a range of consumer prices
paid for a lamp, depending on the
distribution channel through which the
lamp was purchased. Specifically, DOE
identified the following four main
distribution channels: Small ConsumerBased Distributors (i.e., internet
retailers, grocery stores, drug stores);
Large Consumer-Based Distributors:
(i.e., home centers, mass merchants,
hardware stores); Electrical Distributors;
and State Procurement. For each
distribution channel, DOE calculated an
average price for the representative
lamp unit at each EL using prices for the
representative lamp unit and similar
lamp models. Because the similar lamp
models included in the average price
were equivalent to the representative
lamp unit in terms of performance and
utility (i.e., had similar wattage, CCT,
bulb 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 identified. DOE
then calculated an average weighted
end-user price using estimated
shipments through each distribution
channel. DOE applied a 10 percent
weighting to the Small Consumer-Based
Distributors channel, 80 percent to the
Large Consumer-Based Distributors
channel, 5 percent to the Electrical
Distributors channel, and 5 percent to
the State Procurement channel.
DOE used the methodology from the
March 2016 GSL NOPR to calculate the
prices for the GSIL baseline lamp and
the three consumer choice alternatives.
GSILs and the three consumer choice
alternatives are purchased through the
same distribution channels as the CFL
and LED lamps analyzed in the March
2016 GSL NOPR.
Because DOE modeled an HIR lamp at
EL 1, which is not currently
commercially available, DOE could not
gather prices for commercially available
lamps and use the same methodology as
the March 2016 GSL NOPR. Instead,
DOE reviewed the incremental pricing
from the 2015 IRL final rule for the
baseline halogen lamp and the more
efficacious HIR substitute. HIR
technology can be utilized in both
omnidirectional lamps and reflector
lamps because it is applied directly to
halogen capsules contained within both
lamp types. DOE therefore added the
incremental change in end-user price
from the 2015 IRL final rule to the
baseline GSIL analyzed in this
evaluation.
GE stated that HIR lamps are
expensive because the coating of the
halogen capsules occurs during a slow
and expensive batch manufacturing
process. A heavy glass outer jacket is
also used because the capsule operates
at a higher pressure than standard
halogen capsules. GE stated that the
price for the HIR lamp it used to offer
for sale ranged from $6.00 to $9.00 per
lamp depending on the retailer and
packaging quantity and that the average
price was $7.00 per lamp. GE asserted
that reducing the price much below
$6.00 was not a long-term economic
option because the high cost of the
product left little profit margin for the
manufacturer or retailer at lower prices.
(GE, No. 325 at p. 5) 12 As described in
the preceding paragraph, DOE
determined the price of the HIR lamp at
EL 1 by reviewing the prices for the
halogen baseline and HIR lamp in the
2015 IRL final rule. That analysis
concluded the price of the HIR lamp to
be $7, which aligns with the price
estimate submitted by GE. DOE notes
that $7 is significantly more than
consumers currently pay for 43W
Halogen lamps ($1.81), IRLs ($2.15),
CFLs ($2.94), and LEDs ($3.00), further
illustrating that HIR lamp technology is
not commercially viable.
Table IV.8 summarizes the prices of
the GSILs analyzed in this rulemaking
and Table IV.9 summarizes the prices of
the alternative lamps consumers may
choose if standards for GSILs are
amended.
TABLE IV.8—END-USER PRICES FOR GSILS
EL
Technology
Wattage
EL 0 .....................................
EL 1 .....................................
Halogen ..............................
HIR .....................................
Initial lumens
43
34.3
Rated lifetime
(hrs)
750
750
1,000
1,000
Efficacy
(lm/W)
17.4
21.9
End-user price
$1.81
7.00
TABLE IV.9—END-USER PRICES FOR CONSUMER CHOICE ALTERNATIVES
Option
Technology
A ..........................................
B ..........................................
C ..........................................
Inc .......................................
CFL .....................................
LED ....................................
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
D. Energy Use Analysis
The purpose of the energy use
analysis is to determine the annual
energy consumption of GSILs in
representative U.S. single-family homes,
multi-family residences, and
commercial buildings, and to assess the
energy savings potential of an amended
energy conservation standard applied to
GSILs. To develop annual energy use
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Sep 04, 2019
Jkt 247001
Wattage
Initial lumens
60
13
9
587
900
800
estimates, DOE multiplied GSIL input
power by the number of hours of use
(HOU) per year and a factor representing
the impact of controls. The energy use
analysis estimates the range of energy
use of GSILs 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
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Rated lifetime
(hrs)
4,000
10,000
15,000
Efficacy
(lm/W)
9.8
69.2
88.9
End-user price
$2.15
2.94
3.00
savings and the savings in consumer
operating costs that could result from
adoption of amended or new standards.
DOE analyzed energy use in the
residential and commercial sectors
separately but did not explicitly analyze
GSILs installed in the industrial sector.
This is because far fewer GSILs are
installed in that sector compared to the
commercial sector, and the average
E:\FR\FM\05SEP2.SGM
05SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 172 / Thursday, September 5, 2019 / Proposed Rules
operating hours for GSILs 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
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
a. Residential Sector
GE commented in response to the
August 2017 NODA on GSILs and other
incandescent lamps that the 2010 DOE
Lighting Market Characterization (LMC)
report 17 estimated operating hours of
GSLs at 1.8 hours per day. (GE, No. 3
at p. 5) 11 DOE notes that a newer
version of the LMC report has
subsequently come out and that both the
2010 and 2015 LMC reports relied
primarily on data from field studies in
California.18 To take into account the
regional variability in the average HOU
of GSILs in the residential sector—
which were assumed to have similar
HOU to MSB A-type lamps—DOE used
the same methodology as for the March
2016 GSL NOPR. DOE used data from
various regional field-metering studies
of GSL operating hours conducted
across the U.S. to determine the regional
variation in average HOU. Chapter 7 of
the NOPD TSD lists the regional
metering studies used. Specifically,
DOE determined the average HOU for
each EIA 2015 Residential Energy
Consumption Survey (RECS) reportable
domain (i.e., state, or group of
states).19 20 For regions without HOU
metered data, DOE used data from
adjacent regions. DOE estimated the
national weighted-average HOU of
GSILs in the residential sector to be 2.3
hours per day.
The operating hours of lamps in
actual use are known to vary
significantly based on the room type the
lamp is located in; therefore, DOE
17 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Final Report: 2010
U.S. Lighting Market Characterization. 2012. U.S.
Department of Energy: Washington, DC (Last
accessed July 22, 2019.) https://
apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/
ssl/2010-lmc-final-jan-2012.pdf.
18 Navigant Consulting, Inc. 2015 U.S. Lighting
Market Characterization. 2017. U.S. Department of
Energy: Washington, DC Report No. DOE/EE–1719.
(Last accessed July 5, 2019.) https://energy.gov/
eere/ssl/downloads/2015-us-lighting-marketcharacterization.
19 The 2015 RECS provided detail only to the
division, not reportable domain, level; therefore, in
creating its residential consumer sample DOE
randomly assigned a RECS reportable domain to
each consumer based on the reportable domain
breakdown from RECS 2009.
20 U.S. Department of Energy–Energy Information
Administration. 2015 RECS Survey Data. (Last
accessed July 2, 2019.) https://www.eia.gov/
consumption/residential/data/2015/.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Sep 04, 2019
Jkt 247001
estimated this variability by developing
HOU distributions for each room type
using data from Northwest Energy
Efficiency Alliance’s (NEEA’s)
Residential Building Stock Assessment
Metering Study (RBSAM),21 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
United States, even if the average HOU
for that room type varied by geographic
location. To determine the distribution
of GSILs by room type, DOE used data
from NEEA’s 2011 RBSAM for singlefamily homes,22 which included GSL
room-distribution data for more than
1,400 single-family homes throughout
the Northwest.
b. Commercial Sector
DOE determined the HOU for
commercial GSILs in the same way as
for the March 2016 GSL NOPR. For each
commercial building type presented in
the 2015 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. DOE estimated the
national-average HOU for the
commercial sector by weighting the
building-specific HOU for GSLs by the
relative floor space of each building
type as reported in in the 2012 EIA
Commercial Buildings Energy
Consumption Survey (CBECS).23 The
national weighted-average HOU for
GSLs, and therefore GSILs, in the
commercial sector were estimated at
11.8 hours per day. To capture the
variability in HOU for individual
consumers in the commercial sector,
DOE used data from NEEA’s 2014
Commercial Building Stock Assessment
(CBSA).24 As for the residential sector,
DOE assumed that the shape of the HOU
distribution from the CBSA was similar
for the U.S. as a whole.
21 Ecotope Inc. Residential Building Stock
Assessment: Metering Study. 2014. Northwest
Energy Efficiency Alliance: Seattle, WA. Report No.
E14–283. (Last accessed July 5, 2019.) https://
neea.org/resources/2011-rbsa-metering-study.
22 Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance. 2011
Residential Building Stock Assessment SingleFamily Database. (Last accessed July 5, 2019.)
https://neea.org/resources/2011-rbsa-single-familydatabase.
23 U.S. Department of Energy—Energy
Information Administration. 2012 CBECS Survey
Data. (Last accessed July 5, 2019.) https://
www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/data/2012/
index.cfm?view=microdata.
24 Navigant Consulting, Inc. 2014 Commercial
Building Stock Assessment: Final Report. 2014.
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance: Seattle, WA.
(Last accessed July 5, 2019.) https://neea.org/
resources/2014-cbsa-final-report.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
46843
2. Input Power
The input power used in the energy
use analysis is the input power
presented in the engineering analysis
(section IV.B) for the representative
lamps considered in this rulemaking.
3. Lighting Controls
For GSILs that operate with controls,
DOE assumed an average energy
reduction of 30 percent (in keeping with
the March 2016 GSL NOPR). This
estimate was based on a meta-analysis
of field measurements of energy savings
from commercial lighting controls by
Williams, et al.25 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.
For this NOPD, DOE assumed that 9
percent of residential GSILs are on
controls, which aligns with the fraction
of lamps reported to be on dimmers or
occupancy sensors in the 2015 LMC.
As in the March 2016 GSL NOPR, for
the NOPD DOE assumed that building
codes would drive an increase in floor
space utilizing controls in the
commercial sector. DOE notes that the
estimate of the impact of controls on
energy consumption increases over time
in the commercial sector, but does not
require an update to the HOU estimate.
DOE welcomes any relevant data and
comment on the energy use analysis
methodology.
E. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
Analysis
DOE conducted LCC and PBP
analyses to evaluate the economic
effects on individual consumers of
potential energy conservation standards
for GSILs. In particular, DOE performed
LCC and PBP analyses to evaluate, in
part, the savings in operating costs
throughout the estimated average life of
GSILs compared to any associated
increase in costs likely to result from the
standards TSL. 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 effects on the consumer:
• The LCC (life-cycle cost) is the total
consumer expense of an appliance or
product, consisting of total installed
cost (manufacturer selling price,
distribution chain markups, sales tax,
and installation costs) plus operating
costs (expenses for energy use,
25 Williams, A., B. Atkinson, K. Garbesi, E. Page,
and F. Rubinstein. Lighting Controls in Commercial
Buildings. LEUKOS. 2012. 8(3): pp. 161–180.
E:\FR\FM\05SEP2.SGM
05SEP2
46844
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 172 / Thursday, September 5, 2019 / Proposed Rules
maintenance, and repair) and any
applicable disposal costs. To compute
the operating costs, DOE discounts
future operating costs to the time of
purchase and sums them over the
lifetime of the product. For this NOPD,
DOE presents annualized LCC because
average GSIL lifetimes are less than a
year in the commercial sector.
• The PBP (payback period) 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
efficacy levels by the change in annual
operating cost for the year that amended
or new standards are assumed to take
effect.
For each considered efficiency
standard level, DOE measures the
change in annualized LCC relative to the
annualized LCC in the no-newstandards case, which reflects the
estimated efficacy distribution of GSILs
in the absence of new or amended
energy conservation standards. DOE
presents LCC savings results for two
scenarios with different efficacy
distributions: DOE presents the LCC
savings of GSILs, the covered product in
this NOPD, for a GSIL-only scenario in
which consumers select only between
GSIL options and also includes LCC
savings for a scenario with substitution
in which consumers may purchase outof-scope lamps as an input to the NPV
calculation. For details on the two
scenarios, see section IV.F. The PBP for
each efficacy level is measured relative
to the baseline efficacy level. The LCC
savings with substitution effects is
additionally not comparable to the PBP
analysis because it extends beyond the
covered product in this NOPD.
For each considered efficacy level,
DOE calculated the annualized LCC and
PBP for a nationally-representative set
of potential customers. Separate
calculations were conducted for the
residential and commercial sectors. DOE
developed consumer samples based on
the 2015 RECS and the 2012 CBECS for
the residential and commercial sectors,
respectively. For each consumer in the
sample, DOE determined the energy
consumption of the lamp purchased and
the appropriate electricity price. By
developing consumer samples, the
analysis captured the variability in
energy consumption and energy prices
associated with the use of GSILs.
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.
For the GSIL standard case (i.e., case
where a standard would be in place at
a particular TSL), DOE measured the
annualized LCC savings resulting from
the technological requirements for
GSILs at the considered standard
relative to the efficacy distribution in
the no-new-standards case for the
covered product scenario. DOE also
presents annualized LCC savings that
include substitution effects and their
effects on efficacy distribution in the
standards case relative to the estimated
efficacy distribution in the no-newstandards case for a scenario in which
consumers can substitute out-of-scope
products. The efficacy distributions in
the substitution scenario include market
trends that can result in some lamps
with efficacies 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.
The computer model DOE used to
calculate the annualized LCC and PBP
results 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 consumer
user samples. The model calculated the
annualized LCC and PBP for a sample
of 10,000 consumers per simulation run.
DOE calculated the annualized LCC
and PBP as if each consumer were to
purchase a new product in the expected
year of required compliance with
amended standards. Any amended
standards would apply to GSILs
manufactured 3 years after the date on
which any amended standard is
published. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(iii))
As this proposed rule is being published
in 2019, DOE used 2023 as the first full
year in which compliance with any
amended standards for GSILs could
occur.
Table IV.10 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 8 of the NOPD TSD and its
appendices.
TABLE IV.10—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND METHODS FOR THE LCC AND PBP ANALYSIS * 26
Inputs
Source/method
Product Cost .......................................................
Weighted-average end-user price determined in the product price determination. For the LCC
with substitution, DOE used a price-learning analysis to project the price of the CFL and
LED lamp alternatives in the compliance year.
Derived 2023 population-weighted-average tax values for each state based on Census population projections and sales tax data from Sales Tax Clearinghouse.
Used RSMeans and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data to estimate an installation cost of
$1.54 per installed GSIL for the commercial sector.
Derived in the energy use analysis. Varies by geographic location and room type in the residential sector and by building type in the commercial sector.
Based on 2018 average and marginal electricity price data from the Edison Electric Institute.
Electricity prices vary by season and U.S. region.
Based on AEO 2019 price forecasts.
A Weibull survival function is used to provide the survival probability as a function of GSIL
age, based on the GSIL’s rated lifetime, sector-specific HOU, and impact of dimming.
Sales Tax ............................................................
Installation Costs .................................................
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Annual Energy Use .............................................
Energy Prices ......................................................
Energy Price Trends ...........................................
Product Lifetime ..................................................
26 Although DOE addresses the validity of
California law relating to GSILs in the General
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Sep 04, 2019
Jkt 247001
Service Lamps Definition Rule published elsewhere
in today’s Federal Register, in generating its
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
consumer samples, DOE did not sample consumers
from California.
E:\FR\FM\05SEP2.SGM
05SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 172 / Thursday, September 5, 2019 / Proposed Rules
46845
TABLE IV.10—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND METHODS FOR THE LCC AND PBP ANALYSIS * 26—Continued
Inputs
Source/method
Discount Rates ....................................................
Approach involves identifying all possible debt or asset classes that might be used to purchase the considered appliances, or might be affected indirectly. Primary data source was
the Federal Reserve Board’s Survey of Consumer Finances.
Estimated by the market-share module of shipments model. See chapter 9 of the NOPD TSD
for details.
2023.
Efficacy Distribution .............................................
Compliance Date .................................................
* References for the data sources mentioned in this table are provided in the sections following the table or in chapter 8 of the NOPD TSD.
1. Product Cost
As noted in section IV.C, DOE
rulemaking analyses typically calculate
consumer product costs by multiplying
MSPs developed in the engineering
analysis by the markups along with
sales taxes. For GSILs, the engineering
analysis determined end-user prices
directly; therefore, for the LCC analysis,
the only adjustment was to add sales
taxes, which were assigned to each
household or building in the LCC
sample based on its location.
In the LCC with substitution scenario,
DOE used a price-learning analysis to
determine the impact of GSIL standards
on consumers who select a CFL or LED
lamp alternative under a standard. The
price-learning analysis accounts for
changes in LED lamp prices that are
expected to occur between the time for
which DOE has data for lamp prices
(2018) and the assumed compliance
date of the rulemaking (2023). For
details on the price-learning analysis,
see section IV.F.1.b.
2. Installation Cost
Installation cost includes labor,
overhead, and any miscellaneous
materials and parts needed to install the
product. For this NOPD, DOE assumed
an installation cost of $1.54 per
installed commercial GSIL (based on
RSMeans 27 and U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics data 28), but zero installation
cost for residential GSILs.
3. Annual Energy Consumption
For each sampled household or
commercial building, DOE determined
the energy consumption for a lamp
using the approach described previously
in section IV.D of this document.
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
4. Energy Prices
DOE used both marginal and average
electricity prices to calculate operating
costs. Specifically, DOE used average
27 RSMeans.
Facilities Maintenance & Repair Cost
Data 2013. 2012. RSMeans: Kingston, MA.
28 U.S. Department of Labor–Bureau of Labor
Statistics. May 2014 Occupational Employment
Statistics Survey. National Occupational and Wage
Estimates. (Last accessed July 30, 2019.) https://
www.bls.gov/oes/tables.htm.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Sep 04, 2019
Jkt 247001
electricity prices for the baseline EL and
marginal electricity prices to
characterize incremental electricity cost
savings associated with other TSLs.
DOE estimated these prices using data
published with the Edison Electric
Institute (EEI) Typical Bills and Average
Rates reports for summer and winter
2018.29 DOE assigned seasonal marginal
and average prices to each household in
the LCC sample based on its location.
DOE assigned seasonal marginal and
average prices to each commercial
building in the LCC sample based on its
location and annual energy
consumption.
5. Energy Price Trends
To arrive at electricity prices in future
years, DOE multiplied the electricity
prices described above by the forecast of
annual residential or commercial
electricity price changes for each Census
division from EIA’s AEO 2019, which
has an end year of 2050.30 To estimate
the trends after 2050, DOE used the
compound annual growth rate of change
between 2035 and 2050. For each
purchase sampled, DOE applied the
projection for the Census division in
which the purchase was located. The
AEO electricity price trends do not
distinguish between marginal and
average prices, so DOE used the same
(AEO 2019) trends for both marginal
and average prices.
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.
6. Product Lifetime
DOE considered the lamp lifetime to
be the service lifetime (i.e., the age at
which the lamp is retired from service).
For GSILs, the lifetime model
incorporates the rated lifetime, the
presence of controls, and the
29 Edison Electric Institute. Typical Bills and
Average Rates Report. 2018. Winter 2018, Summer
2018: Washington, DC.
30 U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Annual Energy Outlook 2019 with projections to
2050. 2019. Washington, DC. Report No. AEO2019.
(Last accessed July 5, 2019.) https://www.eia.gov/
outlooks/AEO/pdf/AEO2019.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
installation sector. For CFL and LED
lamp alternatives, DOE used the
methodology from the reference
(‘‘Renovation-Driven’’) lifetime scenario
from the March 2016 GSL NOPR.
For a detailed discussion of the
development of lamp lifetimes, see
appendix 8C of the NOPD TSD.
7. Discount Rates
In the calculation of LCC, DOE
applies discount rates appropriate to
commercial and residential consumers
to estimate the present value of future
operating costs. DOE estimated a
distribution of discount rates for GSILs
based on cost of capital of publicly
traded firms in the sectors that purchase
GSILs.
DOE applies weighted average
discount rates calculated from consumer
debt and asset data, rather than marginal
or implicit discount rates. DOE notes
that the LCC does not analyze the
equipment purchase decision, so the
implicit discount rate is not relevant in
this model. The LCC estimates net
present value over the lifetime of the
equipment, 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
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.
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
E:\FR\FM\05SEP2.SGM
05SEP2
46846
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 172 / Thursday, September 5, 2019 / Proposed Rules
from the Federal Reserve Board’s Survey
of Consumer Finances (SCF) for 1995,
1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2010, 2013, and
2016.31 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.
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 discount rates.
8. Efficacy Distribution
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
(i.e., market shares) of product efficacies
that consumers purchase under the nonew-standards case and the standards
case (i.e., the case where a standard
would be set at TSL 1) in the assumed
compliance year. The estimated market
shares for the no-new-standards case
and each standards case are determined
by the shipments analysis and are
shown in Table IV.11 and Table IV.12
for the LCC with substitution scenario
and the LCC GSIL-only scenario,
respectively. In the LCC with
substitution scenario, DOE estimates
that the GSILs that are covered by this
NOPD would account for 11.3% of the
residential market share in 2023 in the
absence of federal standards, and 3.8%
of the residential market under TSL 1.
That is, most consumers would switch
from GSILs to out-of-scope substitutes
under TSL 1 due to high product price.
TABLE IV.11—GSIL MARKET SHARE DISTRIBUTION BY TRIAL STANDARD LEVEL IN 2023—LCC WITH SUBSTITUTION
EL 0
43 W halogen
(%)
Trial standard level
EL 1
34.3 W HIR
(%)
60 W
incandescent *
(%)
13 W CFL *
(%)
9 W LED *
(%)
Total **
(%)
Residential
No-New-Standards ...................................
TSL 1 .......................................................
11.3
0
0
3.8
4.0
4.1
5.2
6.2
79.5
86.0
100
100
0
0
3.1
3.2
94.2
96.5
100
100
Commercial
No-New-Standards ...................................
TSL 1 .......................................................
2.7
0
0
0.3
* Incandescent lamps, CFLs, and LED lamps are out-of-scope consumer choice alternatives for GSILs (see section IV.B.6).
** The total may not sum to 100% due to rounding.
The market share for GSIL lamps in
the LCC GSIL-only (i.e. covered
product) scenario are shown in Table
IV.12. DOE estimates HIR lamps will
represent 2.3% of the GSIL residential
market in the no-new-standards case.
TABLE IV.12—GSIL MARKET SHARE DISTRIBUTION BY TRIAL STANDARD LEVEL IN 2023—LCC STANDARDS SCENARIO
EL 0
43 W halogen
(%)
Trial standard level
EL 1
34.3 W HIR
(%)
Total *
(%)
Residential
No-New-Standards ......................................................................................................................
TSL 1 ...........................................................................................................................................
97.7
0
2.3
100
100
100
99.0
0
1.0
100
100
100
Commercial
No-New-Standards ......................................................................................................................
TSL 1 ...........................................................................................................................................
* The total may not sum to 100% due to rounding.
DOE calculated the annualized LCC
savings at TSL 1 based on the change in
annualized LCC for the standards case
compared to the no-new-standards case.
In the covered product scenario, this
approach models the actual lifecycle
cost of HIR lamps under TSL 1
compared to the lifecycle cost of GSILs
in the no-new standards case. In
contrast, the LCC savings results in the
substitution scenario also includes outof-scope lamps in the efficacy
distribution for both the standards case
and the no-new-standards case. That is,
the LCC with substitution analysis
considers the upfront price and
operating costs of out-of-scope lamps
that consumers would substitute for
covered GSILs. This approach models
how consumers would substitute other
lamps (which are more efficient and
sometimes less-expensive) and is
intended to more accurately reflect the
impact of a potential standard on
consumers. In a standards scenario,
consumers are unable to recover the
31 U.S. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System. Survey of Consumer Finances. 1995, 1998,
2001, 2004, 2007, 2010, 2013 and 2016. (Last
accessed July 16, 2019.) https://
www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/scf/
scfindex.htm.
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
See section IV.F of this NOPD and
chapter 9 of the NOPD TSD for further
information on the derivation of the
market efficacy distributions.
9. LCC Savings Calculation
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Sep 04, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05SEP2.SGM
05SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 172 / Thursday, September 5, 2019 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
upfront price of HIR lamps and as a
result experience negative LCC savings.
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-newstandards case as in the standards cases.
In other words, DOE assumed that the
consumers who purchased the mostefficacious products in the efficacy
distribution 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 efficacy
distribution 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 annualized LCC savings
calculation, and has no effect on the
estimated national impact of a potential
standard.
10. Payback Period Analysis
The PBP is the amount of time it takes
the consumer to recover the additional
installed cost of more-efficient products,
compared to baseline products, through
energy cost savings. PBPs are expressed
in years. PBPs 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 efficacy 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. The PBP calculation typically
uses the same inputs as the LCC
analysis, except that discount rates are
not needed. In this notice, DOE presents
the LCC savings in the standards case
for a covered product scenario along
with an LCC with substitution scenario,
the latter of which differs from the PBP
because it includes out-of-scope lamps
rather than only the product that would
be directly regulated by a GSIL
standard.
EPCA, as amended, 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Sep 04, 2019
Jkt 247001
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 efficacy 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.
DOE welcomes any relevant data and
comment on the LCC and PBP analysis
methodology.
F. Shipments Analysis
DOE uses projections of annual
product shipments to calculate the
national impacts of potential amended
energy conservation standards on
energy use, NPV, and future
manufacturer cash flows.32 The
shipments model takes a stockaccounting 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 lamp energy consumption and
operating costs for any year depend on
the age distribution of the stock. The
shipments analysis also provides the
efficacy distribution in the year of
compliance which is an input to
calculating LCC savings.
1. Shipments Model
The shipments model projects
shipments of GSILs over a thirty-year
analysis period for the no-newstandards case and for the standards
case. Separate shipments projections are
calculated for the residential sector and
for the commercial sector. The
shipments model used to estimate GSIL
lamp shipments for this rulemaking has
three main interacting elements: (1) A
lamp demand module that estimates the
demand for GSIL lighting and GSIL
alternatives 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.
DOE modeled shipments for two
scenarios: For the purposes of the
covered product scenario LCC scenario,
32 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
46847
DOE ran a version of the shipments
analysis where consumers selected
between product options for the covered
product at issue in this NOPD (i.e.
GSILs). As an input to the NIA, DOE
modeled a scenario where consumers
select between GSIL options and out of
scope alternatives, including CFL, LED,
and traditional incandescent (e.g.,
shatter resistant) lamps, because
amended standards on GSILs could
affect substitution rates. DOE welcomes
any relevant data and comment on the
shipments analysis methodology.
a. Lamp Demand Module
The lamp demand module first
estimates the national demand for GSILs
and potential alternative products in
each year for the covered product
scenario and the substitution scenario,
respectively. 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 AEO 2019
projections of US residential and
commercial floor space.33 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, the expected
lifetimes of the lamps (in terms of total
hours of operation), and sector-specific
assumptions about lamp operating
hours. For the substitution scenario, the
lamp demand module also accounts for
the adoption of integral LED luminaires
into lighting applications traditionally
served by GSILs and for consumers’
transitioning between GSILs and CFLs
or LED lamps both prior to and during
the analysis period, either
spontaneously or due to amended
standards.
NEMA commented in response to the
February 2019 NOPR that shipments of
GSILs are declining as shipments of LED
lamps continue to exhibit strong growth
and that GSILs represent a reduced
fraction of the overall stock of GSLs
compared to a few years ago (NEMA,
No. 329 at pp. 44–48).12 Along similar
lines, LEDVANCE commented in
response to the August 2017 NODA on
33 U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Annual Energy Outlook 2019 with projections to
2050. 2019. Washington, DC. Report No. AEO2019.
(Last accessed July 5, 2019.) https://www.eia.gov/
outlooks/AEO/pdf/AEO2019.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\05SEP2.SGM
05SEP2
46848
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 172 / Thursday, September 5, 2019 / Proposed Rules
GSILs and other incandescent lamps
that there has been brisk substitution of
GSILs with LED lamps and declines in
lamp shipments as consumers switch to
LED lamps with longer lifetimes.
(LEDVANCE, No. 9 at p. 3) 11 In the
shipments analysis for this NOPD, DOE
incorporated data on relative lamp
shipments and market share by
technology through 2018, as provided
by NEMA in its comments on the
February 2019 NOPR and in its
published lamp indices.34 (NEMA, No.
329 at pp. 52–53) 12 DOE notes that
these data show a much faster adoption
of LED GSLs than has previously been
projected by DOE’s solid-state lighting
program; further, the data show that
LED GSL adoption is growing at the
expense of both CFLs and GSILs. In the
scenario for substitution, fitting the
NEMA data to the widely used Bass
model for the market adoption of new
technology 35 suggests that, even in the
absence of Federal regulation, LED
lamps will have captured a significant
majority of the GSL market by 2023
(79.5 percent of the residential market
and 92.0 percent of the commercial
market). After incorporating this growth
in LED lamp market share prior to 2023
the shipments analysis for this NOPD
shows a substantial growth in LED lamp
shipments prior to 2023, owing to the
ongoing market transition in the absence
of standards.
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
b. Price-Learning Module
The price-learning module estimates
lamp prices in each year of the analysis
period using a standard price-learning
model,36 which relates the price of a
given technology to its cumulative
production, as represented by total
cumulative shipments. GSILs represent
a mature technology that have reached
a stable price point due to the high
volume of total cumulative shipments,
so price learning was not considered in
the LCC GSIL-only scenario. However,
in the scenario with substitution, CFL
and LED alternative lamps may
continue to drop in price due to price
learning. Current cumulative shipments
are determined for each lighting
technology (CFL and LED) at the start of
34 National Electrical Manufacturers Association.
Lamp Indices. (Last accessed July 23, 2019.) https://
www.nema.org/Intelligence/Pages/LampIndices.aspx.
35 Bass, F.M. A New Product Growth Model for
Consumer Durables. Management Science. 1969.
15(5): pp. 215–227.
36 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 June
23, 2015.) https://eta.lbl.gov/publications/
accounting-technological-change.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Sep 04, 2019
Jkt 247001
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
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
rapidly and hence they undergo a
substantial price decline during the
shipments analysis period. CFL prices,
by contrast, undergo a negligible price
decline, owing to the low shipments
volume and relative maturity of this
technology.
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, based on
consumer sensitivity various lamp
features. For the covered product
scenario, to lamp price energy savings
were the only features considered. For
the substitution scenario, lifetime and
mercury content were also considered,
as measured in a market study,37 as well
as on consumer preferences for lighting
technology as revealed in historical
shipments data. 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 substitution scenario
considered CFLs, LEDs, and traditional
incandescent alternatives to the covered
product. The available options
additionally depend on the case under
consideration; in each standards case
corresponding to a TSL, only those lamp
options at or above the particular
standard level, and relevant alternative
lamps, are considered to be available. In
the substitution scenario, the marketshare module also incorporates a limit
on the diffusion of LED technology into
the market using the widely accepted
Bass adoption model,38 the parameters
of which are based on data on the
market penetration of LED lamps
published by NEMA,39 as discussed
37 Krull, S. and D. Freeman. Next Generation
Light Bulb Optimization. 2012. Pacific Gas and
Electric Company. (Last accessed July 23, 2019.)
https://www.etcc-ca.com/sites/default/files/OLD/
images/stories/Lighting_Conjoint_Study_
v020712f.pdf.
38 Bass, F.M. A New Product Growth Model for
Consumer Durables. Management Science. 1969.
15(5): pp. 215–227.
39 National Electrical Manufacturers Association.
Lamp Indices. (Last accessed July 23, 2019.) https://
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
previously. In the LCC covered product
scenario, DOE used a Bass diffusion
curve in the no-new-standards case to
model the adoption of HIR lamps
assuming these lamps would be a new
entry to market in 2020. The Bass
diffusion curves puts a limit on the
maximum market share allowed for HIR
lamps in each year of the analysis.
In this way, the module assigns
market shares to the different ELs, and
consumer choice alternatives, based on
observations of consumer preferences.
G. National Impact Analysis
The NIA assesses the NES and the
national NPV from a national
perspective of total consumer costs and
savings that would be expected to result
from new or amended standards at
specific TSLs.40 (‘‘Consumer’’ in this
context refers to consumers of the
product being regulated and includes
both residential and commercial
consumers.) DOE calculated the NES
and NPV based on projections of annual
product shipments and prices from the
shipments scenario with substitution,
along with the HOU and energy prices
from the energy use and LCC with
substitution analyses.41 For the present
analysis, DOE projected the energy
savings, operating-cost savings, product
costs, and NPV of consumer benefits
over the lifetime of GSILs sold from
2023 through 2052. However, unlike for
other DOE rulemakings, the energy
savings and NPV of consumer benefits
are not those associated with the
technology in question for TSL 1. The
price of HIR lamps under TSL 1 would
be preventatively high for most
consumers, and HIR efficacy is too low
for consumers to recover these costs in
energy savings. Because manufacturers
are unlikely to product HIR lamps and
consumers are unlikely to purchase
them, there are no energy savings or
benefits from transitioning to HIR
technology.
DOE evaluates the impacts of new and
amended standards by comparing a case
without such standards against
standards-case projections. The no-newstandards case characterizes energy use
and consumer costs in the absence of
new or amended energy conservation
standards. DOE compares the no-newstandards case with projections
characterizing the market if DOE
adopted new or amended standards at
specific TSLs. For the standards cases,
www.nema.org/Intelligence/Pages/LampIndices.aspx.
40 The NIA accounts for impacts in the 50 States
and the U.S. territories.
41 For the NIA, DOE adjusts the installed cost data
from the LCC analysis to exclude sales tax, which
is a transfer.
E:\FR\FM\05SEP2.SGM
05SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 172 / Thursday, September 5, 2019 / Proposed Rules
DOE considers how a given standard
would likely affect the market shares of
products with efficacies greater than the
standard, as well as consumer choice
alternatives. Any energy savings or
benefits estimated in the standards case
are the result of product shifting as,
given GE’s experience and the
economics at issue, manufacturers are
unlikely to produce and consumers are
unlikely to purchase GSIL–HIR
products. Instead, consumers are more
likely to substitute different product
types such as CFLs and LEDs, which
have different performance
characteristics and features. As noted
above, EPCA prohibits DOE from
prescribing an amended or new
standard if 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 at the time
of the Secretary’s finding.
46849
DOE uses a spreadsheet model to
calculate the energy savings and the
national consumer costs and savings
from each TSL. Interested parties can
review DOE’s analyses by changing
various input quantities within the
spreadsheet. The NIA spreadsheet
model uses typical values (as opposed
to probability distributions) as inputs.
Table IV.12 summarizes the inputs
and methods DOE used for the NIA
analysis for the NOPD. Discussion of
these inputs and methods follows the
table.
TABLE IV.12—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND METHODS FOR THE NATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
Inputs
Method
Shipments ...........................................................
Annual shipments for each lamp option from shipments model for the no-new standards case
and each TSL analyzed.
January 1, 2023.
Estimated by the market-share module of the shipments analysis.
Estimated by the market-share module of the shipments analysis.
Calculated for each lamp option based on inputs from the Energy Use Analysis.
Uses lamp prices, and for the commercial sector only, installation costs from the LCC analysis.
Estimated marginal electricity prices from the LCC analysis.
AEO 2019 forecasts (to 2050) and extrapolation thereafter.
Calculated for each lamp option using the energy use per unit, and electricity prices and
trends.
A time-series conversion factor based on AEO 2019.
Three and seven percent real.
2019.
Assumed compliance date of standard ...............
No-new-standards efficacy distribution ...............
Standards-case efficacy distribution ...................
Annual energy use per unit .................................
Total installed cost per unit .................................
Electricity prices ..................................................
Energy price trends .............................................
Annual operating cost per unit ............................
Energy Site-to-Source Conversion ......................
Discount rate .......................................................
Present year ........................................................
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
1. National Energy Savings
The NES analysis involves a
comparison of national energy
consumption of the considered products
in each standards case with
consumption in the case with no new or
amended energy conservation
standards. DOE calculated the annual
national energy consumption by
multiplying the number of units (stock)
of each lamp option (by vintage or age)
by the unit energy consumption (also by
vintage) for each year in the analysis.
The NES is based on the difference in
annual national energy consumption for
the no-new-standards case and each of
the standards cases. DOE estimated the
energy consumption and savings based
on site electricity and converted that
quantity to the energy consumption and
savings at the power plant using annual
conversion factors derived from AEO
2019. Cumulative energy savings are the
sum of NES for each year over the
analysis period, taking into account the
full lifetime of GSILs shipped in 2052.
DOE tracks both the energy
consumption of GSILs and substitute
out-of-scope lamps (e.g., CFL, LED, and
traditional incandescent lamps). Under
the standards case, the increase in cost
or lack of availability of GSIL options
can lead to consumers choosing out-of-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Sep 04, 2019
Jkt 247001
scope alternative lamps. This leads to a
decrease in GSIL shipments that appears
as a decrease in GSIL energy
consumption, while the increase in outof-scope shipments appears as an
increase in energy consumption for
those lamp types. DOE also calculated
the overall energy impact of a standard
including the increased energy
consumption of out-of-scope lamps.
DOE generally accounts for the direct
rebound effect in its NES analyses.
Direct rebound reflects the idea that as
appliances become more efficient,
consumers use more of their service
because their operating cost is reduced.
In the case of lighting, the rebound
effect could be manifested in increased
HOU or in increased lighting density
(lamps per square foot). DOE assumed
no rebound effect for GSILs in this
analysis, consistent with the assumption
of no rebound in the reference scenario
in the March 2016 GSL NOPR. DOE is
not aware of any data supporting
rebound when consumers switch from
halogen GSILs to HIR GSILs. DOE seeks
any relevant data and comment on the
potential rebound effect for GSILs.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
(August 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
(August 17, 2012). NEMS is a public
domain, multi-sector, partial
equilibrium model of the U.S. energy
sector that EIA uses to prepare its
AEO.42 The approach used for deriving
FFC measures of energy use and
emissions is described in appendix 10B
of the NOPD TSD.
2. Net Present Value Analysis
The inputs for determining the NPV
of the total costs and benefits
experienced by consumers are: (1) Total
annual increases in installed cost; (2)
42 For more information on NEMS, refer to The
National Energy Modeling System: An Overview,
DOE/EIA–0581 (98) (Feb.1998) (Available at: https://
www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/overview/).
E:\FR\FM\05SEP2.SGM
05SEP2
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
46850
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 172 / Thursday, September 5, 2019 / Proposed Rules
total annual savings in operating 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-newstandards 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 analysis period.
The direct efficacy improvements
from TSL 1 do not result in any benefits.
First, manufacturers are unlikely to
produce HIR lamps. Manufacturers that
have produced and attempted to sell
such lamps in the recent past have
found it uneconomic to do so. However,
if a manufacturer were hypothetically
willing to produce such a lamp,
consumers would either (1) purchase
the HIR lamp and be unable to recoup
the expense in energy savings or (2)
choose not to purchase the HIR lamp
due to high purchase price. As a result
DOE does not anticipate that adoption
of HIR technology to result directly in
any consumer benefits. Instead, any
benefit from TSL 1 would result from
product shifting as consumers substitute
more efficient alternative product types
with different performance
characteristics and features. As
discussed in section IV.F.1.b of this
NOPD, DOE developed prices for
alternative LED and CFL lamps using a
price-learning module incorporated in
the shipments analysis.
The operating cost savings in this
document are primarily the result of
product shifting. 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 electricity. To
estimate energy prices in future years,
DOE multiplied the average national
marginal electricity prices by the
forecast of annual national-average
residential or commercial electricity
price changes in the Reference case from
AEO 2019, which has an end year of
2050. To estimate price trends after
2050, DOE used the average annual rate
of change in prices from 2035 to 2050.
In calculating the NPV, DOE
multiplies the net savings in future
years by a discount factor to determine
their present value. For this NOPD, DOE
estimated the NPV of consumer benefits
using both a 3-percent and a 7-percent
real discount rate. DOE uses these
discount rates in accordance with
guidance provided by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) to
federal agencies on the development of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Sep 04, 2019
Jkt 247001
regulatory analysis.43 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 7percent 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.
H. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
DOE performed an MIA to estimate
the financial impacts of potential
amended energy conservation standards
on manufacturers of GSILs. DOE relied
on the 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 research and
development (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 industryweighted average cost of capital, and the
impact to domestic manufacturing
employment. 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-newstandards case and a standards case
represents the financial impact of
amended energy conservation standards
on manufacturers. To capture the
uncertainty relating to manufacturer
pricing strategies following potential
amended standards, the GRIM estimates
a range of possible impacts under
different manufacturer markup
scenarios.
DOE created initial estimates for the
industry financial inputs used in the
GRIM (e.g., tax rate; working capital
rate; net property plant and equipment
expenses; selling, general, and
administrative (SG&A) expenses; R&D
expenses; depreciation expenses; capital
expenditures; and industry discount
rate) based on publicly available
sources, such as company filings of form
10–K from the SEC or corporate annual
reports.44
43 United States Office of Management and
Budget. Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis,’’ (Sept.
17, 2003), section E (Available at: https://
www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/
omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf).
44 10–Ks are collected from the SEC’s EDGAR
database: https://www.sec.gov/edgar.shtml or from
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
The GRIM uses several factors to
determine a series of annual cash flows
starting with the announcement of
potential standards and extending over
a 30-year period following the
compliance date of potential standards.
These factors include annual expected
revenues, costs of sales, SG&A and R&D
expenses, taxes, and capital
expenditures. In general, energy
conservation standards can affect
manufacturer cash flow in three distinct
ways: (1) Creating a need for increased
investment, (2) raising production costs
per unit, and (3) altering revenue due to
higher per-unit prices and changes in
sales volumes.
The GRIM spreadsheet uses inputs to
arrive at a series of annual cash flows,
beginning in 2019 (the reference year of
the analysis) and continuing to 2052.
DOE calculated INPVs by summing the
stream of annual discounted cash flows
during this period. DOE used a real
discount rate of 6.1 percent for GSIL
manufacturers. This initial discount rate
estimate was derived using the capital
asset pricing model in conjunction with
publicly available information (e.g., 10year treasury rates of return and
company specific betas).
1. Manufacturer Production Costs
Manufacturing more efficacious GSILs
is more expensive because of the
machinery required to coat halogen
capsules and the process by which the
capsules are coated. The changes in the
MPCs of covered products can affect the
revenues, gross margins, and cash flow
of the industry. Typically, DOE
develops MSPs for the covered products
using reverse-engineering. These costs
are used as an input to the LCC analysis
and NIA. However, because GSILs are
difficult to reverse-engineer, DOE
derived end-user prices directly in the
product price determination and then
used the end-user prices in conjunction
with distribution chain markups to
calculate the MSPs of GSILs. See section
IV.C for a further explanation of the
product price determination.
To determine MPCs of GSILs from the
end-user prices calculated in the
engineering analysis, DOE divided the
end-user prices by the home center
markup to calculate the MSP. DOE then
divided the MSP by the manufacturer
markup to get the MPCs. DOE
determined the home center markup to
be 1.52 and the manufacturer markup to
be 1.40 for all GSILs. Markups are
further described in section IV.H.4 of
this document.
annual financial reports collected from individual
company websites.
E:\FR\FM\05SEP2.SGM
05SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 172 / Thursday, September 5, 2019 / Proposed Rules
2. Shipments Projections
The GRIM estimates manufacturer
revenues based on total unit shipment
projections and the distribution of those
shipments by TSL. Changes in sales
volumes and efficiency mix over time
can significantly affect manufacturer
finances. For this analysis, the GRIM
uses the NIA’s annual shipment
projections starting in 2019 (the
reference year) and ending in 2052 (the
end year of the analysis period).
3. Product and Capital Conversion Costs
Potential 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 TSL. 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 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.
To evaluate the level of capital
conversion costs manufacturers would
likely incur to comply with the
analyzed energy conservation standards
DOE used data submitted during the
2015 IRL rulemaking to estimate costs to
update manufacturer production lines.
DOE then estimated the number of
production lines currently in existence
and the number of production lines that
would be required to be updated at the
analyzed TSL using DOE’s public
compliance certification database. DOE
then multiplied these numbers together
(i.e., capital conversion costs per
production line and number of
production lines that would need to be
updated) to get the final estimated
capital conversion costs at the analyzed
TSL.
To evaluate the level of product
conversion costs manufacturers would
likely incur to comply with the
analyzed energy conservation standards,
DOE used data submitted during the
2015 IRL rulemaking to estimate per
model R&D and testing and certification
costs for the TSL. DOE then estimated
the number of models that would need
to be redesigned at each analyzed TSL.
DOE then multiplied these numbers
together to get the final estimated
product conversion costs for the
analyzed TSL.
In general, DOE assumes all
conversion-related investments occur
between the estimated year of
publication of the final rule and the year
by which manufacturers must comply
with the potential amended standards.
The conversion cost figures used in the
GRIM can be found in Table V.9 and
section V.D of this document.
4. Markup Scenarios
To calculate the MPCs used in the
GRIM, DOE divided the end-user prices
calculated in the engineering analysis
by the home center markup and the
manufacturer markup. The home center
markup was calculated in the March
2016 GSL NOPR by reviewing SEC 10–
K reports of publicly traded home
centers. DOE continued to use a home
center markup of 1.52 in this analysis.
The manufacturer markup accounts
for the non-production costs (i.e., SG&A,
R&D, and interest) along with profit.
Modifying the manufacturer markup in
the standards case yields different sets
of impacts on manufacturers. For the
MIA, DOE modeled two standards-case
manufacturer markup scenarios to
represent uncertainty regarding the
potential impacts on prices and
profitability for manufacturers following
the implementation of analyzed energy
46851
conservation standards: (1) A
preservation of gross margin markup
scenario; and (2) a technology specific
markup scenario. These scenarios lead
to different manufacturer markup values
that, when applied to the MPCs, result
in varying revenue and cash flow
impacts.
Under the preservation of gross
margin scenario, DOE applied a single
uniform ‘‘gross margin percentage’’
manufacturer markup of 1.40 across all
analyzed lamps, which assumes that
manufacturers would be able to
maintain the same amount of profit as
a percentage of revenues for all lamps
analyzed.
Under the technology specific markup
scenario, DOE assumed that
incandescent lamps, CFLs, and LED
lamps have different manufacturer
markups. As sales of lamp technologies
that are no longer able to meet the
analyzed energy conservation standards
are no longer sold, the average
manufacturer markup is reduced. DOE
estimated an incandescent lamp
manufacturer markup of approximately
1.525, a CFL manufacturer markup of
approximately 1.453, and an LED lamp
manufacturer markup of approximately
1.380. In the no-new-standards case
these technology specific manufacturer
markups produce an identical INPV as
in the preservation of gross margin
markup scenario.
A comparison of industry financial
impacts under the two manufacturer
markup scenarios is presented in
section V.D.1 of this document.
V. Analytical Results and Conclusions
A. Trial Standard Levels
DOE analyzed the benefits and
burdens of one trial standard level for
GSILs. TSL 1 is composed of EL 1 and
is the max-tech EL for GSILs.
DOE analyzed the benefits and
burdens by conducting the analyses
described in section IV for each TSL.
Table V.1 presents the TSLs and the
corresponding ELs for GSLs.
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
TABLE V.1—COMPOSITION OF TSLS FOR GSILS
TSL
EL
Technology required to comply
with standard
TSL 0 .............................................
TSL 1 .............................................
EL 0 ..............................................
EL 1 ..............................................
Halogen ........................................
Halogen Infrared (HIR) .................
B. Economic Impacts on Individual
Consumers
DOE analyzed the cost effectiveness
(i.e., the savings in operating costs
compared to any increase in purchase
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Sep 04, 2019
Jkt 247001
price likely to result from the
imposition of a standard) by considering
the LCC and PBP. DOE presents the LCC
of the covered product (i.e., HIR lamps)
and also presents a second LCC, which
is used as an input for the NPV, which
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Description
No new GSIL standard.
HIR standard in 2023.
goes beyond GSILs and accounts for the
purchase price and operating costs of
out-of-scope substitute lamps (‘‘LCC
with substitution’’). These analyses are
discussed in the following sections.
E:\FR\FM\05SEP2.SGM
05SEP2
46852
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 172 / Thursday, September 5, 2019 / Proposed Rules
1. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
In general, higher-efficiency products
can affect consumers in two ways: (1)
Purchase price increases and (2) annual
operating costs decrease. Inputs used for
calculating the annualized 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 annualized LCC calculation also
uses product lifetime and a discount
rate.
Table V.2 shows the average
annualized LCC and PBP results for the
ELs considered for GSILs in this
analysis. For both the residential and
commercial sector, the payback period
for HIR lamps is approximately three
times longer than the product life. As a
result, consumers who buy HIR
technologies have increased life cycle
costs and do not see a benefit at TSL 1.
Table V.3 shows the average annualized
LCC savings for HIR lamps under TSL
1. Over 97% of residential and
commercial consumers who purchase
HIR lamps experience a net cost in the
standards case.
Table V.4 shows the average
annualized LCC savings under a product
shifting scenario for TSL 1. Very few
consumers are anticipated to buy HIR
technology in the standards case,
assuming manufacturers produce the
product. Instead these numbers reflect
the result of a substitution effect as
consumers are priced out of the market
for GSILs. That is, TSL 1 is anticipated
to increase the cost of GSILs by 286
percent relative to a no-standards case,
therefore driving some consumers to
shift toward out-of-scope alternative
lamps, yielding a reduction in operating
costs relative to the base case.
DOE recognizes that the current
quantifiable framework does not
represent the full welfare effects of this
shift in consumer purchase decisions
due to an energy conservation standard.
In the 2015 IRL final rule, DOE
‘‘committed to developing a framework
that can support empirical quantitative
tools for improved assessment of the
consumer welfare impacts of appliance
standards.’’ (80 FR 4141) DOE remains
committed to this goal and to enhancing
the methodology the Department uses to
represent and quantify the consumer
welfare impacts of its standards.
TABLE V.2—AVERAGE ANNUALIZED LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY EFFICACY LEVEL
Average costs
2018$
EL
Installed cost
Annualized
installed cost
First year’s
operating cost
Annualized
lifetime
operating cost
Simple
payback
years
Annualized
LCC
Average
lifetime
years
Residential Sector
0 ...................................
1 ...................................
1.94
7.49
1.99
7.69
4.50
3.59
4.70
3.75
6.69
11.44
........................
6.09
2.0
2.0
14.68
11.71
27.08
43.91
........................
2.03
0.7
0.7
Commercial Sector
0 ...................................
1 ...................................
3.48
9.04
12.39
32.19
13.56
10.82
Note: The results for each EL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that EL. The PBP is measured relative to the baseline product.
TABLE V.3—AVERAGE ANNUALIZED LCC SAVINGS RESULTS BY TRIAL STANDARD LEVEL—COVERED PRODUCT
[GSILs]
GSIL life-cycle cost savings
TSL
EL
Average annualized
LCC savings*
2018$
Percent of consumers
that experience
net cost
Residential Sector
1 ...........................................................................................................................
1
¥4.77
97.7
1
¥16.85
99.0
Commercial Sector
1 ...........................................................................................................................
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
TABLE V.4—AVERAGE ANNUALIZED LCC SAVINGS RESULTS BY TRIAL STANDARD LEVEL—LCC WITH SUBSTITUTION
Life-cycle cost savings
TSL
EL
Average annualized
LCC savings*
2018$
Percent of consumers
that experience
net cost
Residential Sector
1 ...........................................................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Sep 04, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
1
E:\FR\FM\05SEP2.SGM
1.23
05SEP2
4.0
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 172 / Thursday, September 5, 2019 / Proposed Rules
46853
TABLE V.4—AVERAGE ANNUALIZED LCC SAVINGS RESULTS BY TRIAL STANDARD LEVEL—LCC WITH SUBSTITUTION—
Continued
Life-cycle cost savings
TSL
EL
Average annualized
LCC savings*
2018$
Percent of consumers
that experience
net cost
Commercial Sector
1 ...........................................................................................................................
1
10.36
0.43
* The savings represent the average annualized LCC savings for affected consumers.
The cost of HIR lamps cannot be
recovered, and the LCC savings are
negative for the covered product at issue
in this NOPD. When accounting for outof-scope product substitutes, average
LCC savings are positive at TSL 1
because the majority of consumers shift
to an out-of-scope LED lamp.
on the DOE test procedure for GSILs. In
contrast, the PBPs presented in section
V.B.1 were calculated using
distributions that reflect the range of
energy use in the field. See chapter 8 of
the NOPD TSD for more information on
the rebuttable presumption payback
analysis.
2. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
C. National Impact Analysis
As discussed in section IV.E.9, 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
PBP for each of the considered ELs, DOE
used discrete values, and, as required by
EPCA, based the energy use calculation
This section presents DOE’s estimates
of the NES and the NPV of consumer
benefits that would result from each of
the considered TSLs as potential
amended standards. For these estimates,
DOE included the impact of consumers
substituting GSILs for out-of-scope CFL,
LED, and incandescent alternatives.
1. Energy Savings
To estimate the energy savings
attributable to potential amended
standards for GSILs, DOE compared
their energy consumption under the nonew-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
year of anticipated compliance with
amended standards (2023–2052). Table
V.4 presents DOE’s projections of the
NES for each TSL considered for GSILs,
as well as considered GSIL alternatives.
The savings were calculated using the
approach described in section IV.G of
this document. In addition to GSIL
energy savings, Table V.4 illustrates the
increased energy consumption of
consumers who transition to out-ofscope lamps, including CFL, LED, and
incandescent alternatives, because more
consumers purchase these lamps at TSL
1 relative to the no-standards case.
TABLE V.4—CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR GSILS AND GSIL ALTERNATIVES; 30 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS
[2023–2052]
TSL 1
Site Energy Savings (quads):
GSILs ............................................................................................................................................................................................
CFL alternatives ...........................................................................................................................................................................
LED alternatives ...........................................................................................................................................................................
Incandescent alternatives .............................................................................................................................................................
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Total .......................................................................................................................................................................................
Source Energy Savings (quads):
GSILs ............................................................................................................................................................................................
CFL alternatives ...........................................................................................................................................................................
LED alternatives ...........................................................................................................................................................................
Incandescent alternatives .............................................................................................................................................................
0.240
(0.003)
(0.043)
(0.002)
0.192
0.646
(0.009)
(0.115)
(0.007)
Total .......................................................................................................................................................................................
FFC Energy Savings (quads):
GSILs ............................................................................................................................................................................................
CFL alternatives ...........................................................................................................................................................................
LED alternatives ...........................................................................................................................................................................
Incandescent alternatives .............................................................................................................................................................
0.677
(0.010)
(0.120)
(0.007)
Total .......................................................................................................................................................................................
0.540
OMB Circular A–4 45 requires
agencies to present analytical results,
including separate schedules of the
monetized benefits and costs that show
45 U.S. Office of Management and Budget.
Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis. September 17,
2003. Available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/
sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/circulars/A4/a4.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Sep 04, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
0.516
the type and timing of benefits and
costs. Circular A–4 also directs agencies
to consider the variability of key
elements underlying the estimates of
benefits and costs. For this proposed
E:\FR\FM\05SEP2.SGM
05SEP2
46854
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 172 / Thursday, September 5, 2019 / Proposed Rules
determination, DOE undertook a
sensitivity analysis using 9 years, rather
than 30 years, of product shipments.
The choice of a 9-year period is a proxy
for the timeline in EPCA for the review
of certain energy conservation standards
and potential revision of and
compliance with such revised
standards.46 The review timeframe
established in EPCA is generally not
synchronized with the product lifetime,
product manufacturing cycles, or other
factors specific to GSILs. Thus, such
results are presented for informational
purposes only and are not indicative of
any change in DOE’s analytical
methodology. The NES sensitivity
analysis results based on a 9-year
analytical period are presented in Table
V.5. The impacts are counted over the
lifetime of GSILs purchased in 2023–
2031.
TABLE V.6—CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR GSILS AND GSIL ALTERNATIVES; 9 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS
[2023–2031]
TSL 1
Site Energy Savings (quads):
GSILs ............................................................................................................................................................................................
CFL alternatives ...........................................................................................................................................................................
LED alternatives ...........................................................................................................................................................................
Incandescent alternatives .............................................................................................................................................................
Total .......................................................................................................................................................................................
Source Energy Savings (quads):
GSILs ............................................................................................................................................................................................
CFL alternatives ...........................................................................................................................................................................
LED alternatives ...........................................................................................................................................................................
Incandescent alternatives .............................................................................................................................................................
0.075
(0.003)
(0.012)
(0.001)
0.059
0.204
(0.007)
(0.033)
(0.003)
Total .......................................................................................................................................................................................
FFC Energy Savings (quads):
GSILs ............................................................................................................................................................................................
CFL alternatives ...........................................................................................................................................................................
LED alternatives ...........................................................................................................................................................................
Incandescent alternatives .............................................................................................................................................................
0.214
(0.007)
(0.035)
(0.003)
Total .......................................................................................................................................................................................
0.169
2. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs
and Benefits
DOE estimated the cumulative NPV of
the total costs and savings for
consumers that would result from TSL
1 for GSILs. However, as described
above, the benefits of TSL 1 do not come
from improved efficiency for the
product for which DOE is making a
determination whether existing
standards should be amended. Rather,
due to the likelihood that manufacturers
will not produce the product, and fact
that consumers would be unlikely to
buy it, DOE does not anticipate that
adoption of HIR technology will result
in any consumer benefits. Instead, any
benefit from TSL 1 is the result of
product shifting as consumers respond
0.161
to the high upfront price of HIR lamps
and substitute lower-cost, out-of-scope
alternatives. In accordance with OMB’s
guidelines on regulatory analysis,47
DOE calculated NPV using both a 7percent and a 3-percent real discount
rate. Table V.7 shows the consumer
NPV results with impacts counted over
the lifetime of GSILs purchased in
2023–2052.
TABLE V.7—CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF QUANTIFIABLE CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR GSILS AND GSIL
ALTERNATIVES; 30 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS
[2023–2052]
TSL 1
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
3 percent (billions 2018$):
GSILs ............................................................................................................................................................................................
CFL alternatives ...........................................................................................................................................................................
LED alternatives ...........................................................................................................................................................................
Incandescent alternatives .............................................................................................................................................................
Total .......................................................................................................................................................................................
7 percent (billions 2018$):
46 Section 325(m) of EPCA requires DOE to review
its standards at least once every 6 years, and
requires, for certain products, a 3-year period after
any new standard is promulgated before
compliance is required, except that in no case may
any new standards be required within 6 years of the
compliance date of the previous standards. If DOE
makes a determination that amended standards are
not needed, it must conduct a subsequent review
within three years following such a determination.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:05 Sep 04, 2019
Jkt 247001
As DOE is evaluating the need to amend the
standards, the sensitivity analysis is based on the
review timeframe associated with amended
standards. While adding a 6-year review to the 3year 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
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
5.436
(0.110)
(1.082)
(0.071)
4.173
standards reviews and the fact that for some
products, the compliance period is 5 years rather
than 3 years.
47 U.S. Office of Management and Budget.
Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis. September 17,
2003. Available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/
sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/circulars/A4/a4.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\05SEP2.SGM
05SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 172 / Thursday, September 5, 2019 / Proposed Rules
46855
TABLE V.7—CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF QUANTIFIABLE CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR GSILS AND GSIL
ALTERNATIVES; 30 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS—Continued
[2023–2052]
TSL 1
GSILs ............................................................................................................................................................................................
CFL alternatives ...........................................................................................................................................................................
LED alternatives ...........................................................................................................................................................................
Incandescent alternatives .............................................................................................................................................................
2.960
(0.072)
(0.602)
(0.044)
Total .......................................................................................................................................................................................
2.241
The NPV results based on the
aforementioned 9-year analytical period
are presented in Table V.8. The impacts
are counted over the lifetime of
products purchased in 2023–2031. 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.
TABLE V.8—CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF QUANTIFIABLE CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR GSIL AND GSIL
ALTERNATIVES; 9 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS
[2023–2031]
TSL 1
3 percent (billions 2018$):
GSILs ............................................................................................................................................................................................
CFL alternatives ...........................................................................................................................................................................
LED alternatives ...........................................................................................................................................................................
Incandescent alternatives .............................................................................................................................................................
Total .......................................................................................................................................................................................
7 percent (billions 2018$):
GSILs ............................................................................................................................................................................................
CFL alternatives ...........................................................................................................................................................................
LED alternatives ...........................................................................................................................................................................
Incandescent alternatives .............................................................................................................................................................
1.548
(0.062)
(0.328)
(0.030)
Total .......................................................................................................................................................................................
1.128
D. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
DOE performed an MIA to estimate
the impact of analyzed energy
conservation standards on
manufacturers of GSILs. In this instance,
DOE also can look to the actual
experience of manufacturers that have
produced HIR lamps in the recent past.
The following section describes the
expected impacts on GSIL
manufacturers at the analyzed TSL.
1. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
2.154
(0.088)
(0.441)
(0.040)
In this section, DOE provides the
results from the MIA, which examines
changes in the industry that would
result from the analyzed standards. The
following tables illustrate the estimated
financial impacts (represented by
changes in INPV) of potential amended
energy conservation standards on
manufacturers of GSILs, as well as the
conversion costs that DOE estimates
manufacturers of GSILs would incur at
the analyzed TSL.
To evaluate the range of cash-flow
impacts on the GSIL industry, DOE
modeled two manufacturer markup
scenarios that correspond to the range of
anticipated market responses to
potential standards. Each markup
scenario results in a unique set of cash
flows and corresponding industry
values at the analyzed TSL. In the
following discussion, the INPV results
refer to the difference in industry value
between the no-new-standards case and
the standards case that result from the
sum of discounted cash flows from the
1.585
reference year (2019) through the end of
the analysis period (2052).
DOE modeled a preservation of gross
margin markup scenario. This scenario
assumes that in the standards case,
manufacturers would be able to pass
along all the higher production costs
required for more efficacious products
to their consumers. DOE also modeled
a technology specific markup scenario.
In the technology specific markup
scenario, different lamp technologies
(incandescent, CFL, LED) have different
manufacturer markups.
Table V.8 and Table V.9 present the
results of the industry cash flow
analysis for GSIL manufacturers under
the preservation of gross margin and the
technology specific markup scenarios.
TABLE V.9—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR GSILS—PRESERVATION OF GROSS MARGIN MARKUP SCENARIO
INPV ...............................................................................................
Change in INPV .............................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:05 Sep 04, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Units
No-newstandards
case
2018$ millions .............................................
2018$ millions .............................................
% .................................................................
317.5
........................
........................
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05SEP2.SGM
05SEP2
TSL 1
312.2
(5.0)
(1.6)
46856
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 172 / Thursday, September 5, 2019 / Proposed Rules
TABLE V.9—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR GSILS—PRESERVATION OF GROSS MARGIN MARKUP SCENARIO—
Continued
Product Conversion Costs .............................................................
Capital Conversion Costs ..............................................................
Total Conversion Costs ..................................................................
Units
No-newstandards
case
2018$ millions .............................................
2018$ millions .............................................
2018$ millions .............................................
........................
........................
........................
TSL 1
2.8
6.0
8.8
TABLE V.10—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR GSILS—TECHNOLOGY SPECIFIC MARKUP SCENARIO
INPV ...............................................................................................
Change in INPV .............................................................................
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Product Conversion Costs .............................................................
Capital Conversion Costs ..............................................................
Total Conversion Costs ..................................................................
At TSL 1, DOE estimates that impacts
on INPV will range from ¥$5 million to
¥$3.7 million, or a change in INPV of
¥1.6 to ¥1.2 percent. At TSL 1, free
cash-flow is $30.0 million, which is a
decrease of approximately $3.7 million
compared to the no-new-standards case
value of $33.7 million in 2022, the year
leading up to the potential standard.
At TSL 1, GSIL manufacturers spend
approximately $6 million to purchase
equipment necessary to manufacture
HIR capsules and spend approximately
$2.8 million in R&D and testing costs to
introduce the newly created HIR
products. Lighting manufacturers sell
approximately 15 million fewer units
annually after 2023 at TSL 1 because
most consumers purchase longer
lifetime products. Should manufacturers
make the unlikely decision to produce
HIR lamps, they might experience some
increase in revenue due to some
consumers purchasing significantly
more expensive HIR lamps. However,
any increase in revenue is outweighed
by the $8.8 million in conversion costs
that is spent prior to the compliance
year in both the preservation of gross
margin and technology specific margin
markup scenarios. This results in a
slight decrease in INPV in both markup
scenarios. Manufacturers, anticipating
the cost of transitioning product lines
and the lack of consumer interest in HIR
lamps, are highly unlikely to undertake
these expenses.
2. Direct Impacts on Employment
DOE typically presents quantitative
estimates of the potential changes in
production employment that could
result from the analyzed energy
conservation standard levels. However,
all production facilities that once
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Sep 04, 2019
Jkt 247001
Units
No-newstandards
case
2018$ millions .............................................
2018$ millions .............................................
% .................................................................
2018$ millions .............................................
2018$ millions .............................................
2018$ millions .............................................
317.5
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
produced GSILs in the U.S. have either
closed or are scheduled to close prior to
2023, the estimated compliance year of
analyzed standards. Therefore, DOE
assumed there will not be any domestic
employment for GSIL production after
2023, and that none of the analyzed
standards would impact domestic GSIL
production employment. While there is
limited CFL and LED lamp production
in the U.S., DOE does not assume that
any CFL or LED lamp domestic
production employment would be
impacted by the analyzed standards.
Therefore, the proposed determination
would not have a significant impact on
domestic employment in the GSIL
industry.
3. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
DOE does not anticipate any
significant capacity constraints at the
analyzed energy conservation standards.
At TSL 1, manufacturers would most
likely need to purchase machines used
to coat halogen capsules. These
machines are known equipment and are
currently used for incandescent reflector
lamp production. Equipment costs for
these machines are included in the MIA
as part of the capital conversion costs at
TSL 1. Supply would most likely be
able to meet the increase in demand for
the machines given the 3-year
compliance period for any potential
energy conservation standards.
4. 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 equipment
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
TSL 1
313.6
(3.7)
(1.2)
2.8
6.0
8.8
manufacturers, and manufacturers
exhibiting cost structures substantially
different from the industry average
could be affected disproportionately.
DOE identified one manufacturer
subgroup for GSILs, small
manufacturers.
For the small business subgroup
analysis, DOE applied the small
business size standards published by
the Small Business Administration
(SBA) to determine whether a company
is considered a small business. The size
standards are codified at 13 CFR part
121. To be categorized as a small
business under NAICS code 335110,
‘‘electric lamp bulb and part
manufacturing,’’ a GSIL 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.
The small business subgroup analysis is
discussed in section VI.C of this
document.
5. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
One aspect of assessing manufacturer
burden involves looking at the
cumulative impact of multiple DOE
standards and the product-specific
regulatory actions of other Federal
agencies that affect the manufacturers of
a covered product. While any one
regulation may not impose a significant
burden on manufacturers, the combined
effects of several existing or impending
regulations may have serious
consequences for some manufacturers,
groups of manufacturers, or an entire
industry. Assessing the impact of a
single regulation may overlook this
cumulative regulatory burden. In
addition to energy conservation
E:\FR\FM\05SEP2.SGM
05SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 172 / Thursday, September 5, 2019 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
standards, other regulations can
significantly affect manufacturers’
financial operations. Multiple
regulations affecting the same
manufacturer can strain profits and lead
companies to abandon product lines or
markets with lower expected future
returns than competing products. For
these reasons, DOE typically conducts
an analysis of cumulative regulatory
burden as part of its rulemakings
pertaining to appliance efficiency.
However, given the tentative conclusion
discussed in section V.E, DOE did not
conduct a cumulative regulatory burden
analysis.
E. Proposed Determination
When considering proposed
standards, the new or amended energy
conservation standard 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, considering to the greatest
extent practicable 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))
In response to the August 2017
NODA, energy efficiency advocates 48
(EEAs) submitted a comment in support
of a standard that eliminates
incandescent lamps. EEAs stated that
despite falling prices, increased choices,
and rising sales of LED lamps,
incandescent lamps will retain a large
share of the U.S. lighting market unless
a standard eliminates them. EEAs noted
that historical experience with
technology substitution indicates that
legacy technologies, like the
incandescent light bulb, usually persist
in the market long after they stop being
a cost-effective choice for consumers.
(EEAs, No. 11 at p. 10) 11
However, NEMA stated the current
energy conservation standards for GSILs
cannot be amended in accordance with
the criteria set forth in 42 U.S.C.
6295(o), and therefore DOE should
48 The group described as the ‘‘energy efficiency
advocates’’ includes the Appliance Standards
Awareness Project, American Council for an Energy
Efficient Economy, National Consumer Law Center,
Consumer Federation of America, Natural
Resources Defense Council, Northwest Energy
Efficiency Alliance, Northeast Energy Efficiency
Partnerships, Alliance to Save Energy, Northwest
Power & Conservation Council, and the Southeast
Energy Efficiency Alliance.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Sep 04, 2019
Jkt 247001
determine not to amend standards for
GSILs. (NEMA, No. 329 at p. 38) 12 GE
added that there are only two pathways
to achieve significant energy savings for
GSILs: (1) Consider a 45 lm/W standard
or (2) consider mandating HIR
technology. Regarding the first
approach, GE concluded that because
there are no incandescent or halogen
products even close to 45 lm/W on the
market, DOE can quickly reach a
conclusion that 45 lm/W GSIL products
are not technically feasible. DOE agrees
with GE’s assertion concerning the
technological feasibility of a 45 lm/W
standard for GSILs. DOE notes that
EPCA requires that DOE make a
determination whether standards in
effect for general service lamps should
be amended to establish more stringent
standards than certain standards
specified in EPCA. 42 U.S.C.
6295(i)(6)(A)(i)(I). In making that
determination DOE is not limited to
incandescent technologies and DOE
must consider a minimum standard
applicable to GSLs of 45 lm/W. 42
U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(ii) DOE will make
that determination and will consider a
45 lm/W standard in a subsequent
document. Regarding the second
approach, GE stated that DOE has
already concluded in the 2015 IRL final
rule that a standard level mandating HIR
technology is not economically justified.
GE pointed out that as nothing has
changed with this technology, DOE has
no reason to believe that the outcome of
such an analysis for A-line lamps would
produce a different result. (GE, No. 325
at p. 4) 12
As described previously, when
considering proposed standards, the
amended energy conservation standard
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)) Because an analysis of
potential economic justification and
energy savings first requires an
evaluation of the relevant technology, in
the following sections DOE first
discusses the technological feasibility of
amended standards. DOE then addresses
the energy savings and economic
justification associated with potential
amended standards.
1. Technological Feasibility
EPCA mandates that DOE consider
whether amended energy conservation
standards for GSILs would be
technologically feasible. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(A)) DOE has tentatively
determined that there are design options
that would improve the efficacy of
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
46857
GSILs. These design options are being
used in similar products (IRLs) that are
commercially available and have been
used in commercially available GSILs in
the past and therefore are
technologically feasible. (See sections
IV.A.3 and IV.A.4 for further
information.) Hence, DOE has
tentatively determined that amended
energy conservation standards for GSILs
are technologically feasible.
2. Significant Conservation of Energy
EPCA also mandates that DOE
consider whether amended energy
conservation standards for GSILs would
result in result in significant
conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(3)(B)) As stated in section
III.D.2, DOE has not finalized updates to
the Process Rule, in which DOE
considers how to determine whether a
new or amended standard would result
in a significant energy savings. As this
rule is not yet finalized, the Department
is not relying on that proposed
threshold for this determination.
However, DOE is still required by
statute to issue only such standards as
will save a significant amount of energy.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
As described above, there are no
energy savings or benefits from
transitioning to HIR technology. Any
energy savings that might result from
establishing a standard at that TSL 1 are
the result of product shifting as
consumers abandon GSIL–HIR products
in favor of different product types
having different performance
characteristics and features. DOE notes
that EPCA prohibits DOE from
prescribing an amended or new
standard if 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 at the time
of the Secretary’s finding. 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(4)
3. Economic Justification
In determining whether a standard is
economically justified, the Secretary
must determine whether the benefits of
the standard exceed its burdens,
considering to the greatest extent
practicable the seven statutory factors
discussed previously. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) One of those seven
factors is 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
E:\FR\FM\05SEP2.SGM
05SEP2
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
46858
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 172 / Thursday, September 5, 2019 / Proposed Rules
are likely to result from the standard.
This factor is assessed using life cycle
cost and payback period analysis,
discussed in section III.E.1.b of this
NOPD.
Given the high upfront cost and long
payback period, these analyses do not
anticipate that consumers will benefit
from introduction of HIR lamp
technology. Additionally, the recent
experiences of two manufacturers who
attempted and failed to market such a
products illustrates that they are not
commercially viable. At TSL 1, DOE
believes there is uncertainty as to
whether manufacturers would spend the
capital required to produce HIR lamps
given the low probability of recovering
those costs as consumers substitute less
costly products. Manufacturers could
instead choose to forego the investment
and produce other lighting products or
exit the market entirely.
After considering the analysis and
weighing the benefits and the burdens,
DOE concluded that, at TSL 1 for GSILs,
the benefits of energy savings and
positive NPV of consumer benefits
would be outweighed by the fact that
the covered product PBP exceeds
covered product lifetime by nearly a
factor of three. Based on the second
EPCA factor that DOE is required to
evaluate, DOE has tentatively concluded
that imposition of a standard at TSL 1
is not economically justified because the
operating costs of the covered product
are insufficient to recover the upfront
cost. Based on these considerations,
DOE is not amending energy
conservation standards for GSILs.
DOE has presented additional
consumer choice analysis anticipating
that if it were to establish a standard at
TSL 1, most consumers will substitute
other available products, such as LEDs,
CFLs, and non-GSIL incandescent lamps
(the substitution scenario). DOE then
estimated the NPV of the total costs and
benefits experienced by the Nation in
this scenario. (See results in Table V.7
and Table V.8) DOE also conducted an
MIA to estimate the impact of amended
energy conservation standards on
manufacturers of GSILs in this
consumer choice scenario. (See results
in Table V.9 and Table V.10)
Under the consumer choice analysis,
the NPV of consumer benefits at TSL 1
would be $2.241 billion using a
discount rate of 7 percent, and $4.173
billion using a discount rate of 3
percent. However, this NPV is based on
the anticipated lifecycle costs to
consumers who substitute other lamps
due to price sensitivity or the
unavailability of GSILs. At TSL 1, the
average covered product LCC impact is
a cost of $4.77 in the residential sector
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Sep 04, 2019
Jkt 247001
and $16.85 in the commercial sector.
The simple payback period is 6.09 years
(compared to an average lifetime of 2.0
years) in the residential sector and 2.03
years (compared to an average lifetime
of 0.6 years) in the commercial sector.
The fraction of GSIL consumers who
experience a net LCC cost is 97.7
percent in the residential sector and 99
percent in the commercial sector. At
TSL 1, DOE estimates that INPV will
decrease between $5.0 million to $3.7
million, or a decrease in INPV of 1.6 to
1.2 percent. However, EPCA prohibits
DOE from prescribing an amended or
new standard if 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
at the time of the Secretary’s finding.
DOE cannot find economic justification
in a standard the purpose of which is to
force the unavailability of a product
type, performance characteristic or
feature in contravention of EPCA.
In this proposed determination, based
on the initial determination that
amended standards would not be
economically justified, and that there
would not be any benefits from
transitioning to HIR technology at TSL
1, DOE has tentatively determined that
energy conservation standards for GSILs
do not need to be amended. DOE will
consider all comments received on this
proposed determination in issuing any
final determination.
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory
Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
This proposed determination has been
determined to be a significant regulatory
action for purposes of Executive Order
12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and
Review,’’ 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). As
a result, the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) reviewed this proposed
determination.
B. Review Under Executive Orders
13771 and 13777
On January 30, 2017, the President
issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13771,
‘‘Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs.’’ E.O. 13771 stated the
policy of the executive branch is to be
prudent and financially responsible in
the expenditure of funds, from both
public and private sources. E.O. 13771
stated it is essential to manage the costs
associated with the governmental
imposition of private expenditures
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
required to comply with Federal
regulations.
Additionally, on February 24, 2017,
the President issued E.O. 13777,
‘‘Enforcing the Regulatory Reform
Agenda.’’ E.O. 13777 required the head
of each agency to designate an agency
official as its Regulatory Reform Officer
(RRO). Each RRO oversees the
implementation of regulatory reform
initiatives and policies to ensure that
agencies effectively carry out regulatory
reforms, consistent with applicable law.
Further, E.O. 13777 requires the
establishment of a regulatory task force
at each agency. The regulatory task force
is required to make recommendations to
the agency head regarding the repeal,
replacement, or modification of existing
regulations, consistent with applicable
law. At a minimum, each regulatory
reform task force must attempt to
identify regulations that:
(1) Eliminate jobs, or inhibit job
creation;
(2) Are outdated, unnecessary, or
ineffective;
(3) Impose costs that exceed benefits;
(4) Create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with regulatory
reform initiatives and policies;
(5) Are inconsistent with the
requirements of Information Quality
Act, or the guidance issued pursuant to
that Act, in particular those regulations
that rely in whole or in part on data,
information, or methods that are not
publicly available or that are
insufficiently transparent to meet the
standard for reproducibility; or
(6) Derive from or implement
Executive Orders or other Presidential
directives that have been subsequently
rescinded or substantially modified.
DOE initially concludes that this
proposed determination is consistent
with the directives set forth in these
executive orders. As discussed in this
document, DOE is not proposing to
amend energy conservation standards
for GSILs and the proposed rule would
not yield any costs or cost savings.
Therefore, if finalized as proposed, this
NOPD is expected to be an E.O. 13771
other action.
C. Review Under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation
of an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis (IRFA) for any rule that by law
must be proposed for public comment,
unless the agency certifies that the rule,
if promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. As
required by Executive Order 13272,
‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities
E:\FR\FM\05SEP2.SGM
05SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 172 / Thursday, September 5, 2019 / Proposed Rules
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 (https://energy.gov/gc/
office-general-counsel).
DOE reviewed this proposed
determination under the provisions of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the
policies and procedures published on
February 19, 2003. Because DOE is
proposing not to amend standards for
GSILs, if adopted, the determination
would not amend any energy
conservation standards. On the basis of
the foregoing, DOE certifies that the
proposed determination, if adopted,
would have no significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Accordingly, DOE has not
prepared an IRFA for this proposed
determination. DOE will transmit this
certification and supporting statement
of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration for review under 5
U.S.C. 605(b).
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
D. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
DOE is analyzing this NOPD in
accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) and DOE’s NEPA implementing
regulations (10 CFR part 1021). DOE’s
regulations include a categorical
exclusion for actions which are
interpretations or rulings with respect to
existing regulations. 10 CFR part 1021,
subpart D, Appendix A4. DOE
anticipates that this action qualifies for
categorical exclusion A4 because it is an
interpretation or ruling in regards to an
existing regulation and otherwise meets
the requirements for application of a
categorical exclusion. See 10 CFR
1021.410. DOE will complete its NEPA
review before issuing the final action.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Sep 04, 2019
Jkt 247001
to have an accountable process to
ensure meaningful and timely input by
State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that
have Federalism implications. On
March 14, 2000, DOE published a
statement of policy describing the
intergovernmental consultation process
it will follow in the development of
such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has
examined this proposed determination
and has tentatively determined that it
would not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. EPCA
governs and prescribes Federal
preemption of State regulations as to
energy conservation for the products
that are the subject of this proposed
determination. States can petition DOE
for exemption from such preemption to
the extent, and based on criteria, set
forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297)
Therefore, no further action is required
by Executive Order 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
Executive Order 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 Executive
Order 12988 specifically requires that
Executive agencies make every
reasonable effort to ensure that the
regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the
preemptive effect, if any, (2) clearly
specifies any effect on existing Federal
law or regulation, (3) provides a clear
legal standard for affected conduct
while promoting simplification and
burden reduction, (4) specifies the
retroactive effect, if any, (5) adequately
defines key terms, and (6) addresses
other important issues affecting clarity
and general draftsmanship under any
guidelines issued by the Attorney
General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order
12988 requires Executive agencies to
review regulations in light of applicable
standards in section 3(a) and section
3(b) to determine whether they are met
or it is unreasonable to meet one or
more of them. DOE has completed the
required review and determined that, to
the extent permitted by law, this
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
46859
proposed determination meets the
relevant standards of Executive Order
12988.
G. Review Under the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires
each Federal agency to assess the effects
of Federal regulatory actions on State,
local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. Public Law 104–4, sec.
201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a
proposed regulatory action likely to
result in a rule that may cause the
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector of $100 million or more
in any one year (adjusted annually for
inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires
a Federal agency to publish a written
statement that estimates the resulting
costs, benefits, and other effects on the
national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b))
The UMRA also requires a Federal
agency to develop an effective process
to permit timely input by elected
officers of State, local, and Tribal
governments on a proposed ‘‘significant
intergovernmental mandate,’’ and
requires an agency plan for giving notice
and opportunity for timely input to
potentially affected small governments
before establishing any requirements
that might significantly or uniquely
affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE
published a statement of policy on its
process for intergovernmental
consultation under UMRA. 62 FR
12820. DOE’s policy statement is also
available at https://energy.gov/sites/
prod/files/gcprod/documents/umra_
97.pdf.
This proposed determination does not
contain a Federal intergovernmental
mandate, nor is it expected to require
expenditures of $100 million or more in
any one year by the private sector. As
a result, the analytical requirements of
UMRA do not apply.
H. Review Under the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires
Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule
that may affect family well-being. This
proposed determination 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.
E:\FR\FM\05SEP2.SGM
05SEP2
46860
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 172 / Thursday, September 5, 2019 / Proposed Rules
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
Pursuant to Executive Order 12630,
‘‘Governmental Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859 (March 15, 1988),
DOE has determined that this proposed
determination would not result in any
takings that might require compensation
under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.
J. Review Under the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides
for Federal agencies to review most
disseminations of information to the
public under information quality
guidelines established by each agency
pursuant to general guidelines issued by
OMB. OMB’s guidelines were published
at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and
DOE’s guidelines were published at 67
FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has
reviewed this NOPD under the OMB
and DOE guidelines and has concluded
that it is consistent with applicable
policies in those guidelines.
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 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
proposed significant energy action. A
‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as
any action by an agency that
promulgates or is expected to lead to
promulgation of a final rule, and that (1)
is a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866, or any successor
Executive Order; and (2) is likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy, or
(3) is designated by the Administrator of
OIRA as a significant energy action. For
any proposed significant energy action,
the agency must give a detailed
statement of any adverse effects on
energy supply, distribution, or use
should the proposal be implemented,
and of reasonable alternatives to the
action and their expected benefits on
energy supply, distribution, and use.
Because this proposed determination
does not propose amended energy
conservation standards for GSILs, it is
not a significant energy action, nor has
it been designated as such by the
Administrator at OIRA. Accordingly,
DOE has not prepared a Statement of
Energy Effects.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Sep 04, 2019
Jkt 247001
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
regulatory actions. The purpose of the
bulletin is to enhance the quality and
credibility of the Government’s
scientific information. Under the
Bulletin, the energy conservation
standards rulemaking analyses are
‘‘influential scientific information,’’
which the Bulletin defines as ‘‘scientific
information the agency reasonably can
determine will have, or does have, a
clear and substantial impact on
important public policies or private
sector decisions.’’ Id. at 70 FR 2667.
In response to OMB’s Bulletin, DOE
conducted formal peer reviews of the
energy conservation standards
development process and the analyses
that are typically used and has prepared
a report describing that peer review.49
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. DOE has
determined that the peer-reviewed
analytical process continues to reflect
current practice, and the Department
followed that process for developing
energy conservation standards in the
case of the present action.
VII. Public Participation
A. Attendance at Public Meeting
The time, date and location of the
public meeting are listed in the DATES
and ADDRESSES sections at the beginning
of this document. If you plan to attend
the public meeting, please notify Ms.
Regina Washington at (202) 586–1214 or
Regina.Washington@ee.doe.gov.
Please note that foreign nationals
visiting DOE Headquarters are subject to
advance security screening procedures
which require advance notice prior to
attendance at the public meeting. If a
foreign national wishes to participate in
49 ‘‘Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking
Peer Review Report.’’ 2007. Available at https://
energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/energyconservation-standards-rulemaking-peer-reviewreport-0.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the public meeting, please inform DOE
of this fact as soon as possible by
contacting Ms. Regina Washington at
(202) 586–1214 or by email:
Regina.Washington@ee.doe.gov so that
the necessary procedures can be
completed.
DOE requires visitors to have laptops
and other devices, such as tablets,
checked upon entry into the building.
Any person wishing to bring these
devices into the Forrestal Building will
be required to obtain a property pass.
Visitors should avoid bringing these
devices, or allow an extra 45 minutes to
check in. Please report to the visitor’s
desk to have devices checked before
proceeding through security.
Due to the REAL ID Act implemented
by the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), there have been recent
changes regarding ID requirements for
individuals wishing to enter Federal
buildings from specific States and U.S.
territories. DHS maintains an updated
website identifying the State and
territory driver’s licenses that currently
are acceptable for entry into DOE
facilities at https://www.dhs.gov/real-idenforcement-brief. A driver’s license
from a State or territory identified as not
compliant by DHS will not be accepted
for building entry and one of the
alternate forms of ID listed below will
be required. Acceptable alternate forms
of Photo-ID include U.S. Passport or
Passport Card; an Enhanced Driver’s
License or Enhanced ID-Card issued by
States and territories as identified on the
DHS website (Enhanced licenses issued
by these States and territories are clearly
marked Enhanced or Enhanced Driver’s
License); a military ID or other Federal
government-issued Photo-ID card.
In addition, you can attend the public
meeting via webinar. Webinar
registration information, participant
instructions, and information about the
capabilities available to webinar
participants will be published on DOE’s
website: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/
buildings/appliance_standards/
product.aspx/productid/41. Participants
are responsible for ensuring their
systems are compatible with the
webinar software.
B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared
General Statements for Distribution
Any person who has plans to present
a prepared general statement may
request that copies of his or her
statement be made available at the
public meeting. Such persons may
submit requests, along with an advance
electronic copy of their statement in
PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file
format, to the appropriate address
E:\FR\FM\05SEP2.SGM
05SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 172 / Thursday, September 5, 2019 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
shown in the ADDRESSES section at the
beginning of this NOPR. The request
and advance copy of statements must be
received at least one week before the
public meeting and may be emailed,
hand-delivered, or sent by mail. DOE
prefers to receive requests and advance
copies via email. Please include a
telephone number to enable DOE staff to
make a follow-up contact, if needed.
C. Conduct of Public Meeting
DOE will designate a DOE official to
preside at the public meeting and may
also use a professional facilitator to aid
discussion. The meeting will not be a
judicial or evidentiary-type public
hearing, but DOE will conduct it in
accordance with section 336 of EPCA
(42 U.S.C. 6306). A court reporter will
be present to record the proceedings and
prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the
right to schedule the order of
presentations and to establish the
procedures governing the conduct of the
public meeting. After the public meeting
and until the end of the comment
period, interested parties may submit
further comments on the proceedings
and any aspect of the rulemaking.
The public meeting will be conducted
in an informal, conference style. DOE
will present summaries of comments
received before the public meeting,
allow time for prepared general
statements by participants, and
encourage all interested parties to share
their views on issues affecting this
rulemaking. Each participant will be
allowed to make a general statement
(within time limits determined by DOE),
before the discussion of specific topics.
DOE will permit, as time permits, other
participants to comment briefly on any
general statements.
At the end of all prepared statements
on a topic, DOE will permit participants
to clarify their statements briefly and
comment on statements made by others.
Participants should be prepared to
answer questions by DOE and by other
participants concerning these issues.
DOE representatives may also ask
questions of participants concerning
other matters relevant to this
rulemaking. The official conducting the
public meeting will accept additional
comments or questions from those
attending, as time permits. The
presiding official will announce any
further procedural rules or modification
of the above procedures that may be
needed for the proper conduct of the
public meeting.
A transcript of the public meeting will
be included in the docket, which can be
viewed as described in the Docket
section at the beginning of this notice.
In addition, any person may buy a copy
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Sep 04, 2019
Jkt 247001
of the transcript from the transcribing
reporter.
D. The Time and Date of the Public
Meeting and Submission of Comments
DOE will accept comments, data, and
information regarding this proposed
rule before or after the public meeting
but no later than the date provided in
the DATES section at the beginning of
this NOPD. Interested parties may
submit comments, data, and other
information using any of the methods
described in the ADDRESSES section at
the beginning of this document.
Submitting comments via https://
www.regulations.gov. The https://
www.regulations.gov web page will
require you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact
information will be viewable to DOE
Building Technologies staff only. Your
contact information will not be publicly
viewable except for your first and last
names, organization name (if any), and
submitter representative name (if any).
If your comment is not processed
properly because of technical
difficulties, DOE will use this
information to contact you. If DOE
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, DOE may not be
able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information
will be publicly viewable if you include
it in the comment itself or in any
documents attached to your comment.
Any information that you do not want
to be publicly viewable should not be
included in your comment, nor in any
document attached to your comment.
Otherwise, persons viewing comments
will see only first and last names,
organization names, correspondence
containing comments, and any
documents submitted with the
comments.
Do not submit to https://
www.regulations.gov information for
which disclosure is restricted by statute,
such as trade secrets and commercial or
financial information (hereinafter
referred to as Confidential Business
Information (CBI)). Comments
submitted through https://
www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed
as CBI. Comments received through the
website will waive any CBI claims for
the information submitted. For
information on submitting CBI, see the
Confidential Business Information
section.
DOE processes submissions made
through https://www.regulations.gov
before posting. Normally, comments
will be posted within a few days of
being submitted. However, if large
volumes of comments are being
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
46861
processed simultaneously, your
comment may not be viewable for up to
several weeks. Please keep the comment
tracking number that https://
www.regulations.gov provides after you
have successfully uploaded your
comment.
Submitting comments via email, hand
delivery/courier, or postal mail.
Comments and documents submitted
via email, hand delivery/courier, or
postal mail also will be posted to https://
www.regulations.gov. If you do not want
your personal contact information to be
publicly viewable, do not include it in
your comment or any accompanying
documents. Instead, provide your
contact information in a cover letter.
Include your first and last names, email
address, telephone number, and
optional mailing address. The cover
letter will not be publicly viewable as
long as it does not include any
comments.
Include contact information each time
you submit comments, data, documents,
and other information to DOE. If you
submit via postal mail or hand delivery/
courier, please provide all items on a
CD, if feasible, in which case it is not
necessary to submit printed copies. No
telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other
information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in
PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file
format. Provide documents that are not
secured, that are written in English, and
that are free of any defects or viruses.
Documents should not contain special
characters or any form of encryption
and, if possible, they should carry the
electronic signature of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit
campaign form letters by the originating
organization in batches of between 50 to
500 form letters per PDF or as one form
letter with a list of supporters’ names
compiled into one or more PDFs. This
reduces comment processing and
posting time.
Confidential Business Information.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person
submitting information that he or she
believes to be confidential and exempt
by law from public disclosure should
submit via email, postal mail, or hand
delivery/courier two well-marked
copies: One copy of the document
marked ‘‘confidential’’ including all the
information believed to be confidential,
and one copy of the document marked
‘‘non-confidential’’ with the information
believed to be confidential deleted.
Submit these documents via email or on
a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own
determination about the confidential
E:\FR\FM\05SEP2.SGM
05SEP2
46862
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 172 / Thursday, September 5, 2019 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
status of the information and treat it
according to its determination.
Factors of interest to DOE when
evaluating requests to treat submitted
information as confidential include (1) a
description of the items, (2) whether
and why such items are customarily
treated as confidential within the
industry, (3) whether the information is
generally known by or available from
other sources, (4) whether the
information has previously been made
available to others without obligation
concerning its confidentiality, (5) an
explanation of the competitive injury to
the submitting person that would result
from public disclosure, (6) when such
information might lose its confidential
character due to the passage of time, and
(7) why disclosure of the information
would be contrary to the public interest.
It is DOE’s policy that all comments
may be included in the public docket,
without change and as received,
including any personal information
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Sep 04, 2019
Jkt 247001
provided in the comments (except
information deemed to be exempt from
public disclosure).
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
Although DOE welcomes comments
on any aspect of this proposal, DOE is
particularly interested in receiving
comments and views of interested
parties concerning the following issues:
(1) DOE seeks comment on the
technology options identified and the
ones selected as design options in the
screening analysis. See sections IV.A.3
and IV.A.4 of this document.
(2) DOE seeks comment on the
performance characteristics of the more
efficacious substitute modeled for
GSILs. See section IV.B.3 of this
document.
(3) DOE welcomes any relevant data
and comment on the energy use analysis
methodology. See section IV.D of this
document.
(4) DOE welcomes any relevant data
and comment on the LCC and PBP
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
analysis methodology. See section IV.E
of this document.
(5) DOE welcomes any relevant data
and comment on the shipments analysis
methodology. See section IV.F of this
document.
(6) DOE seeks any relevant data and
comment on the potential rebound
effect for GSILs. See section IV.G.1 of
this document.
VIII. Approval of the Office of the
Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved
publication of this notice of proposed
determination.
Signed in Washington, DC, on August 28,
2019.
Daniel R. Simmons,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 2019–18941 Filed 9–4–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
E:\FR\FM\05SEP2.SGM
05SEP2
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 172 (Thursday, September 5, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46830-46862]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-18941]
[[Page 46829]]
Vol. 84
Thursday,
No. 172
September 5, 2019
Part III
Department of Energy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10 CFR Part 430
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for General
Service Incandescent Lamps; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 84 , No. 172 / Thursday, September 5, 2019 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 46830]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 430
EERE-2019-BT-STD-0022]
RIN 1904-AE76
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
General Service Incandescent Lamps
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of proposed determination and request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as amended
(EPCA), directs DOE to initiate a rulemaking for general service lamps
(GSLs) that, among other requirements, determines whether standards in
effect for general service incandescent lamps (GSILs, a subset of GSLs)
should be amended. In this notice of proposed determination (NOPD), DOE
has initially determined that energy conservation standards for GSILs
do not need to be amended and asks for comment on this proposed
determination and associated analyses and results.
DATES:
Comments: Written comments and information are requested and will
be accepted on or before November 4, 2019.
Meeting: DOE will hold a public meeting on Tuesday, October 15,
2019, from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., in Washington, DC. The meeting will
also be broadcast as a webinar. See section VII, ``Public
Participation,'' for webinar registration information, participant
instructions, and information about the capabilities available to
webinar participants.
ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of
Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 8E-089, 1000 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20585.
Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the
Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested persons
may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-BT-STD-0022, by
any of the following methods:
(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
(2) Email: [email protected]. Include the docket number
EERE-BT-STD-0022 in the subject line of the message.
(3) Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc
(CD), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.
(4) Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards
Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950
L'Enfant Plaza SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202)
287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case
it is not necessary to include printed copies.
No telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this
process, see section VII of this document.
Docket: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices,
comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for
review at https://www.regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are
listed in the https://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 https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2019-BT-STD-0022. The docket web page contains
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments,
in the docket. See section VII, ``Public Participation,'' for further
information on how to submit comments through https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Lucy deButts, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20585-0121. Email: [email protected].
Ms. Celia Sher, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121.
Telephone: (202) 287-6122. Email: [email protected].
For further information on how to submit a comment, review other
public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting,
contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202)
287-1445 or by email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Synopsis of the Proposed Determination
II. Introduction
A. Authority and Background
1. Current Standards
2. History of Standards Rulemakings for GSILs
III. General Discussion
A. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage
B. Test Procedure
C. Technological Feasibility
1. General
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
D. Energy Savings
1. Determination of Savings
2. Significance of Savings
E. Economic Justification
1. Specific Criteria
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price
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. Market and Technology Assessment
1. Scope of Coverage
2. Metric
3. Technology Options
4. Screening Analysis
5. Product Classes
B. Engineering Analysis
1. Representative Product Classes
2. Baseline Lamps
3. More-Efficacious Substitutes
4. Efficacy Levels
5. Scaling to Other Product Classes
6. Product Substitutes
C. Product Price Determination
D. Energy Use Analysis
1. Operating Hours
a. Residential Sector
b. Commercial Sector
2. Input Power
3. Lighting Controls
E. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
1. Product Cost
2. Installation Cost
3. Annual Energy Consumption
4. Energy Prices
5. Energy Price Trends
6. Product Lifetime
7. Discount Rates
8. Efficacy Distribution
9. LCC Savings Calculation
10. Payback Period Analysis
F. Shipments Analysis
1. Shipments Model
a. Lamp Demand Module
b. Price-Learning Module
c. Market-Share Module
G. National Impact Analysis
1. National Energy Savings
2. Net Present Value Analysis
H. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
1. Manufacturer Production Costs
[[Page 46831]]
2. Shipments Projections
3. Product and Capital Conversion Costs
4. Markup Scenarios
V. Analytical Results and Conclusions
A. Trial Standard Levels
B. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers
1. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
2. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
C. National Impact Analysis
1. Energy Savings
2. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits
D. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
1. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results
2. Direct Impacts on Employment
3. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
4. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers
5. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
E. Proposed Determination
1. Technological Feasibility
2. Significant Conservation of Energy
3. Economic Justification
4. Summary
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
B. Review Under Executive Orders 13771 and 13777
C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 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
VII. Public Participation
A. Attendance at Public Meeting
B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for
Distribution
C. Conduct of Public Meeting
D. The Time and Date of the Public Meeting and Submission of
Comments
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Synopsis of the Proposed Determination
Title III, Part B \1\ of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of
1975, as amended (EPCA),\2\ established the Energy Conservation Program
for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309)
These products include GSILs, the subject of this NOPD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part B was redesignated Part A.
\2\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018,
Public Law 115-270 (October 23, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE is issuing this NOPD pursuant to the EPCA requirement that DOE
must initiate a rulemaking for GSLs that, among other requirements,
determines whether standards in effect for GSILs (a subset of GSLs)
should be amended. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A))
For this proposed determination, DOE analyzed GSILs defined at
title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 430, subpart A,
section 430.2 and subject to standards specified in 10 CFR 430.32(x).
DOE first analyzed the technological feasibility of more efficient
GSILs. For those GSILs for which DOE determined higher standards to be
technologically feasible, DOE estimated energy savings that would
result from potential energy conservation standards by conducting a
national impacts analysis (NIA). DOE evaluated whether higher standards
would be economically justified by conducting life-cycle cost (LCC) and
payback period (PBP) analyses, and estimated the net present value
(NPV) of the total costs and benefits experienced by consumers. In
addition to the consideration of these criteria, DOE conducted a
manufacturer impact analyses (MIA).
Based on the results of these analyses, summarized in section V of
this document, DOE has tentatively determined that current standards
for GSILs do not need to be amended because more stringent standards
are not economically justified.
II. Introduction
The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority
underlying this proposed determination, as well as some of the relevant
historical background related to standards for GSLs.
A. Authority and Background
Title III, Part B of EPCA established the Energy Conservation
Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles, which includes
GSILs (a subset of GSLs) as covered products. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(14))
Amendments to EPCA in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
(EISA 2007) directed DOE to conduct two rulemaking cycles to evaluate
energy conservation standards for GSLs. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)-(B))
GSLs are currently defined in EPCA to include GSILs, compact
fluorescent lamps (CFLs), general service light-emitting diode (LED)
lamps and organic light-emitting diode (OLED) lamps, and any other
lamps that the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) determines are used to
satisfy lighting applications traditionally served by GSILs. (42 U.S.C.
6291(30)(BB))
For the first rulemaking cycle, Congress instructed DOE to initiate
a rulemaking process prior to January 1, 2014, to consider two
questions: (1) Whether to amend energy conservation standards for
general service lamps and (2) whether ``the exemptions for certain
incandescent lamps should be maintained or discontinued.'' (42 U.S.C.
6295(i)(6)(A)(i)) Further, if the Secretary determines that the
standards in effect for GSILs should be amended, EPCA provides that 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)) In developing such a rule, DOE must
consider a minimum efficacy standard of 45 lumens per watt (lm/W). (42
U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(ii)) If DOE fails to complete a rulemaking in
accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)-(iv) or a final rule from
the first rulemaking cycle does 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 must prohibit sales of
GSLs that do not meet a minimum 45 lm/W standard beginning on January
1, 2020. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(v))
The EISA-prescribed amendments further directed DOE to initiate a
second rulemaking cycle by January 1, 2020, to determine whether
standards in effect for GSILs should be amended with more-stringent
requirements and if the exemptions for certain incandescent lamps
should be maintained or discontinued. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(B)(i)) For
the second review of energy conservation standards, the scope is not
limited to incandescent lamp technologies. (42 U.S.C.
6295(i)(6)(B)(ii))
The energy conservation program for covered products 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. The Federal Trade Commission
(FTC) is primarily responsible for labeling, and DOE implements the
remainder of the program.
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 (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
[[Page 46832]]
determine whether the products comply with standards adopted pursuant
to EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The DOE test procedures for GSILs appear
at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix R.
Federal energy conservation requirements generally supersede State
laws or regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling,
and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c)) Absent limited exceptions,
states generally are precluded from adopting energy conservation
standards for covered products both before an energy conservation
standard becomes effective, and after an energy conservation standard
becomes effective. (42 U.S.C. 6297(b) and (c)) However, the statute
contains three narrow exceptions to this general preemption provision
specific to GSLs in 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(vi). Under the limited
exceptions from preemption specific to GSLs that Congress included in
EPCA, only California and Nevada have authority to adopt, with an
effective date beginning January 1, 2018 or after, either: (1) A final
rule adopted by the Secretary in accordance with 42 U.S.C.
6295(i)(6)(A)(i)-(iv); (2) if a final rule has not been adopted in
accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)-(iv), the backstop
requirement under 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(v); or (3) in the case of
California only, if a final rule has not been adopted in accordance
with 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)-(iv), any California regulations
related to ``these covered products'' adopted pursuant to state statute
in effect as of the date of enactment of EISA 2007. (42 U.S.C.
6295(i)(6)(A)(vi)) Because none of these narrow exceptions from
preemption are available to California and Nevada, all states,
including California and Nevada, are prohibited from adopting energy
conservation standards for GSLs.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ DOE provides a more detailed explanation as to why the
preemption exceptions are not available to California and Nevada in
its General Service Lamps Definition Rule published elsewhere in
today's Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to the amendments contained in EISA 2007, 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's current test
procedure for GSILs does not address standby mode and off mode energy
use because DOE concluded in a 2009 final rule that these modes of
energy consumption were not applicable to the lamps. 74 FR 31829, 31833
(July 6, 2009). In this analysis DOE only considers active mode energy
use in its determination of whether energy conservation standards for
GSILs need to be amended.
DOE is prohibited from prescribing an amended standard that DOE
determines will not result in significant conservation of energy, is
not technologically feasible, or is not economically justified. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)) An evaluation of economic justification requires
that DOE determine whether the benefits of a standard exceed its
burdens through consideration, 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))
DOE is publishing this NOPD in satisfaction of EPCA's requirement
to determine whether the standards in effect for GSILs should be
amended. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i) and (iii))
1. Current Standards
In a final rule published on March 23, 2009, DOE codified the
current energy conservation standards, prescribed by EISA, for GSILs
manufactured after January 1, 2012; January 1, 2013; or January 1,
2014. 74 FR 12058. These standards require a color rendering index
(CRI) greater than or equal to 80 for standard spectrum lamps (or
greater than or equal to 75 for modified spectrum lamps) and, for four
specified lumen ranges, a rated wattage no greater than and a rated
lifetime no less than the values set forth in DOE's regulations at 10
CFR 430.32(x)(1) and repeated in the tables below.
Table II.1--Federal Energy Conservation Standards for Standard Spectrum GSILs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum rate Minimum rate
Rated lumen ranges wattage life-time Effective date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1490-2600....................................................... 72 1,000 hrs 1/1/2012
1050-1489....................................................... 53 1,000 hrs 1/1/2013
750-1049........................................................ 43 1,000 hrs 1/1/2014
310-749......................................................... 29 1,000 hrs 1/1/2014
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II.2--Federal Energy Conservation Standards for Modified Spectrum GSILs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum rate Minimum rate
Rated lumen ranges wattage life-time Effective date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1118-1950....................................................... 72 1,000 hrs 1/1/2012
788-1117........................................................ 53 1,000 hrs 1/1/2013
563-787......................................................... 43 1,000 hrs 1/1/2014
232-562......................................................... 29 1,000 hrs 1/1/2014
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 46833]]
2. History of Standards Rulemakings for GSILs
GSILs are a subset of GSLs. As described in section II.A, EPCA
directed DOE to conduct two rulemaking cycles to evaluate energy
conservation standards for GSLs and outlined several specific criteria
for each rulemaking cycle. DOE initiated the first GSL standards
rulemaking process by publishing in the Federal Register a notice of a
public meeting and availability of a framework document. 78 FR 73737
(December 9, 2013); see also 79 FR 73503 (December 11, 2014) (notice of
public meeting and availability of preliminary analysis). DOE later
issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) to propose amended energy
conservation standards for GSLs. 81 FR 14528, 14629-14630 (March 17,
2016) (the March 2016 GSL NOPR). The March 2016 GSL NOPR focused on the
first question that Congress directed DOE to consider--whether to amend
energy conservation standards for general service lamps. (42 U.S.C.
6295(i)(6)(A)(i)(I)) In the March 2016 GSL NOPR proposing energy
conservation standards for GSLs, 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 \4\) on the use of appropriated funds to implement
or enforce 10 CFR 430.32(x). 81 FR 14528, 14540-14541 (March 17, 2016).
Notably, the applicability of this Appropriations Rider, which had been
extended in multiple appropriations through 2017, is no longer in
effect.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Section 312 of the Consolidated and Further Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2016 (Pub. L. 114-113, 129 Stat. 2419) prohibits
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.
\5\ See, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2017 (Pub. L.
115-31, div. D, tit. III); See also, Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2018 (Pub. L. 115-141); Continuing Appropriations Act, 2019
(Pub. L. 115-245).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to comments on the March 2016 GSL NOPR, DOE conducted
additional research and published a notice of proposed definition and
data availability (NOPDDA), which proposed to amend the definitions of
GSIL, GSL, and other supporting terms. 81 FR 71794, 71815 (Oct. 18,
2016). DOE explained that the October 2016 NOPDDA related to the second
question that Congress directed DOE to consider--whether ``the
exemptions for certain incandescent lamps should be maintained or
discontinued,'' and stated explicitly that the NOPDDA was not a
rulemaking to establish an energy conservation standard for GSLs. (42
U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)(II)); see also 81 FR 71798. The relevant
``exemptions,'' DOE explained, referred to the 22 categories of
incandescent lamps that are statutorily excluded from the definitions
of GSIL and GSL. 81 FR 71798. In the NOPDDA, DOE clarified that it was
defining what lamps constitute GSLs so that manufacturers could
understand how any potential energy conservation standards might apply
to the market. Id.
On January 19, 2017, DOE published two final rules concerning the
definition of GSL and related terms. 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. Like 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, regarding whether to maintain or
discontinue certain ``exemptions.'' (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)(II)).
That is, neither of the two final rules issued on January 19, 2017,
purported to establish energy conservation standards applicable to
GSLs.
With the removal of the Appropriations Rider in the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2017, DOE is no longer restricted from undertaking
analysis and decision making required by the first question presented
by Congress, i.e., whether to amend energy conservation standards for
general service lamps, 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. 82 FR
38613 (August 2017 NODA). The purpose of this NODA was to assist DOE in
making a decision on the first question posed to DOE by Congress; i.e.,
a determination regarding whether standards for GSILs should be
amended. Comments submitted in response to the NODA also led DOE to re-
consider the decisions it had already made with respect to the second
question presented to DOE; i.e., whether the exemptions for certain
incandescent lamps should be maintained or discontinued. As a result of
the comments received in response to the August 2017 NODA, DOE re-
assessed the legal interpretations underlying certain decisions made in
the January 2017 definition final rules and issued a NOPR on February
11, 2019 to withdraw the revised definitions of GSL, GSIL, and the
supporting definitions established in the January 2017 definition rules
(the February 2019 NOPR). 84 FR 3120. DOE held a public meeting on
February 28, 2019 to hear oral comments and solicit information and
data relevant to the February 2019 NOPR. Representatives for
manufacturers, trade associations, environmental and energy efficiency
advocates, and other interested parties attended the meeting.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ A transcript of the public meeting and supporting documents
are available in the docket at: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2018-BT-STD-0010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The determination on whether to amend standards for GSILs remains a
decision DOE is obligated to make and is addressed in this NOPD. DOE
has used the data and comments received in response to the August 2017
NODA and any relevant data and comments received in response to the
February 2019 NOPR to conduct its analysis of whether energy
conservation standards for GSILs need to be amended.
III. General Discussion
DOE developed this proposed determination after considering oral
and written comments, data, and information from interested parties
that represent a variety of interests. This NOPD addresses issues
raised by these commenters.
A. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage
When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE
divides covered products into product classes by the type of energy
used or by capacity or other performance-related features that justify
differing standards. In making a determination whether a performance-
related feature justifies a different standard, DOE must consider such
factors as the utility of the feature to the consumer and other factors
DOE determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) The product classes
for this proposed determination are discussed in further detail in
section IV.A.5 of this document. This proposed determination covers
GSILs as currently defined in 10 CFR 430.2, which is the same as the
statutory definition for GSIL. The scope of coverage is discussed in
further detail in section IV.A.1 of this document.
B. Test Procedure
EPCA sets forth generally applicable criteria and procedures for
DOE's adoption and amendment of test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6293)
Manufacturers of covered products must
[[Page 46834]]
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 GSILs
are expressed in terms of a maximum rated wattage and a minimum rated
lifetime. (See 10 CFR 430.32(x))
A final rule published on July 6, 2009 revised the test procedure
for GSILs to reflect the energy conservation standards prescribed by
EISA. The July 2009 final rule concluded that GSILs do not operate in
standby or off mode. 74 FR 31829. DOE published a test procedure final
rule on January 27, 2012, establishing revised active mode test
procedures for GSILs. 77 FR 4203. The test procedure for GSILs is
codified in appendix R to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430.
DOE has since published a request for information (RFI) to initiate
a data collection process to consider whether to amend DOE's test
procedures for general service fluorescent lamps, GSILs, and
incandescent reflector lamps. 82 FR 37031 (August 8, 2017).
C. Technological Feasibility
1. General
In evaluating potential amendments to energy conservation
standards, DOE conducts a screening analysis based on information
gathered on all current technology options and prototype designs that
could improve the efficiency of the products or equipment that are the
subject of the 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. 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A,
section 4(a)(4)(i)
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; and (3) adverse impacts on
health or safety. 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, section
4(a)(4)(ii)-(iv) Additionally, it is DOE policy not to include in its
analysis any proprietary technology that is a unique pathway to
achieving a certain efficacy level. Section IV.A.4 of this document
discusses the results of the screening analysis for GSILs, particularly
the designs DOE considered, those it screened out, and those that are
the basis for the standards considered in this proposed determination.
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
As when DOE proposes to adopt an amended standard for a type or
class of covered product, in this analysis it must determine the
maximum improvement in energy efficiency or maximum reduction in energy
use that is technologically feasible for such a product. (42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(1)) Accordingly, in the engineering analysis, DOE determined
the maximum technologically feasible (``max-tech'') improvements in
energy efficiency for GSILs, using the design parameters for the most
efficient products available on the market or in working prototypes.
The max-tech levels that DOE determined for this analysis are described
in section IV.B of this proposed determination.
D. Energy Savings
1. Determination of Savings
For the trial standard level (TSL) evaluated, DOE projected energy
savings from application of the TSL to the GSIL purchased in the 30-
year period that begins in the assumed year of compliance with the
potential standards (2023-2052). The savings are measured over the
entire lifetime of the GSILs and substitute lamps purchased in the 30-
year period. DOE quantified the energy savings attributable to TSL 1 as
the difference in energy consumption between the standards case with
substitution effects 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. In this case, the
standards case represents energy savings not from the technology
outlined in TSL 1, but from product substitution as consumers are
priced out of the market for GSILs. DOE used its NIA spreadsheet model
to estimate national energy savings (NES) from potential amended
standards for GSILs. The NIA spreadsheet model (described in section
IV.G of this document) calculates energy savings in terms of site
energy, which is the energy directly consumed by products at the
locations where they are used. For electricity, DOE reports NES in
terms of site energy savings and source energy savings, the latter of
which is the savings in the energy that is used to generate and
transmit the site electricity. DOE also calculates NES in terms of
full-fuel-cycle (FFC) energy savings. The FFC metric includes the
energy consumed in extracting, processing, and transporting primary
fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels), and thus presents a
more complete picture of the impacts of energy conservation
standards.\7\ DOE's approach is based on the calculation of an FFC
multiplier for each of the energy types used by covered products or
equipment. For more information on FFC energy savings, see section IV.G
of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The FFC metric is discussed in DOE's statement of policy and
notice of policy amendment. 76 FR 51282 (Aug. 18, 2011), as amended
at 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Significance of Savings
In determining whether amended standards are needed, DOE must
consider whether such standards will result in significant conservation
of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A)) Although the term ``significant''
is not defined in EPCA, DOE recently proposed to define a significant
energy savings threshold (``Process Rule''). 84 FR 3910 (February 13,
2019). Specifically, DOE stated that it is considering using a two-step
approach that would consider both a quad threshold value (over a 30-
year period) and a percentage threshold value to ascertain whether a
potential standard satisfies 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B) to ensure that DOE
avoids setting a standard that ``will not result in significant
conservation of energy.'' 84 FR 3901, 3924. DOE's updates to the
Process Rule have not yet been finalized.
E. Economic Justification
1. Specific Criteria
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)) 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 a potential amended standard on
manufacturers, DOE conducts an MIA, as discussed in section IV.H. 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
[[Page 46835]]
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 industry net present value (INPV), which values the
industry based on expected future cash flows; cash flows by year;
changes in revenue and income; and 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 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 economic impacts applicable to a particular rulemaking. DOE also
evaluates the LCC impacts of potential standards on identifiable
subgroups of consumers that may be affected disproportionately by a
national standard. However, because DOE has tentatively concluded
amended standards for GSILs would not result in significant energy
savings and, as discussed further in section V.E.3, would not be
economically justified for one of the potential standard levels
evaluated based on the PBP analysis, DOE did not conduct an LCC
subgroup analysis for this notice.
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price
EPCA requires DOE to consider the savings in operating costs
throughout the estimated average life of the covered product compared
to any increase in the price of the covered product that is likely to
result from the imposition of the 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 expense (including energy,
maintenance, and repair expenditures) discounted over the lifetime of
the product. 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. For
its analysis, DOE assumes that consumers will purchase the covered
products in the first year of compliance with amended standards. In
this analysis, DOE estimates the consumer LCC of the covered product
under a standards scenario and, as an input to the NPV, the consumer
LCC of switching to substitute products as a replacement for the
covered product. However, as described above the statutory factor
addressed in this analysis is the savings in operating costs throughout
the estimated average life of the covered product in the type (or
class) compared to any increase in the price of, or in the initial
charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered products which are
likely to result from the imposition of the standard (emphasis added).
Moreover, EPCA prohibits DOE from prescribing an amended or new
standard if doing so 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 at the time of the Secretary's finding
(emphasis added). As such, while DOE presents the LCC of switching to
substitute products as a replacement for the covered product, DOE
cannot, in this determination, consider those LCC savings in making a
determination as to whether amended standards for the covered product
are economically justified because those LCC savings result from the
unavailability of the covered product. Rather, DOE's determination
regarding economic justification must be based on LCC savings resulting
from establishing an amended standard for the covered product, i.e.,
GSILs.
The LCC savings for the considered standard levels are calculated
relative to the no-new-standards case and the PBP for the considered
efficacy levels are calculated relative to the baseline. DOE's LCC and
PBP analysis is discussed in further detail in section IV.E 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.G, DOE uses the NIA spreadsheet to project
national site energy savings.
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
In establishing classes of products, and in evaluating design
options and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE evaluates
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 considered in this proposed
determination would not reduce the utility or performance of the
products under consideration in this proposed determination.
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 proposed 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)) Because DOE is not proposing standards for GSILs,
DOE did not transmit a copy of its proposed determination to the
Attorney General.
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
In evaluating the need for national energy conservation, DOE
expects that energy savings from amended standards would likely 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. Energy savings from amended standards also would
likely result in environmental benefits in the form of reduced
emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases primarily associated
with fossil-fuel based energy production. Because DOE has tentatively
concluded amended standards for GSILs would not be economically
justified for the potential standard level evaluated based on the PBP
analysis, DOE did not conduct a utility impact analysis or emissions
analysis for this NOPD.
g. Other Factors
EPCA allows the Secretary of Energy, in determining whether a
standard is economically justified, to consider any other factors that
the Secretary deems to
[[Page 46836]]
be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII))
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 V.B.2 of this document.
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments
This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this
proposed determination with regard to GSILs. Separate subsections
address each component of DOE's analyses. DOE used several analytical
tools to estimate the impact of potential energy conservation
standards. The first tool is a spreadsheet that calculates the LCC
savings and PBP of potential energy conservation standards. The NIA
uses a second spreadsheet set that provides shipments projections and
calculates NES and net present value of total consumer costs and
savings expected to result from potential energy conservation
standards. 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 in the
docket (see Docket section at the beginning of this NOPD).
A. Market and Technology Assessment
DOE develops information in the market and technology assessment
that provides an overall picture of the market for the products
concerned, including the purpose of the products, the industry
structure, manufacturers, market characteristics, and technologies used
in the products. This activity includes both quantitative and
qualitative assessments, based primarily on publicly available
information. The subjects addressed in the market and technology
assessment for this proposed determination include (1) a determination
of the scope and product classes, (2) manufacturers and industry
structure, (3) existing efficiency programs, (4) shipments information,
(5) market and industry trends, and (6) technologies or design options
that could improve the energy efficiency of GSILs. The key findings of
DOE's market assessment are summarized in the following sections.
1. Scope of Coverage
GSIL 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) An infrared lamp; (6) A left-hand thread lamp; (7) A
marine lamp; (8) A marine signal service lamp; (9) A mine service lamp;
(10) A plant light lamp; (11) A reflector lamp; (12) A rough service
lamp; (13) A shatter-resistant lamp (including a shatter-proof lamp and
a shatter-protected lamp); (14) A sign service lamp; (15) A silver bowl
lamp; (16) A showcase lamp; (17) A 3-way incandescent lamp; (18) A
traffic signal lamp; (19) A vibration service lamp; (20) A G shape lamp
with a diameter of 5 inches or more; (21) A T shape lamp that uses not
more than 40 watts or has a length of more than 10 inches; and (22) A
B, BA, CA, F, G16-1/2, G-25, G30, S, or M-14 lamp of 40 watts or less.
10 CFR 430.2 In this analysis, DOE relied on the definition of
``general service incandescent lamp'' currently in 10 CFR 430.2.
2. Metric
Current energy conservation standards for GSILs are applicable to
active mode energy use and are based on a maximum wattage for a given
lumen range. In this proposed determination, DOE used efficacy (lumens
divided by watts, or lm/W) to assess active mode energy use. The
measurement of lumens and watts and the calculation of lamp efficacy
for GSILs is included in the current test procedure at appendix R to
subpart B of 10 CFR part 430.
3. Technology Options
To develop a list of technology options, DOE reviewed manufacturer
catalogs, recent trade publications, technical journals, and the 2015
IRL final rule \8\ for incandescent reflector lamps (IRLs), and
consulted with technical experts. Based on DOE's review of product
offerings and their efficacies in manufacturer catalogs and DOE's
Compliance Certification Management System (CCMS) database, GSILs are
not commercially available at efficacy levels above that which is
currently required. However, DOE identified an infrared coatings
technology previously used in commercially available IRLs that could be
used to improve the efficiency of currently commercially available
GSILs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Documents from DOE's rulemaking for IRLs are available here:
https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2011-BT-STD-0006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Infrared (IR) coatings on incandescent lamps are used to reflect
some of the radiant energy emitted back onto the filament. This
infrared radiation then supplies heat to the filament and the operating
temperature increases. An increase in operating temperature results in
a higher light output and therefore an increase in efficacy. These
infrared coatings are most commonly applied directly to the burner, or
capsule, of a halogen lamp, which achieves the greatest directed
reflection back onto the filament for the lowest infrared coating
usage. For more detail, see chapter 3 of the technical support document
(TSD) for the 2015 IRL final rule.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The TSD for the 2015 IRL final rule is available at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2011-BT-STD-0006-0066.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the August 2017 NODA and the February 2019 NOPR,
several stakeholders commented on potential pathways to improve the
efficacy of GSILs. The National Electrical Manufacturers Association
(NEMA) and General Electric (GE) stated that there are no GSILs
available that are more efficacious than the current GSILs on the
market. (NEMA, No. 4 at p. 31; \10\
[[Page 46837]]
GE, No. 3 at p. 7) \11\ However, NEMA and GE both noted that more
efficacious GSILs were previously manufactured and distributed in
commerce. (NEMA, No. 4 at p. 32; GE, No. 3 at p. 14) \11\ GE, several
years ago, offered two GSILs that used a halogen capsule with an
infrared coating, referred to as halogen infrared (HIR) technology.
Both HIR lamps had rated lifetimes of 3,000 hours and the 60-watt
equivalent had a rated wattage of 45 watts whereas the 100-watt
equivalent had a rated wattage of 65 watts. GE stated that neither of
the products were commercially successful and both were discontinued
after several years. (GE, No. 3 at p. 14) \11\ GE also noted that the
lifetime of the HIR lamp could be shortened to reduce its wattage and
therefore make it more efficacious but the purchase price would not
change and there would be fewer hours over which to recover the high
initial purchase price. (GE, No. 3 at p. 16) \11\ NEMA added in
response to the February 2019 NOPR that Venture Lighting had also sold
but then discontinued a more efficacious halogen GSIL and that TCP had
never introduced a more efficacious halogen GSIL because it determined
the cost of the product was too high. (NEMA, No. 329 at pp. 37-38) \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ A notation in this form provides a reference for
information that is in the docket of either the August 2017 NODA
(Docket No. EERE-2017-BT-NOA-0052) or the February 2019 NOPR (Docket
No. EERE-2018-BT-STD-0010). This notation indicates that the
statement preceding the reference is document number 4 in the
applicable docket, and appears at page 31 of that document.
\11\ These documents were submitted to the docket of DOE's
request for data regarding incandescent lamps (Docket No. EERE-2017-
BT-NOA-0052).
\12\ This document was submitted to the docket of DOE's proposal
to withdraw the revised definitions of GSL and GSIL that take effect
on January 1, 2020. (Docket No. EERE-2018-BT-STD-0010)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because HIR technology was used in GSILs in the past and is still
used in commercially available IRLs, it is a technology that could be
used to improve the efficiency of currently commercially available
GSILs. Although IRLs include a reflector to direct light, the presence
of a reflector is not necessary to employ HIR technology. An IR coating
is applied directly to a halogen capsule, which is present in lamps
both with and without reflectors. Indeed, currently commercially
available GSILs and IRLs include halogen capsules. GE stated that the
lamps were not commercially successful because they could not be
``economically justified'' (GE, No. 3 at pp. 14-16),\11\ and DOE is
directed by EPCA to consider enumerated factors in evaluating whether
standards are economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The
analysis corresponding to the EPCA requirements and the results are
presented in section V. DOE does not consider cost when identifying
technology options.
In summary, for this analysis, DOE considers the technology options
shown in Table IV.1.
Table IV.1--GSIL Technology Options
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of technology option Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Higher Temperature Operation...... Operating the filament at higher
temperatures, the spectral output
shifts to lower wavelengths,
increasing its overlap with the eye
sensitivity curve.
Microcavity Filaments............. Texturing, surface perforations,
microcavity holes with material
fillings, increasing surface area
and thereby light output.
Novel Filament Materials.......... More efficient filament alloys that
have a high melting point, low
vapor pressure, high strength, high
ductility, or good radiating
characteristics.
Thinner Filaments................. Thinner filaments to increase
operating temperature. This measure
may shorten the operating life of
the lamp.
Crystallite Filament Coatings..... Layers of micron or submicron
crystallites deposited on the
filament surface that increases
emissivity of the filament.
Higher Efficiency Inert Fill Gas.. Filling lamps with alternative
gases, such as Krypton, to reduce
heat conduction.
Higher Pressure Tungsten-Halogen Increased halogen bulb burner
Lamps. pressurization, allowing higher
temperature operation.
Non-Tungsten-Halogen Regenerative Novel filament materials that
Cycles. regenerate.
Infrared Glass Coatings........... When used with a halogen burner,
this is referred to as an HIR lamp.
Infrared coatings on the inside of
the bulb to reflect some of the
radiant energy back onto the
filament.
Infrared Phosphor Glass Coatings.. Phosphor coatings that can absorb
infrared radiation and re-emit it
at shorter wavelengths (visible
region of light), increasing the
lumen output.
Ultraviolet Phosphor Glass Phosphor coatings that convert
Coatings. ultraviolet radiation into longer
wavelengths (visible region of
light), increasing the lumen
output.
High Reflectance Filament Supports Filament supports that include a
reflective face that reflects light
to another filament, the reflective
face of another filament support,
or radially outward.
Permanent Infrared Reflector Permanent shroud with an IR
Coating Shroud. reflector coating and a removable
and replaceable lamp can increase
efficiency while reducing
manufacturing costs by allowing IR
reflector coatings to be reused.
Higher Efficiency Burners......... A double-ended burner that features
a lead wire outside of the burner,
where it does not interfere with
the reflectance of energy from the
burner wall back to the burner
filament in HIR lamps.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 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 working prototypes will not
be considered further.
(2) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If it is
determined that mass production and reliable installation and servicing
of a technology in commercial products could not be achieved on the
scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the
projected compliance date of the standard, then that technology will
not be considered further.
(3) Impacts on product utility or product availability. If it is
determined that a technology would have significant adverse impact on
the utility of the product to significant subgroups of consumers or
would result in the unavailability of any covered product type with
performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes,
capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as products
[[Page 46838]]
generally available in the United States at the time, it will not be
considered further.
(4) Adverse impacts on health or safety. If it is determined that a
technology would have significant adverse impacts on health or safety,
it will not be considered further.
10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, 4(a)(4) and 5(b)
In summary, if DOE determines that a technology, or a combination
of technologies, fails to meet one or more of the listed four criteria,
it will be excluded from further consideration in the engineering
analysis. Additionally, it is DOE policy not to include in its analysis
any proprietary technology that is a unique pathway to achieving a
certain efficacy level.
DOE reviewed the technology options identified in Table IV.1 and
screened out several because DOE could not find evidence of their
existence in working prototypes or commercially available products. For
several of them, DOE also screened them out based on the practicability
to manufacture and/or impacts on product utility. Table IV.2 summarizes
the technology options screened out.
Table IV.2--GSIL Technology Options Screened Out of the Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Design option excluded Screening criteria
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Novel Filament Materials.......... Technological feasibility,
Practicability to manufacture,
install, and service, Adverse
impact on product utility.
Microcavity Filaments............. Technological feasibility,
Practicability to manufacture,
install, and service, Adverse
impact on product utility.
Crystallite Filament Coatings..... Technological feasibility,
Practicability to manufacture,
install, and service.
High Reflectance Filament Supports Technological feasibility,
Practicability to manufacture,
install, and service.
Non-Tungsten-Halogen Regenerative Technological feasibility,
Cycles. Practicability to manufacture,
install, and service, Adverse
impact on product utility.
Permanent Infrared Reflector Technological feasibility,
Coating Shroud. Practicability to manufacture,
install, and service.
Infrared Phosphor Glass Coating... Technological feasibility,
Practicability to manufacture,
install, and service.
Ultraviolet Phosphor Glass Coating Technological feasibility,
Practicability to manufacture,
install, and service.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE did not screen out infrared glass coatings. As noted in section
IV.A.3, infrared glass coatings were previously used to improve the
efficiency of GSILs; however those products were not commercially
viable and are no longer available. The existence of a commercially
available GSIL that employed the technology in the recent past, in
addition to the existence of a commercially available IRL that
currently employs the technology on halogen capsules that could be used
in GSILs, indicates that infrared glass coatings are technologically
feasible and practicable to manufacture, install, and service. DOE is
not aware of any adverse impacts on product utility or adverse impacts
on health or safety; IRLs that use the technology have been available
for at least 10 years with no significant issues. As described by GE,
it was a business decision to discontinue the GSILs that utilized
infrared glass coatings because of their high costs. DOE considers
economic impacts on consumers, manufacturers, and the nation as
described in sections IV.E, IV.H, and IV.G.
DOE tentatively concludes that the remaining technologies pass all
four screening criteria to be examined further as design options in
this analysis. In summary, DOE did not screen out the following
technology options and considers them as design options in the
engineering analysis:
Higher Temperature Operation
Thinner Filaments
Higher Efficiency Inert Fill Gas
Higher Pressure Tungsten-Halogen Lamps
Infrared Glass Coatings
Higher Efficiency Burners
5. Product Classes
In general, when evaluating and establishing energy conservation
standards, DOE divides the covered product into classes by (1) the type
of energy used, (2) the capacity of the product, or (3) any other
performance-related feature that affects energy efficiency and
justifies different standard levels, considering factors such as
consumer utility. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) Product classes for GSILs are
currently divided based on lamp spectrum and lumen output.
DOE proposes to maintain separate product classes based on lamp
spectrum. Modified spectrum \13\ lamps provide unique utility to
consumers by providing a different type of light than standard spectrum
lamps, much like fluorescent and light-emitting diode (LED) lamps with
different correlated color temperature (CCT) values. However, the same
technologies that modify the spectral emission of a lamp also decrease
lamp efficacy. To modify the spectrum, the coating absorbs a portion of
the light emission from the filament. Neodymium coatings or other
coatings on modified spectrum lamps absorb some of the visible emission
from the incandescent filament (usually red), creating a modified,
reduced spectral emission. Since the neodymium or other coatings absorb
some of the lumen output from the filament, these coatings decrease the
efficacy of the lamp. Because of the impact on both efficacy and
utility, DOE is proposing to maintain separate product classes based on
spectrum. DOE is proposing separate product classes for standard
spectrum GSILs (those without modification to the spectral emission)
and modified spectrum GSILs (some portion of the spectral emission is
absorbed).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See CFR 430.2 for the definition of ``modified spectrum''
with respect to an incandescent lamp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE did not separate product classes based on lumen output for the
evaluation under this proposed determination. As described in section
IV.B.4, DOE evaluated efficacy levels (ELs) that use an equation to
determine the minimum required efficacy based on the lamp's lumen
output. Current product classes for GSILs are separated based on lumen
output, with a constant maximum wattage specified for a given lumen
range. This results in the minimum efficacy requirement increasing as
lumen output increases across a given lumen range. DOE evaluated
efficacy levels that follow the same trend; that is, minimum required
efficacy increases as lumen output increases. Because DOE is evaluating
efficacy levels based on an equation in which the minimum efficacy
requirement changes based on the lumen output of the lamp, DOE did not
evaluate separate product classes based on lumen output.
In summary, DOE evaluated two product classes for GSILs--one for
GSILs that meet the definition of
[[Page 46839]]
modified spectrum in 10 CFR 430.2 and one for standard spectrum GSILs
(i.e., do not meet the definition of modified spectrum). See chapter 3
of the NOPD TSD for further discussion.
B. Engineering Analysis
In the engineering analysis, DOE selects representative product
classes to analyze. It then selects baseline lamps within those
representative product classes and identifies more-efficacious
substitutes for the baseline lamps. DOE uses these more-efficacious
lamps to develop efficacy levels.
For this proposed determination, DOE selected more efficacious
substitutes in the engineering analysis and determined the consumer
prices of those substitutes in the product price determination. DOE
estimated the consumer price of lamps directly because reverse-
engineering is impractical since the lamps are not easily disassembled.
By combining the results of the engineering analysis and the product
price determination, DOE derived typical inputs for use in the LCC
analysis and NIA. Section IV.C discusses the product price
determination.
The methodology for the engineering analysis consists of the
following steps: (1) Select representative product classes, (2) select
baseline lamps, (3) identify more efficacious substitutes, (4) develop
efficacy levels by directly analyzing representative product classes,
and (5) scale efficacy levels to non-representative product classes.
The details of the engineering analysis are discussed in chapter 5 of
the NOPD TSD.
1. 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. Based on its assessment of
product offerings, DOE analyzed as representative standard spectrum
GSILs (only 3 percent of commercially available halogen GSILs were
marketed as having a modified spectrum). This is consistent with the
2015 IRL rulemaking in which DOE analyzed, with support from NEMA,
standard spectrum IRLs as representative. 79 FR 24068, 24107 (April 29,
2014).
2. Baseline Lamps
For each representative product class, DOE selects a baseline lamp
as a reference point against which to measure changes resulting from
energy conservation standards. Typically the baseline lamp is the most
common, least efficacious lamp that meets existing energy conservation
standards. In this analysis, DOE selected as a baseline the least
efficacious lamp meeting standards with the most common lumen output
and, where possible, with the most common wattage, lifetime, input
voltage, and shape for the product class.
DOE reviewed certified GSILs in DOE's compliance certification
database and also used a database of commercially available products to
identify the baseline lamp. DOE identified 60 watt equivalent lamps, or
lamps with a lumen output between 750 and 1,049 lumens, to be the most
common lamps based on the number of products certified within this
lumen range in the compliance certification database. This is
consistent with DOE's conclusion in the March 2016 GSL NOPR that 60-
watt equivalent lamps were the most popular lamps within the 310 to
2,000 lumen product class. 81 FR 14528, 14568-14569 (March 17, 2016).
DOE also analyzed certified GSILs to identify a common wattage and
lifetime. For lamps with a lumen output between 750 and 1,049 lumens,
DOE found certified rated wattage values to range from 41.9 to 43 watts
and certified rated lifetime values to range from 1,000 to 2,056 hours.
The wattage values were distributed among the range and about equally
distributed between values that would round to 42 watts and values that
would round to 43 watts. Products available in catalogs and on websites
reported rated wattage to the nearest whole number rather than the
nearest tenth of a watt. A database of commercially available products
showed the most popular wattage to be 43 watts (92 percent of all
halogen GSILs within the lumen range, 100 percent of all GSILs marketed
as a 60 watt equivalent). Among GSILs with a lumen output between 750
and 1,049 lumens, the most common rated lifetime was 1,000 hours (76
percent of all certified GSILs within the lumen range). This was
consistent with the database for commercially available products--over
80 percent of halogen lamps with a lumen output between 750 and 1,049
lumens had a lifetime of 1,000 hours and all halogen lamps in the
designated lumen range that were marketed as 60 watt equivalents also
had a lifetime of 1,000 hours. In addition to rated wattage and rated
lifetime, 95 percent of commercially available halogen lamps (100
percent of commercially available halogen lamps marketed as 60 watt
equivalents) within the designated lumen range had an input voltage of
120 volts and 70 percent of commercially available halogen lamps within
the designated lumen range had an A19 bulb shape.
DOE selected the baseline lamp shown in Table IV.3 because it just
meets existing standards within the most common lumen range and also
has other common characteristics described in the preceding paragraph.
See chapter 5 of the NOPD TSD for more detail.
Table IV.3--Baseline GSIL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rated lifetime Efficacy (lm/
EL Technology Wattage Bulb shape Initial lumens (hrs) W)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL 0/Baseline............................. Halogen..................... 43 A19 750 1,000 17.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. More-Efficacious Substitutes
Because few, if any, consumers are anticipated to buy HIR lamps
under TSL 1, DOE expects that consumers who presently buy GSILs would
substitute less expensive lamps, such as CFLs and LEDs. DOE evaluated
more-efficacious lamps as replacements for the baseline lamp by
considering commercially available products and technologies not
eliminated in the screening analysis. DOE could not use data in the
compliance certification database to evaluate more efficacious lamps
because the information required to calculate efficacy was not
included; rated wattage was reported for a given lumen range rather
than for an exact lumen output. Instead, DOE reviewed its database of
commercially available GSILs for lamps that met the definition of a
GSIL, had a lumen output between 750 and 1,049 lumens, had an A-shape,
and had a higher efficacy than the baseline lamp while still exceeding
the minimum standard established by EISA. DOE did not identify any
commercially available GSILs that could serve as more efficacious
substitutes for the baseline lamp.
[[Page 46840]]
Because no commercially available products could serve as a more
efficacious substitute for the baseline lamp, DOE modeled a more
efficacious substitute based on design options identified in the
screening analysis. As noted in section IV.A.4, the technology options
identified as design options must be technologically feasible;
practicable to manufacture, install, and service; have no adverse
impacts on product utility or product availability; and have no adverse
impacts on health or safety.
DOE modeled a more efficacious substitute for the baseline lamp
assuming that the modeled lamp utilized IR coatings on the halogen
capsule within the baseline lamp. In this instance, the model is based
on an actual lamp that previously had been commercially available but
was taken off the market for economic reasons, including high upfront
cost. The inclusion of an IR coating also increases the lamp's
operating temperature and pressure (two other identified design
options). DOE's modeled lamp did not incorporate thinner filaments,
higher efficiency inert fill gas, or higher efficiency burners because
it did not believe including those design options would increase the
efficacy beyond that achieved by the combination of an IR coating and
higher temperature and pressure operation.
DOE reviewed information submitted by GE regarding GSILs that it
previously offered for sale. GE's 60 watt equivalent GSIL that employed
IR coatings had a rated wattage of 45 watts and a lifetime of 3,000
hours. DOE reviewed information on discontinued products and found a
label that indicated this product had a lumen output of 870 lumens. DOE
used a similar methodology as in the 2009 IRL rulemaking \14\ and the
2015 IRL rulemaking \15\ to adjust the lumen output and lifetime of the
lamp to be equal to that of the baseline lamp (see chapter 5 of the TSD
for the 2009 IRL final rule). Making these adjustments lowered the
rated wattage of the modeled lamp to 34.3 watts. This decrease in
wattage in consistent with GE's comment that lowering the lifetime of
the HIR lamp would reduce its wattage and therefore make it more
efficacious. (GE, No. 3 at p. 16) \11\ DOE identifies only energy-
saving substitutes in the engineering analysis. The performance
characteristics of the modeled HIR lamp are shown in Table IV.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ DOE published a final rule on July 14, 2009 amending energy
conservation standards for IRLs. The docket for the 2009 rulemaking
is available at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2006-STD-0131.
\15\ Chapter 5 of the TSD for the 2015 IRL final rule is
available at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2011-BT-STD-0006-0066.
Table IV.4--More Efficacious GSIL Substitutes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rated lifetime Efficacy (lm/
EL Technology Wattage Bulb shape Initial lumens (hrs) W)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL 1...................................... HIR......................... 34.3 A19 750 1,000 21.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Efficacy Levels
After identifying more-efficacious substitutes for the baseline
lamp, DOE developed ELs based on the consideration of several factors,
including: (1) The design options associated with the specific lamps
being studied, (2) the ability of lamps across lumen outputs to comply
with the standard level of a given product class, and (3) the max-tech
level.
DOE is employing an equation-based approach in this NOPD. DOE is
relying on a continuous equation based on its assessment that a step
function, where efficacy rises significantly at certain increments in
lumen output, is not representative of the technology used by the
products covered by this proposed determination. DOE recognizes that a
step function increases the potential for products to be introduced at
the lowest possible efficacy point in each step. While this could
potentially encourage the development of similar-wattage products
across the industry, a wide variety of replacement wattages would offer
the consumer a greater number of choices. For example, LED lamps exist
in many different wattages and consumer choice has been positively
impacted. For these reasons, the limitations of a step function
outweigh its benefits and DOE is therefore evaluating a standard based
on a smooth, continuous equation.
DOE is evaluating a lumens-based approach in this notice. The
primary utility provided by a lamp is lumen output, which can be
achieved through a wide range of wattages depending on the lamp
technology. For this reason, lamps providing equivalent lumen output
and therefore intended for the same applications should be subject to
the same minimum efficacy requirements. Thus, DOE is considering a
continuous equation for ELs that develops a relationship between lumen
output and efficacy.
DOE reviewed the equation form used in the March 2016 GSL NOPR to
evaluate its applicability to GSILs. Specifically, DOE considered the
following equation that relates the lumen output of a lamp to lamp
efficacy:
Efficacy = A-29.42 * 0.9983initial lumen output
Where A is a constant that varies by EL.
In the preliminary analysis \16\ for the GSL energy conservation
standards rulemaking, DOE utilized a database of commercially available
lamps to evaluate efficacy trends of GSLs across a range of lumen
outputs in order to fit the curve. DOE confirmed the curve fit matched
product performance, particularly in the low and high ends of the GSL
lumen range. Although GSILs were not included in that analysis because
it was legally prohibited by an Appropriations Rider from doing so, the
relationship characterized by the equation is consistent with the
current standards for GSILs. The structure of the current standards,
with a maximum wattage for a given lumen range, results in the least
stringent requirement being at the lowest lumen output within each
lumen range. Since the current standards have required compliance,
products on the market have generally been offered at the lowest lumen
output within given lumen range, likely because it is easiest to comply
with these requirements. When plotting these commercially available
lamps, the efficacy increases as lumen output increases, with the
largest jump in efficacy occurring between the lowest and next-lowest
lumen output range and each successive jump in efficacy being smaller
than the one prior to it. The equation under consideration
characterizes the same trend; that is, efficacy sharply increases as
lumen
[[Page 46841]]
output increases at the lowest part of the lumen range and then the
increases slow down such that a curve is formed with a steep slope at
the low end of the lumen range and a flatter slope at the high end of
the lumen range. Because the equation from the March 2016 GSL NOPR
characterizes the same lumen output-efficacy relationship shown by the
current GSIL standards, DOE has used this equation form to establish
ELs for GSILs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Prior to publishing the March 2016 GSL NOPR, DOE published
a notice in the Federal Register announcing the availability of the
preliminary analysis. 79 FR 73503 (Dec. 11, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described in section IV.B.3, DOE identified, through modeling,
one GSIL technology that could perform at an efficacy higher than
existing standards. DOE developed one EL based on the efficacy of the
more modeled lamp. Based on a lumen output of 750 lumens and an
efficacy of 21.9 lm/W (see Table IV.4), DOE determined EL 1 to have an
A value of 30.0. Table IV.5 summarizes the EL developed by the
engineering analysis.
Table IV.5--EL for GSIL Representative Product Class Based on Engineering Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficacy
Representative product class Efficacy level ------------------------------------------------------------
lm/W
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Spectrum GSILs........ EL 1.............. 30.0-29.42 * 0.9983 [supcaret] Initial Lumen Output.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Scaling to Other Product Classes
DOE identifies and selects certain product classes as
representative and analyzes these product classes directly. DOE chooses
representative product classes primarily due to their high market
volumes. The ELs for product classes that are not directly analyzed
(``non-representative product classes'') are then determined by scaling
the ELs of the representative product classes. For this analysis DOE
directly analyzed standard spectrum GSILs but did not directly analyze
modified spectrum GSILs.
DOE developed an EL for the modified spectrum product class by
scaling the EL of the standard spectrum product class. The primary
difference between these product classes is the lamp spectrum; a
coating applied to the lamp modifies its spectral emission but also
decreases its efficacy. DOE developed a scaling factor by comparing
existing standards for standard spectrum GSILs to similar modified
spectrum GSILs. From this analysis DOE determined that the modified
spectrum lamps are 25 percent less efficacious than standard spectrum
lamps. DOE applied this reduction to the A-value for the EL developed
in section IV.B.4.
Table IV.6 summarizes the efficacy requirements for the non-
representative product class.
Table IV.6--EL for GSIL Non-Representative Product Class Based on Engineering Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficacy
Non-representative product Efficacy level ------------------------------------------------------------
class lm/W
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modified Spectrum GSILs........ EL 1.............. 22.5-29.42 * 0.9983 [supcaret] Initial Lumen Output.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Product Substitutes
If energy conservation standards for GSILs are amended, consumers
may substitute alternative lamps that are not GSILs due to the high
upfront cost and long PBP associated with HIR technology. DOE notes
that EPCA prohibits DOE from prescribing an amended or new standard if
that 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 at the time of the Secretary's finding.
42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4) As such, DOE could not set a standard applicable
to GSILs that results in consumers being left with no choice but an
alternative lamp that is a different product type or has different
performance characteristics or features than GSILs.
In this analysis, DOE considered several alternatives available to
consumers that have the same base type (medium screw base) and input
voltage (120 volts) as the baseline lamp. DOE considered two more
efficacious lamps that consumers may choose if standards for GSILs are
amended: A CFL and an LED lamp. As noted by GE and NEMA, CFLs and LED
lamps can be used to satisfy lighting applications traditionally served
by incandescent general service lamps. (GE, No. 3 at p. 7; NEMA, No. 4
at p. 31) \11\ For consumers who are resistant to changing technology,
and for those who are trying to replace a 60 watt incandescent lamp
with a 60 watt replacement, DOE also considered a shatter-resistant
incandescent lamp that is exempt from the definition of GSIL. Because
this lamp is not a GSIL, it would not be subject to amended standards
for GSILs and would remain available on the market. However, all of the
lamps considered in this consumer choice analysis represent a change in
product type, technology and performance characteristics compared to a
halogen or HIR lamp, and, thus are provided for informational purposes
only. Table IV.7 summarizes the performance characteristics of the GSIL
alternatives that consumers can choose if GSIL standards are amended.
Table IV.7--Alternative Lamps Consumers May Substitute For GSILs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rated lifetime Efficacy (lm/
Option Technology Wattage Bulb shape Initial lumens (hrs) W)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A.................................... Incandescent............ 60 A19.................... 587 4,000 9.8
B.................................... CFL..................... 13 Spiral................. 900 10,000 69.2
C.................................... LED..................... 9 A19.................... 800 15,000 88.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 46842]]
C. Product Price Determination
Typically, DOE develops manufacturer selling prices (MSPs) for
covered products and applies markups to create end-user prices to use
as inputs to the LCC analysis and NIA. Because GSILs are difficult to
reverse-engineer (i.e., not easily disassembled), DOE directly derives
end-user prices for GSILs. End-user price refers to the product price a
consumer pays before tax and installation.
In the March 2016 GSL NOPR, DOE observed a range of consumer prices
paid for a lamp, depending on the distribution channel through which
the lamp was purchased. Specifically, DOE identified the following four
main distribution channels: Small Consumer-Based Distributors (i.e.,
internet retailers, grocery stores, drug stores); Large Consumer-Based
Distributors: (i.e., home centers, mass merchants, hardware stores);
Electrical Distributors; and State Procurement. For each distribution
channel, DOE calculated an average price for the representative lamp
unit at each EL using prices for the representative lamp unit and
similar lamp models. Because the similar lamp models included in the
average price were equivalent to the representative lamp unit in terms
of performance and utility (i.e., had similar wattage, CCT, bulb 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 identified. DOE then calculated an average
weighted end-user price using estimated shipments through each
distribution channel. DOE applied a 10 percent weighting to the Small
Consumer-Based Distributors channel, 80 percent to the Large Consumer-
Based Distributors channel, 5 percent to the Electrical Distributors
channel, and 5 percent to the State Procurement channel.
DOE used the methodology from the March 2016 GSL NOPR to calculate
the prices for the GSIL baseline lamp and the three consumer choice
alternatives. GSILs and the three consumer choice alternatives are
purchased through the same distribution channels as the CFL and LED
lamps analyzed in the March 2016 GSL NOPR.
Because DOE modeled an HIR lamp at EL 1, which is not currently
commercially available, DOE could not gather prices for commercially
available lamps and use the same methodology as the March 2016 GSL
NOPR. Instead, DOE reviewed the incremental pricing from the 2015 IRL
final rule for the baseline halogen lamp and the more efficacious HIR
substitute. HIR technology can be utilized in both omnidirectional
lamps and reflector lamps because it is applied directly to halogen
capsules contained within both lamp types. DOE therefore added the
incremental change in end-user price from the 2015 IRL final rule to
the baseline GSIL analyzed in this evaluation.
GE stated that HIR lamps are expensive because the coating of the
halogen capsules occurs during a slow and expensive batch manufacturing
process. A heavy glass outer jacket is also used because the capsule
operates at a higher pressure than standard halogen capsules. GE stated
that the price for the HIR lamp it used to offer for sale ranged from
$6.00 to $9.00 per lamp depending on the retailer and packaging
quantity and that the average price was $7.00 per lamp. GE asserted
that reducing the price much below $6.00 was not a long-term economic
option because the high cost of the product left little profit margin
for the manufacturer or retailer at lower prices. (GE, No. 325 at p. 5)
\12\ As described in the preceding paragraph, DOE determined the price
of the HIR lamp at EL 1 by reviewing the prices for the halogen
baseline and HIR lamp in the 2015 IRL final rule. That analysis
concluded the price of the HIR lamp to be $7, which aligns with the
price estimate submitted by GE. DOE notes that $7 is significantly more
than consumers currently pay for 43W Halogen lamps ($1.81), IRLs
($2.15), CFLs ($2.94), and LEDs ($3.00), further illustrating that HIR
lamp technology is not commercially viable.
Table IV.8 summarizes the prices of the GSILs analyzed in this
rulemaking and Table IV.9 summarizes the prices of the alternative
lamps consumers may choose if standards for GSILs are amended.
Table IV.8--End-User Prices for GSILs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rated lifetime Efficacy (lm/
EL Technology Wattage Initial lumens (hrs) W) End-user price
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL 0...................................... Halogen..................... 43 750 1,000 17.4 $1.81
EL 1...................................... HIR......................... 34.3 750 1,000 21.9 7.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IV.9--End-User Prices for Consumer Choice Alternatives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rated lifetime Efficacy (lm/
Option Technology Wattage Initial lumens (hrs) W) End-user price
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A......................................... Inc......................... 60 587 4,000 9.8 $2.15
B......................................... CFL......................... 13 900 10,000 69.2 2.94
C......................................... LED......................... 9 800 15,000 88.9 3.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Energy Use Analysis
The purpose of the energy use analysis is to determine the annual
energy consumption of GSILs in representative U.S. single-family homes,
multi-family residences, and commercial buildings, and to assess the
energy savings potential of an amended energy conservation standard
applied to GSILs. To develop annual energy use estimates, DOE
multiplied GSIL input power by the number of hours of use (HOU) per
year and a factor representing the impact of controls. The energy use
analysis estimates the range of energy use of GSILs in the field (i.e.,
as they are actually used by consumers). The energy use analysis
provides the basis for other analyses DOE performed, particularly
assessments of the energy savings and the savings in consumer operating
costs that could result from adoption of amended or new standards.
DOE analyzed energy use in the residential and commercial sectors
separately but did not explicitly analyze GSILs installed in the
industrial sector. This is because far fewer GSILs are installed in
that sector compared to the commercial sector, and the average
[[Page 46843]]
operating hours for GSILs 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
GE commented in response to the August 2017 NODA on GSILs and other
incandescent lamps that the 2010 DOE Lighting Market Characterization
(LMC) report \17\ estimated operating hours of GSLs at 1.8 hours per
day. (GE, No. 3 at p. 5) \11\ DOE notes that a newer version of the LMC
report has subsequently come out and that both the 2010 and 2015 LMC
reports relied primarily on data from field studies in California.\18\
To take into account the regional variability in the average HOU of
GSILs in the residential sector--which were assumed to have similar HOU
to MSB A-type lamps--DOE used the same methodology as for the March
2016 GSL NOPR. DOE used data from various regional field-metering
studies of GSL operating hours conducted across the U.S. to determine
the regional variation in average HOU. Chapter 7 of the NOPD TSD lists
the regional metering studies used. Specifically, DOE determined the
average HOU for each EIA 2015 Residential Energy Consumption Survey
(RECS) reportable domain (i.e., state, or group of
states).19 20 For regions without HOU metered data, DOE used
data from adjacent regions. DOE estimated the national weighted-average
HOU of GSILs in the residential sector to be 2.3 hours per day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Navigant Consulting, Inc. Final Report: 2010 U.S. Lighting
Market Characterization. 2012. U.S. Department of Energy:
Washington, DC (Last accessed July 22, 2019.) https://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/2010-lmc-final-jan-2012.pdf.
\18\ Navigant Consulting, Inc. 2015 U.S. Lighting Market
Characterization. 2017. U.S. Department of Energy: Washington, DC
Report No. DOE/EE-1719. (Last accessed July 5, 2019.) https://energy.gov/eere/ssl/downloads/2015-us-lighting-market-characterization.
\19\ The 2015 RECS provided detail only to the division, not
reportable domain, level; therefore, in creating its residential
consumer sample DOE randomly assigned a RECS reportable domain to
each consumer based on the reportable domain breakdown from RECS
2009.
\20\ U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information
Administration. 2015 RECS Survey Data. (Last accessed July 2, 2019.)
https://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2015/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The operating hours of lamps in actual use are known to vary
significantly based on the room type the lamp is located in; therefore,
DOE estimated this variability by developing HOU distributions for each
room type using data from Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance's
(NEEA's) Residential Building Stock Assessment Metering Study
(RBSAM),\21\ 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 United States, even
if the average HOU for that room type varied by geographic location. To
determine the distribution of GSILs by room type, DOE used data from
NEEA's 2011 RBSAM for single-family homes,\22\ which included GSL room-
distribution data for more than 1,400 single-family homes throughout
the Northwest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Ecotope Inc. Residential Building Stock Assessment:
Metering Study. 2014. Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance: Seattle,
WA. Report No. E14-283. (Last accessed July 5, 2019.) https://neea.org/resources/2011-rbsa-metering-study.
\22\ Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance. 2011 Residential
Building Stock Assessment Single-Family Database. (Last accessed
July 5, 2019.) https://neea.org/resources/2011-rbsa-single-family-database.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Commercial Sector
DOE determined the HOU for commercial GSILs in the same way as for
the March 2016 GSL NOPR. For each commercial building type presented in
the 2015 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. DOE estimated the national-average HOU for the commercial
sector by weighting the building-specific HOU for GSLs by the relative
floor space of each building type as reported in in the 2012 EIA
Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS).\23\ The
national weighted-average HOU for GSLs, and therefore GSILs, in the
commercial sector were estimated at 11.8 hours per day. To capture the
variability in HOU for individual consumers in the commercial sector,
DOE used data from NEEA's 2014 Commercial Building Stock Assessment
(CBSA).\24\ As for the residential sector, DOE assumed that the shape
of the HOU distribution from the CBSA was similar for the U.S. as a
whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ U.S. Department of Energy--Energy Information
Administration. 2012 CBECS Survey Data. (Last accessed July 5,
2019.) https://www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/data/2012/index.cfm?view=microdata.
\24\ Navigant Consulting, Inc. 2014 Commercial Building Stock
Assessment: Final Report. 2014. Northwest Energy Efficiency
Alliance: Seattle, WA. (Last accessed July 5, 2019.) https://neea.org/resources/2014-cbsa-final-report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Input Power
The input power used in the energy use analysis is the input power
presented in the engineering analysis (section IV.B) for the
representative lamps considered in this rulemaking.
3. Lighting Controls
For GSILs that operate with controls, DOE assumed an average energy
reduction of 30 percent (in keeping with the March 2016 GSL NOPR). This
estimate was based on a meta-analysis of field measurements of energy
savings from commercial lighting controls by Williams, et al.\25\
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Williams, A., B. Atkinson, K. Garbesi, E. Page, and F.
Rubinstein. Lighting Controls in Commercial Buildings. LEUKOS. 2012.
8(3): pp. 161-180.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For this NOPD, DOE assumed that 9 percent of residential GSILs are
on controls, which aligns with the fraction of lamps reported to be on
dimmers or occupancy sensors in the 2015 LMC.
As in the March 2016 GSL NOPR, for the NOPD DOE assumed that
building codes would drive an increase in floor space utilizing
controls in the commercial sector. DOE notes that the estimate of the
impact of controls on energy consumption increases over time in the
commercial sector, but does not require an update to the HOU estimate.
DOE welcomes any relevant data and comment on the energy use
analysis methodology.
E. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
DOE conducted LCC and PBP analyses to evaluate the economic effects
on individual consumers of potential energy conservation standards for
GSILs. In particular, DOE performed LCC and PBP analyses to evaluate,
in part, the savings in operating costs throughout the estimated
average life of GSILs compared to any associated increase in costs
likely to result from the standards TSL. 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 effects on the consumer:
The LCC (life-cycle cost) is the total consumer expense of
an appliance or product, consisting of total installed cost
(manufacturer selling price, distribution chain markups, sales tax, and
installation costs) plus operating costs (expenses for energy use,
[[Page 46844]]
maintenance, and repair) and any applicable disposal costs. To compute
the operating costs, DOE discounts future operating costs to the time
of purchase and sums them over the lifetime of the product. For this
NOPD, DOE presents annualized LCC because average GSIL lifetimes are
less than a year in the commercial sector.
The PBP (payback period) 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 efficacy levels by the change in annual
operating cost for the year that amended or new standards are assumed
to take effect.
For each considered efficiency standard level, DOE measures the
change in annualized LCC relative to the annualized LCC in the no-new-
standards case, which reflects the estimated efficacy distribution of
GSILs in the absence of new or amended energy conservation standards.
DOE presents LCC savings results for two scenarios with different
efficacy distributions: DOE presents the LCC savings of GSILs, the
covered product in this NOPD, for a GSIL-only scenario in which
consumers select only between GSIL options and also includes LCC
savings for a scenario with substitution in which consumers may
purchase out-of-scope lamps as an input to the NPV calculation. For
details on the two scenarios, see section IV.F. The PBP for each
efficacy level is measured relative to the baseline efficacy level. The
LCC savings with substitution effects is additionally not comparable to
the PBP analysis because it extends beyond the covered product in this
NOPD.
For each considered efficacy level, DOE calculated the annualized
LCC and PBP for a nationally-representative set of potential customers.
Separate calculations were conducted for the residential and commercial
sectors. DOE developed consumer samples based on the 2015 RECS and the
2012 CBECS for the residential and commercial sectors, respectively.
For each consumer in the sample, DOE determined the energy consumption
of the lamp purchased and the appropriate electricity price. By
developing consumer samples, the analysis captured the variability in
energy consumption and energy prices associated with the use of GSILs.
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.
For the GSIL standard case (i.e., case where a standard would be in
place at a particular TSL), DOE measured the annualized LCC savings
resulting from the technological requirements for GSILs at the
considered standard relative to the efficacy distribution in the no-
new-standards case for the covered product scenario. DOE also presents
annualized LCC savings that include substitution effects and their
effects on efficacy distribution in the standards case relative to the
estimated efficacy distribution in the no-new-standards case for a
scenario in which consumers can substitute out-of-scope products. The
efficacy distributions in the substitution scenario include market
trends that can result in some lamps with efficacies 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.
The computer model DOE used to calculate the annualized LCC and PBP
results 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 consumer
user samples. The model calculated the annualized LCC and PBP for a
sample of 10,000 consumers per simulation run.
DOE calculated the annualized LCC and PBP as if each consumer were
to purchase a new product in the expected year of required compliance
with amended standards. Any amended standards would apply to GSILs
manufactured 3 years after the date on which any amended standard is
published. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(iii)) As this proposed rule is
being published in 2019, DOE used 2023 as the first full year in which
compliance with any amended standards for GSILs could occur.
Table IV.10 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 8
of the NOPD TSD and its appendices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Although DOE addresses the validity of California law
relating to GSILs in the General Service Lamps Definition Rule
published elsewhere in today's Federal Register, in generating its
consumer samples, DOE did not sample consumers from California.
Table IV.10--Summary of Inputs and Methods for the LCC and PBP Analysis
* \26\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inputs Source/method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product Cost...................... Weighted-average end-user price
determined in the product price
determination. For the LCC with
substitution, DOE used a price-
learning analysis to project the
price of the CFL and LED lamp
alternatives in the compliance
year.
Sales Tax......................... Derived 2023 population-weighted-
average tax values for each state
based on Census population
projections and sales tax data from
Sales Tax Clearinghouse.
Installation Costs................ Used RSMeans and U.S. Bureau of
Labor Statistics data to estimate
an installation cost of $1.54 per
installed GSIL for the commercial
sector.
Annual Energy Use................. Derived in the energy use analysis.
Varies by geographic location and
room type in the residential sector
and by building type in the
commercial sector.
Energy Prices..................... Based on 2018 average and marginal
electricity price data from the
Edison Electric Institute.
Electricity prices vary by season
and U.S. region.
Energy Price Trends............... Based on AEO 2019 price forecasts.
Product Lifetime.................. A Weibull survival function is used
to provide the survival probability
as a function of GSIL age, based on
the GSIL's rated lifetime, sector-
specific HOU, and impact of
dimming.
[[Page 46845]]
Discount Rates.................... Approach involves identifying all
possible debt or asset classes that
might be used to purchase the
considered appliances, or might be
affected indirectly. Primary data
source was the Federal Reserve
Board's Survey of Consumer
Finances.
Efficacy Distribution............. Estimated by the market-share module
of shipments model. See chapter 9
of the NOPD TSD for details.
Compliance Date................... 2023.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* References for the data sources mentioned in this table are provided
in the sections following the table or in chapter 8 of the NOPD TSD.
1. Product Cost
As noted in section IV.C, DOE rulemaking analyses typically
calculate consumer product costs by multiplying MSPs developed in the
engineering analysis by the markups along with sales taxes. For GSILs,
the engineering analysis determined end-user prices directly;
therefore, for the LCC analysis, the only adjustment was to add sales
taxes, which were assigned to each household or building in the LCC
sample based on its location.
In the LCC with substitution scenario, DOE used a price-learning
analysis to determine the impact of GSIL standards on consumers who
select a CFL or LED lamp alternative under a standard. The price-
learning analysis accounts for changes in LED lamp prices that are
expected to occur between the time for which DOE has data for lamp
prices (2018) and the assumed compliance date of the rulemaking (2023).
For details on the price-learning analysis, see section IV.F.1.b.
2. Installation Cost
Installation cost includes labor, overhead, and any miscellaneous
materials and parts needed to install the product. For this NOPD, DOE
assumed an installation cost of $1.54 per installed commercial GSIL
(based on RSMeans \27\ and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data \28\),
but zero installation cost for residential GSILs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ RSMeans. Facilities Maintenance & Repair Cost Data 2013.
2012. RSMeans: Kingston, MA.
\28\ U.S. Department of Labor-Bureau of Labor Statistics. May
2014 Occupational Employment Statistics Survey. National
Occupational and Wage Estimates. (Last accessed July 30, 2019.)
https://www.bls.gov/oes/tables.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Annual Energy Consumption
For each sampled household or commercial building, DOE determined
the energy consumption for a lamp using the approach described
previously in section IV.D of this document.
4. Energy Prices
DOE used both marginal and average electricity prices to calculate
operating costs. Specifically, DOE used average electricity prices for
the baseline EL and marginal electricity prices to characterize
incremental electricity cost savings associated with other TSLs. DOE
estimated these prices using data published with the Edison Electric
Institute (EEI) Typical Bills and Average Rates reports for summer and
winter 2018.\29\ DOE assigned seasonal marginal and average prices to
each household in the LCC sample based on its location. DOE assigned
seasonal marginal and average prices to each commercial building in the
LCC sample based on its location and annual energy consumption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Edison Electric Institute. Typical Bills and Average Rates
Report. 2018. Winter 2018, Summer 2018: Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Energy Price Trends
To arrive at electricity prices in future years, DOE multiplied the
electricity prices described above by the forecast of annual
residential or commercial electricity price changes for each Census
division from EIA's AEO 2019, which has an end year of 2050.\30\ To
estimate the trends after 2050, DOE used the compound annual growth
rate of change between 2035 and 2050. For each purchase sampled, DOE
applied the projection for the Census division in which the purchase
was located. The AEO electricity price trends do not distinguish
between marginal and average prices, so DOE used the same (AEO 2019)
trends for both marginal and average prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ U.S. Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy
Outlook 2019 with projections to 2050. 2019. Washington, DC. Report
No. AEO2019. (Last accessed July 5, 2019.) https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/AEO/pdf/AEO2019.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
6. Product Lifetime
DOE considered the lamp lifetime to be the service lifetime (i.e.,
the age at which the lamp is retired from service). For GSILs, the
lifetime model incorporates the rated lifetime, the presence of
controls, and the installation sector. For CFL and LED lamp
alternatives, DOE used the methodology from the reference
(``Renovation-Driven'') lifetime scenario from the March 2016 GSL NOPR.
For a detailed discussion of the development of lamp lifetimes, see
appendix 8C of the NOPD TSD.
7. Discount Rates
In the calculation of LCC, DOE applies discount rates appropriate
to commercial and residential consumers to estimate the present value
of future operating costs. DOE estimated a distribution of discount
rates for GSILs based on cost of capital of publicly traded firms in
the sectors that purchase GSILs.
DOE applies weighted average discount rates calculated from
consumer debt and asset data, rather than marginal or implicit discount
rates. DOE notes that the LCC does not analyze the equipment purchase
decision, so the implicit discount rate is not relevant in this model.
The LCC estimates net present value over the lifetime of the equipment,
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 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.
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
[[Page 46846]]
from the Federal Reserve Board's Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) for
1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2010, 2013, and 2016.\31\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ U.S. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Survey of Consumer Finances. 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2010,
2013 and 2016. (Last accessed July 16, 2019.) https://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/scf/scfindex.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 discount rates.
8. Efficacy Distribution
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 (i.e.,
market shares) of product efficacies that consumers purchase under the
no-new-standards case and the standards case (i.e., the case where a
standard would be set at TSL 1) in the assumed compliance year. The
estimated market shares for the no-new-standards case and each
standards case are determined by the shipments analysis and are shown
in Table IV.11 and Table IV.12 for the LCC with substitution scenario
and the LCC GSIL-only scenario, respectively. In the LCC with
substitution scenario, DOE estimates that the GSILs that are covered by
this NOPD would account for 11.3% of the residential market share in
2023 in the absence of federal standards, and 3.8% of the residential
market under TSL 1. That is, most consumers would switch from GSILs to
out-of-scope substitutes under TSL 1 due to high product price.
Table IV.11--GSIL Market Share Distribution by Trial Standard Level in 2023--LCC With Substitution
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
60 W
Trial standard level EL 0 43 W EL 1 34.3 W incandescent * 13 W CFL * (%) 9 W LED * (%) Total ** (%)
halogen (%) HIR (%) (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Residential
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No-New-Standards........................................ 11.3 0 4.0 5.2 79.5 100
TSL 1................................................... 0 3.8 4.1 6.2 86.0 100
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No-New-Standards........................................ 2.7 0 0 3.1 94.2 100
TSL 1................................................... 0 0.3 0 3.2 96.5 100
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Incandescent lamps, CFLs, and LED lamps are out-of-scope consumer choice alternatives for GSILs (see section IV.B.6).
** The total may not sum to 100% due to rounding.
The market share for GSIL lamps in the LCC GSIL-only (i.e. covered
product) scenario are shown in Table IV.12. DOE estimates HIR lamps
will represent 2.3% of the GSIL residential market in the no-new-
standards case.
Table IV.12--GSIL Market Share Distribution by Trial Standard Level in 2023--LCC Standards Scenario
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL 0 43 W EL 1 34.3 W
Trial standard level halogen (%) HIR (%) Total * (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Residential
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No-New-Standards................................................ 97.7 2.3 100
TSL 1........................................................... 0 100 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No-New-Standards................................................ 99.0 1.0 100
TSL 1........................................................... 0 100 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The total may not sum to 100% due to rounding.
See section IV.F of this NOPD and chapter 9 of the NOPD TSD for
further information on the derivation of the market efficacy
distributions.
9. LCC Savings Calculation
DOE calculated the annualized LCC savings at TSL 1 based on the
change in annualized LCC for the standards case compared to the no-new-
standards case. In the covered product scenario, this approach models
the actual lifecycle cost of HIR lamps under TSL 1 compared to the
lifecycle cost of GSILs in the no-new standards case. In contrast, the
LCC savings results in the substitution scenario also includes out-of-
scope lamps in the efficacy distribution for both the standards case
and the no-new-standards case. That is, the LCC with substitution
analysis considers the upfront price and operating costs of out-of-
scope lamps that consumers would substitute for covered GSILs. This
approach models how consumers would substitute other lamps (which are
more efficient and sometimes less-expensive) and is intended to more
accurately reflect the impact of a potential standard on consumers. In
a standards scenario, consumers are unable to recover the
[[Page 46847]]
upfront price of HIR lamps and as a result experience negative LCC
savings.
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 efficacy distribution 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 efficacy
distribution 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 annualized LCC
savings calculation, and has no effect on the estimated national impact
of a potential standard.
10. Payback Period Analysis
The PBP is the amount of time it takes the consumer to recover the
additional installed cost of more-efficient products, compared to
baseline products, through energy cost savings. PBPs are expressed in
years. PBPs 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 efficacy 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. The
PBP calculation typically uses the same inputs as the LCC analysis,
except that discount rates are not needed. In this notice, DOE presents
the LCC savings in the standards case for a covered product scenario
along with an LCC with substitution scenario, the latter of which
differs from the PBP because it includes out-of-scope lamps rather than
only the product that would be directly regulated by a GSIL standard.
EPCA, as amended, 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 efficacy 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.
DOE welcomes any relevant data and comment on the LCC and PBP
analysis methodology.
F. Shipments Analysis
DOE uses projections of annual product shipments to calculate the
national impacts of potential amended energy conservation standards on
energy use, NPV, and future manufacturer cash flows.\32\ The shipments
model takes a stock-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 lamp energy consumption and operating costs for any
year depend on the age distribution of the stock. The shipments
analysis also provides the efficacy distribution in the year of
compliance which is an input to calculating LCC savings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ 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 GSILs over a thirty-year
analysis period for the no-new-standards case and for the standards
case. Separate shipments projections are calculated for the residential
sector and for the commercial sector. The shipments model used to
estimate GSIL lamp shipments for this rulemaking has three main
interacting elements: (1) A lamp demand module that estimates the
demand for GSIL lighting and GSIL alternatives 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.
DOE modeled shipments for two scenarios: For the purposes of the
covered product scenario LCC scenario, DOE ran a version of the
shipments analysis where consumers selected between product options for
the covered product at issue in this NOPD (i.e. GSILs). As an input to
the NIA, DOE modeled a scenario where consumers select between GSIL
options and out of scope alternatives, including CFL, LED, and
traditional incandescent (e.g., shatter resistant) lamps, because
amended standards on GSILs could affect substitution rates. DOE
welcomes any relevant data and comment on the shipments analysis
methodology.
a. Lamp Demand Module
The lamp demand module first estimates the national demand for
GSILs and potential alternative products in each year for the covered
product scenario and the substitution scenario, respectively. 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 AEO 2019 projections of
US residential and commercial floor space.\33\ 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, the expected
lifetimes of the lamps (in terms of total hours of operation), and
sector-specific assumptions about lamp operating hours. For the
substitution scenario, the lamp demand module also accounts for the
adoption of integral LED luminaires into lighting applications
traditionally served by GSILs and for consumers' transitioning between
GSILs and CFLs or LED lamps both prior to and during the analysis
period, either spontaneously or due to amended standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ U.S. Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy
Outlook 2019 with projections to 2050. 2019. Washington, DC. Report
No. AEO2019. (Last accessed July 5, 2019.) https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/AEO/pdf/AEO2019.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEMA commented in response to the February 2019 NOPR that shipments
of GSILs are declining as shipments of LED lamps continue to exhibit
strong growth and that GSILs represent a reduced fraction of the
overall stock of GSLs compared to a few years ago (NEMA, No. 329 at pp.
44-48).\12\ Along similar lines, LEDVANCE commented in response to the
August 2017 NODA on
[[Page 46848]]
GSILs and other incandescent lamps that there has been brisk
substitution of GSILs with LED lamps and declines in lamp shipments as
consumers switch to LED lamps with longer lifetimes. (LEDVANCE, No. 9
at p. 3) \11\ In the shipments analysis for this NOPD, DOE incorporated
data on relative lamp shipments and market share by technology through
2018, as provided by NEMA in its comments on the February 2019 NOPR and
in its published lamp indices.\34\ (NEMA, No. 329 at pp. 52-53) \12\
DOE notes that these data show a much faster adoption of LED GSLs than
has previously been projected by DOE's solid-state lighting program;
further, the data show that LED GSL adoption is growing at the expense
of both CFLs and GSILs. In the scenario for substitution, fitting the
NEMA data to the widely used Bass model for the market adoption of new
technology \35\ suggests that, even in the absence of Federal
regulation, LED lamps will have captured a significant majority of the
GSL market by 2023 (79.5 percent of the residential market and 92.0
percent of the commercial market). After incorporating this growth in
LED lamp market share prior to 2023 the shipments analysis for this
NOPD shows a substantial growth in LED lamp shipments prior to 2023,
owing to the ongoing market transition in the absence of standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ National Electrical Manufacturers Association. Lamp
Indices. (Last accessed July 23, 2019.) https://www.nema.org/Intelligence/Pages/Lamp-Indices.aspx.
\35\ Bass, F.M. A New Product Growth Model for Consumer
Durables. Management Science. 1969. 15(5): pp. 215-227.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Price-Learning Module
The price-learning module estimates lamp prices in each year of the
analysis period using a standard price-learning model,\36\ which
relates the price of a given technology to its cumulative production,
as represented by total cumulative shipments. GSILs represent a mature
technology that have reached a stable price point due to the high
volume of total cumulative shipments, so price learning was not
considered in the LCC GSIL-only scenario. However, in the scenario with
substitution, CFL and LED alternative lamps may continue to drop in
price due to price learning. Current cumulative shipments are
determined for each lighting technology (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 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 rapidly and hence they
undergo a substantial price decline during the shipments analysis
period. CFL prices, by contrast, undergo a negligible price decline,
owing to the low shipments volume and relative maturity of this
technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ 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 June 23, 2015.) https://eta.lbl.gov/publications/accounting-technological-change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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,
based on consumer sensitivity various lamp features. For the covered
product scenario, to lamp price energy savings were the only features
considered. For the substitution scenario, lifetime and mercury content
were also considered, as measured in a market study,\37\ as well as on
consumer preferences for lighting technology as revealed in historical
shipments data. 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 substitution scenario considered CFLs,
LEDs, and traditional incandescent alternatives to the covered product.
The available options additionally depend on the case under
consideration; in each standards case corresponding to a TSL, only
those lamp options at or above the particular standard level, and
relevant alternative lamps, are considered to be available. In the
substitution scenario, the market-share module also incorporates a
limit on the diffusion of LED technology into the market using the
widely accepted Bass adoption model,\38\ the parameters of which are
based on data on the market penetration of LED lamps published by
NEMA,\39\ as discussed previously. In the LCC covered product scenario,
DOE used a Bass diffusion curve in the no-new-standards case to model
the adoption of HIR lamps assuming these lamps would be a new entry to
market in 2020. The Bass diffusion curves puts a limit on the maximum
market share allowed for HIR lamps in each year of the analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Krull, S. and D. Freeman. Next Generation Light Bulb
Optimization. 2012. Pacific Gas and Electric Company. (Last accessed
July 23, 2019.) https://www.etcc-ca.com/sites/default/files/OLD/images/stories/Lighting_Conjoint_Study_v020712f.pdf.
\38\ Bass, F.M. A New Product Growth Model for Consumer
Durables. Management Science. 1969. 15(5): pp. 215-227.
\39\ National Electrical Manufacturers Association. Lamp
Indices. (Last accessed July 23, 2019.) https://www.nema.org/Intelligence/Pages/Lamp-Indices.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this way, the module assigns market shares to the different ELs,
and consumer choice alternatives, based on observations of consumer
preferences.
G. National Impact Analysis
The NIA assesses the NES and the national NPV from a national
perspective of total consumer costs and savings that would be expected
to result from new or amended standards at specific TSLs.\40\
(``Consumer'' in this context refers to consumers of the product being
regulated and includes both residential and commercial consumers.) DOE
calculated the NES and NPV based on projections of annual product
shipments and prices from the shipments scenario with substitution,
along with the HOU and energy prices from the energy use and LCC with
substitution analyses.\41\ For the present analysis, DOE projected the
energy savings, operating-cost savings, product costs, and NPV of
consumer benefits over the lifetime of GSILs sold from 2023 through
2052. However, unlike for other DOE rulemakings, the energy savings and
NPV of consumer benefits are not those associated with the technology
in question for TSL 1. The price of HIR lamps under TSL 1 would be
preventatively high for most consumers, and HIR efficacy is too low for
consumers to recover these costs in energy savings. Because
manufacturers are unlikely to product HIR lamps and consumers are
unlikely to purchase them, there are no energy savings or benefits from
transitioning to HIR technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ The NIA accounts for impacts in the 50 States and the U.S.
territories.
\41\ For the NIA, DOE adjusts the installed cost data from the
LCC analysis to exclude sales tax, which is a transfer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE evaluates the impacts of new and amended standards by comparing
a case without such standards against standards-case projections. The
no-new-standards case characterizes energy use and consumer costs in
the absence of new or amended energy conservation standards. DOE
compares the no-new-standards case with projections characterizing the
market if DOE adopted new or amended standards at specific TSLs. For
the standards cases,
[[Page 46849]]
DOE considers how a given standard would likely affect the market
shares of products with efficacies greater than the standard, as well
as consumer choice alternatives. Any energy savings or benefits
estimated in the standards case are the result of product shifting as,
given GE's experience and the economics at issue, manufacturers are
unlikely to produce and consumers are unlikely to purchase GSIL-HIR
products. Instead, consumers are more likely to substitute different
product types such as CFLs and LEDs, which have different performance
characteristics and features. As noted above, EPCA prohibits DOE from
prescribing an amended or new standard if 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 at the time of the Secretary's finding.
DOE uses a spreadsheet model to calculate the energy savings and
the national consumer costs and savings from each TSL. Interested
parties can review DOE's analyses by changing various input quantities
within the spreadsheet. The NIA spreadsheet model uses typical values
(as opposed to probability distributions) as inputs.
Table IV.12 summarizes the inputs and methods DOE used for the NIA
analysis for the NOPD. Discussion of these inputs and methods follows
the table.
Table IV.12--Summary of Inputs and Methods for the National Impact
Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inputs Method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shipments......................... Annual shipments for each lamp
option from shipments model for the
no-new standards case and each TSL
analyzed.
Assumed compliance date of January 1, 2023.
standard.
No-new-standards efficacy Estimated by the market-share module
distribution. of the shipments analysis.
Standards-case efficacy Estimated by the market-share module
distribution. of the shipments analysis.
Annual energy use per unit........ Calculated for each lamp option
based on inputs from the Energy Use
Analysis.
Total installed cost per unit..... Uses lamp prices, and for the
commercial sector only,
installation costs from the LCC
analysis.
Electricity prices................ Estimated marginal electricity
prices from the LCC analysis.
Energy price trends............... AEO 2019 forecasts (to 2050) and
extrapolation thereafter.
Annual operating cost per unit.... Calculated for each lamp option
using the energy use per unit, and
electricity prices and trends.
Energy Site-to-Source Conversion.. A time-series conversion factor
based on AEO 2019.
Discount rate..................... Three and seven percent real.
Present year...................... 2019.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. National Energy Savings
The NES analysis involves a comparison of national energy
consumption of the considered products in each standards case with
consumption in the case with no new or amended energy conservation
standards. DOE calculated the annual national energy consumption by
multiplying the number of units (stock) of each lamp option (by vintage
or age) by the unit energy consumption (also by vintage) for each year
in the analysis. The NES is based on the difference in annual national
energy consumption for the no-new-standards case and each of the
standards cases. DOE estimated the energy consumption and savings based
on site electricity and converted that quantity to the energy
consumption and savings at the power plant using annual conversion
factors derived from AEO 2019. Cumulative energy savings are the sum of
NES for each year over the analysis period, taking into account the
full lifetime of GSILs shipped in 2052.
DOE tracks both the energy consumption of GSILs and substitute out-
of-scope lamps (e.g., CFL, LED, and traditional incandescent lamps).
Under the standards case, the increase in cost or lack of availability
of GSIL options can lead to consumers choosing out-of-scope alternative
lamps. This leads to a decrease in GSIL shipments that appears as a
decrease in GSIL energy consumption, while the increase in out-of-scope
shipments appears as an increase in energy consumption for those lamp
types. DOE also calculated the overall energy impact of a standard
including the increased energy consumption of out-of-scope lamps.
DOE generally accounts for the direct rebound effect in its NES
analyses. Direct rebound reflects the idea that as appliances become
more efficient, consumers use more of their service because their
operating cost is reduced. In the case of lighting, the rebound effect
could be manifested in increased HOU or in increased lighting density
(lamps per square foot). DOE assumed no rebound effect for GSILs in
this analysis, consistent with the assumption of no rebound in the
reference scenario in the March 2016 GSL NOPR. DOE is not aware of any
data supporting rebound when consumers switch from halogen GSILs to HIR
GSILs. DOE seeks any relevant data and comment on the potential rebound
effect for GSILs.
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 (August 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 (August 17, 2012). NEMS is a public domain,
multi-sector, partial equilibrium model of the U.S. energy sector that
EIA uses to prepare its AEO.\42\ The approach used for deriving FFC
measures of energy use and emissions is described in appendix 10B of
the NOPD TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ For more information on NEMS, refer to The National Energy
Modeling System: An Overview, DOE/EIA-0581 (98) (Feb.1998)
(Available at: https://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/overview/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Net Present Value Analysis
The inputs for determining the NPV of the total costs and benefits
experienced by consumers are: (1) Total annual increases in installed
cost; (2)
[[Page 46850]]
total annual savings in operating 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
analysis period.
The direct efficacy improvements from TSL 1 do not result in any
benefits. First, manufacturers are unlikely to produce HIR lamps.
Manufacturers that have produced and attempted to sell such lamps in
the recent past have found it uneconomic to do so. However, if a
manufacturer were hypothetically willing to produce such a lamp,
consumers would either (1) purchase the HIR lamp and be unable to
recoup the expense in energy savings or (2) choose not to purchase the
HIR lamp due to high purchase price. As a result DOE does not
anticipate that adoption of HIR technology to result directly in any
consumer benefits. Instead, any benefit from TSL 1 would result from
product shifting as consumers substitute more efficient alternative
product types with different performance characteristics and features.
As discussed in section IV.F.1.b of this NOPD, DOE developed prices for
alternative LED and CFL lamps using a price-learning module
incorporated in the shipments analysis.
The operating cost savings in this document are primarily the
result of product shifting. 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 electricity. To
estimate energy prices in future years, DOE multiplied the average
national marginal electricity prices by the forecast of annual
national-average residential or commercial electricity price changes in
the Reference case from AEO 2019, which has an end year of 2050. To
estimate price trends after 2050, DOE used the average annual rate of
change in prices from 2035 to 2050.
In calculating the NPV, DOE multiplies the net savings in future
years by a discount factor to determine their present value. For this
NOPD, DOE estimated the NPV of consumer benefits using both a 3-percent
and a 7-percent real discount rate. DOE uses these discount rates in
accordance with guidance provided by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) to federal agencies on the development of regulatory
analysis.\43\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ United States Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-
4: Regulatory Analysis,'' (Sept. 17, 2003), section E (Available at:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
DOE performed an MIA to estimate the financial impacts of potential
amended energy conservation standards on manufacturers of GSILs. DOE
relied on the 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 research and development (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 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 amended energy conservation standards on manufacturers. To capture
the uncertainty relating to manufacturer pricing strategies following
potential amended standards, the GRIM estimates a range of possible
impacts under different manufacturer markup scenarios.
DOE created initial estimates for the industry financial inputs
used in the GRIM (e.g., tax rate; working capital rate; net property
plant and equipment expenses; selling, general, and administrative
(SG&A) expenses; R&D expenses; depreciation expenses; capital
expenditures; and industry discount rate) based on publicly available
sources, such as company filings of form 10-K from the SEC or corporate
annual reports.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ 10-Ks are collected from the SEC's EDGAR database: https://www.sec.gov/edgar.shtml or from annual financial reports collected
from individual company websites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The GRIM uses several factors to determine a series of annual cash
flows starting with the announcement of potential standards and
extending over a 30-year period following the compliance date of
potential standards. These factors include annual expected revenues,
costs of sales, SG&A and R&D expenses, taxes, and capital expenditures.
In general, energy conservation standards can affect manufacturer cash
flow in three distinct ways: (1) Creating a need for increased
investment, (2) raising production costs per unit, and (3) altering
revenue due to higher per-unit prices and changes in sales volumes.
The GRIM spreadsheet uses inputs to arrive at a series of annual
cash flows, beginning in 2019 (the reference year of the analysis) and
continuing to 2052. DOE calculated INPVs by summing the stream of
annual discounted cash flows during this period. DOE used a real
discount rate of 6.1 percent for GSIL manufacturers. This initial
discount rate estimate was derived using the capital asset pricing
model in conjunction with publicly available information (e.g., 10-year
treasury rates of return and company specific betas).
1. Manufacturer Production Costs
Manufacturing more efficacious GSILs is more expensive because of
the machinery required to coat halogen capsules and the process by
which the capsules are coated. The changes in the MPCs of covered
products can affect the revenues, gross margins, and cash flow of the
industry. Typically, DOE develops MSPs for the covered products using
reverse-engineering. These costs are used as an input to the LCC
analysis and NIA. However, because GSILs are difficult to reverse-
engineer, DOE derived end-user prices directly in the product price
determination and then used the end-user prices in conjunction with
distribution chain markups to calculate the MSPs of GSILs. See section
IV.C for a further explanation of the product price determination.
To determine MPCs of GSILs from the end-user prices calculated in
the engineering analysis, DOE divided the end-user prices by the home
center markup to calculate the MSP. DOE then divided the MSP by the
manufacturer markup to get the MPCs. DOE determined the home center
markup to be 1.52 and the manufacturer markup to be 1.40 for all GSILs.
Markups are further described in section IV.H.4 of this document.
[[Page 46851]]
2. Shipments Projections
The GRIM estimates manufacturer revenues based on total unit
shipment projections and the distribution of those shipments by TSL.
Changes in sales volumes and efficiency mix over time can significantly
affect manufacturer finances. For this analysis, the GRIM uses the
NIA's annual shipment projections starting in 2019 (the reference year)
and ending in 2052 (the end year of the analysis period).
3. Product and Capital Conversion Costs
Potential 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 TSL. 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 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.
To evaluate the level of capital conversion costs manufacturers
would likely incur to comply with the analyzed energy conservation
standards DOE used data submitted during the 2015 IRL rulemaking to
estimate costs to update manufacturer production lines. DOE then
estimated the number of production lines currently in existence and the
number of production lines that would be required to be updated at the
analyzed TSL using DOE's public compliance certification database. DOE
then multiplied these numbers together (i.e., capital conversion costs
per production line and number of production lines that would need to
be updated) to get the final estimated capital conversion costs at the
analyzed TSL.
To evaluate the level of product conversion costs manufacturers
would likely incur to comply with the analyzed energy conservation
standards, DOE used data submitted during the 2015 IRL rulemaking to
estimate per model R&D and testing and certification costs for the TSL.
DOE then estimated the number of models that would need to be
redesigned at each analyzed TSL. DOE then multiplied these numbers
together to get the final estimated product conversion costs for the
analyzed TSL.
In general, DOE assumes all conversion-related investments occur
between the estimated year of publication of the final rule and the
year by which manufacturers must comply with the potential amended
standards. The conversion cost figures used in the GRIM can be found in
Table V.9 and section V.D of this document.
4. Markup Scenarios
To calculate the MPCs used in the GRIM, DOE divided the end-user
prices calculated in the engineering analysis by the home center markup
and the manufacturer markup. The home center markup was calculated in
the March 2016 GSL NOPR by reviewing SEC 10-K reports of publicly
traded home centers. DOE continued to use a home center markup of 1.52
in this analysis.
The manufacturer markup accounts for the non-production costs
(i.e., SG&A, R&D, and interest) along with profit. Modifying the
manufacturer markup in the standards case yields different sets of
impacts on manufacturers. For the MIA, DOE modeled two standards-case
manufacturer markup scenarios to represent uncertainty regarding the
potential impacts on prices and profitability for manufacturers
following the implementation of analyzed energy conservation standards:
(1) A preservation of gross margin markup scenario; and (2) a
technology specific markup scenario. These scenarios lead to different
manufacturer markup values that, when applied to the MPCs, result in
varying revenue and cash flow impacts.
Under the preservation of gross margin scenario, DOE applied a
single uniform ``gross margin percentage'' manufacturer markup of 1.40
across all analyzed lamps, which assumes that manufacturers would be
able to maintain the same amount of profit as a percentage of revenues
for all lamps analyzed.
Under the technology specific markup scenario, DOE assumed that
incandescent lamps, CFLs, and LED lamps have different manufacturer
markups. As sales of lamp technologies that are no longer able to meet
the analyzed energy conservation standards are no longer sold, the
average manufacturer markup is reduced. DOE estimated an incandescent
lamp manufacturer markup of approximately 1.525, a CFL manufacturer
markup of approximately 1.453, and an LED lamp manufacturer markup of
approximately 1.380. In the no-new-standards case these technology
specific manufacturer markups produce an identical INPV as in the
preservation of gross margin markup scenario.
A comparison of industry financial impacts under the two
manufacturer markup scenarios is presented in section V.D.1 of this
document.
V. Analytical Results and Conclusions
A. Trial Standard Levels
DOE analyzed the benefits and burdens of one trial standard level
for GSILs. TSL 1 is composed of EL 1 and is the max-tech EL for GSILs.
DOE analyzed the benefits and burdens by conducting the analyses
described in section IV for each TSL. Table V.1 presents the TSLs and
the corresponding ELs for GSLs.
Table V.1--Composition of TSLs for GSILs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology required to
TSL EL comply with standard Description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TSL 0................................ EL 0................... Halogen................ No new GSIL standard.
TSL 1................................ EL 1................... Halogen Infrared (HIR). HIR standard in 2023.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers
DOE analyzed the cost effectiveness (i.e., the savings in operating
costs compared to any increase in purchase price likely to result from
the imposition of a standard) by considering the LCC and PBP. DOE
presents the LCC of the covered product (i.e., HIR lamps) and also
presents a second LCC, which is used as an input for the NPV, which
goes beyond GSILs and accounts for the purchase price and operating
costs of out-of-scope substitute lamps (``LCC with substitution'').
These analyses are discussed in the following sections.
[[Page 46852]]
1. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
In general, higher-efficiency products can affect consumers in two
ways: (1) Purchase price increases and (2) annual operating costs
decrease. Inputs used for calculating the annualized 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
annualized LCC calculation also uses product lifetime and a discount
rate.
Table V.2 shows the average annualized LCC and PBP results for the
ELs considered for GSILs in this analysis. For both the residential and
commercial sector, the payback period for HIR lamps is approximately
three times longer than the product life. As a result, consumers who
buy HIR technologies have increased life cycle costs and do not see a
benefit at TSL 1. Table V.3 shows the average annualized LCC savings
for HIR lamps under TSL 1. Over 97% of residential and commercial
consumers who purchase HIR lamps experience a net cost in the standards
case.
Table V.4 shows the average annualized LCC savings under a product
shifting scenario for TSL 1. Very few consumers are anticipated to buy
HIR technology in the standards case, assuming manufacturers produce
the product. Instead these numbers reflect the result of a substitution
effect as consumers are priced out of the market for GSILs. That is,
TSL 1 is anticipated to increase the cost of GSILs by 286 percent
relative to a no-standards case, therefore driving some consumers to
shift toward out-of-scope alternative lamps, yielding a reduction in
operating costs relative to the base case.
DOE recognizes that the current quantifiable framework does not
represent the full welfare effects of this shift in consumer purchase
decisions due to an energy conservation standard. In the 2015 IRL final
rule, DOE ``committed to developing a framework that can support
empirical quantitative tools for improved assessment of the consumer
welfare impacts of appliance standards.'' (80 FR 4141) DOE remains
committed to this goal and to enhancing the methodology the Department
uses to represent and quantify the consumer welfare impacts of its
standards.
Table V.2--Average Annualized LCC and PBP Results by Efficacy Level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average costs 2018$
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL Annualized Simple payback Average
Installed cost Annualized First year's lifetime Annualized LCC years lifetime years
installed cost operating cost operating cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Residential Sector
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0....................................... 1.94 1.99 4.50 4.70 6.69 .............. 2.0
1....................................... 7.49 7.69 3.59 3.75 11.44 6.09 2.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial Sector
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0....................................... 3.48 12.39 13.56 14.68 27.08 .............. 0.7
1....................................... 9.04 32.19 10.82 11.71 43.91 2.03 0.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each EL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that EL. The PBP is measured relative to the baseline product.
Table V.3--Average Annualized LCC Savings Results by Trial Standard Level--Covered Product
[GSILs]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GSIL life-cycle cost savings
-------------------------------------------
TSL EL Percent of consumers
Average annualized that experience net
LCC savings\*\ 2018$ cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Residential Sector
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................................... 1 -4.77 97.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial Sector
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................................... 1 -16.85 99.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table V.4--Average Annualized LCC Savings Results by Trial Standard Level--LCC With Substitution
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life-cycle cost savings
-------------------------------------------
TSL EL Percent of consumers
Average annualized that experience net
LCC savings\*\ 2018$ cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Residential Sector
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................................... 1 1.23 4.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 46853]]
Commercial Sector
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................................... 1 10.36 0.43
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average annualized LCC savings for affected consumers.
The cost of HIR lamps cannot be recovered, and the LCC savings are
negative for the covered product at issue in this NOPD. When accounting
for out-of-scope product substitutes, average LCC savings are positive
at TSL 1 because the majority of consumers shift to an out-of-scope LED
lamp.
2. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
As discussed in section IV.E.9, 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 PBP for each of the considered ELs, DOE used discrete
values, and, as required by EPCA, based the energy use calculation on
the DOE test procedure for GSILs. In contrast, the PBPs presented in
section V.B.1 were calculated using distributions that reflect the
range of energy use in the field. See chapter 8 of the NOPD TSD for
more information on the rebuttable presumption payback analysis.
C. National Impact Analysis
This section presents DOE's estimates of the NES and the NPV of
consumer benefits that would result from each of the considered TSLs as
potential amended standards. For these estimates, DOE included the
impact of consumers substituting GSILs for out-of-scope CFL, LED, and
incandescent alternatives.
1. Energy Savings
To estimate the energy savings attributable to potential amended
standards for GSILs, 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 year of anticipated
compliance with amended standards (2023-2052). Table V.4 presents DOE's
projections of the NES for each TSL considered for GSILs, as well as
considered GSIL alternatives. The savings were calculated using the
approach described in section IV.G of this document. In addition to
GSIL energy savings, Table V.4 illustrates the increased energy
consumption of consumers who transition to out-of-scope lamps,
including CFL, LED, and incandescent alternatives, because more
consumers purchase these lamps at TSL 1 relative to the no-standards
case.
Table V.4--Cumulative National Energy Savings for GSILs and GSIL
Alternatives; 30 Years of Shipments
[2023-2052]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TSL 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site Energy Savings (quads):
GSILs............................................... 0.240
CFL alternatives.................................... (0.003)
LED alternatives.................................... (0.043)
Incandescent alternatives........................... (0.002)
---------------
Total........................................... 0.192
Source Energy Savings (quads):
GSILs............................................... 0.646
CFL alternatives.................................... (0.009)
LED alternatives.................................... (0.115)
Incandescent alternatives........................... (0.007)
---------------
Total........................................... 0.516
FFC Energy Savings (quads):
GSILs............................................... 0.677
CFL alternatives.................................... (0.010)
LED alternatives.................................... (0.120)
Incandescent alternatives........................... (0.007)
---------------
Total........................................... 0.540
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMB Circular A-4 \45\ requires agencies to present analytical
results, including separate schedules of the monetized benefits and
costs that show the type and timing of benefits and costs. Circular A-4
also directs agencies to consider the variability of key elements
underlying the estimates of benefits and costs. For this proposed
[[Page 46854]]
determination, DOE undertook a sensitivity analysis using 9 years,
rather than 30 years, of product shipments. The choice of a 9-year
period is a proxy for the timeline in EPCA for the review of certain
energy conservation standards and potential revision of and compliance
with such revised standards.\46\ The review timeframe established in
EPCA is generally not synchronized with the product lifetime, product
manufacturing cycles, or other factors specific to GSILs. Thus, such
results are presented for informational purposes only and are not
indicative of any change in DOE's analytical methodology. The NES
sensitivity analysis results based on a 9-year analytical period are
presented in Table V.5. The impacts are counted over the lifetime of
GSILs purchased in 2023-2031.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-4:
Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 2003. Available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf.
\46\ Section 325(m) of EPCA requires DOE to review its standards
at least once every 6 years, and requires, for certain products, a
3-year period after any new standard is promulgated before
compliance is required, except that in no case may any new standards
be required within 6 years of the compliance date of the previous
standards. If DOE makes a determination that amended standards are
not needed, it must conduct a subsequent review within three years
following such a determination. As DOE is evaluating the need to
amend the standards, the sensitivity analysis is based on the review
timeframe associated with amended standards. While adding a 6-year
review to the 3-year compliance period adds up to 9 years, DOE notes
that it may undertake reviews at any time within the 6-year period
and that the 3-year compliance date may yield to the 6-year
backstop. A 9-year analysis period may not be appropriate given the
variability that occurs in the timing of standards reviews and the
fact that for some products, the compliance period is 5 years rather
than 3 years.
Table V.6--Cumulative National Energy Savings for GSILs and GSIL
Alternatives; 9 Years of Shipments
[2023-2031]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TSL 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site Energy Savings (quads):
GSILs............................................... 0.075
CFL alternatives.................................... (0.003)
LED alternatives.................................... (0.012)
Incandescent alternatives........................... (0.001)
---------------
Total........................................... 0.059
Source Energy Savings (quads):
GSILs............................................... 0.204
CFL alternatives.................................... (0.007)
LED alternatives.................................... (0.033)
Incandescent alternatives........................... (0.003)
---------------
Total........................................... 0.161
FFC Energy Savings (quads):
GSILs............................................... 0.214
CFL alternatives.................................... (0.007)
LED alternatives.................................... (0.035)
Incandescent alternatives........................... (0.003)
---------------
Total........................................... 0.169
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits
DOE estimated the cumulative NPV of the total costs and savings for
consumers that would result from TSL 1 for GSILs. However, as described
above, the benefits of TSL 1 do not come from improved efficiency for
the product for which DOE is making a determination whether existing
standards should be amended. Rather, due to the likelihood that
manufacturers will not produce the product, and fact that consumers
would be unlikely to buy it, DOE does not anticipate that adoption of
HIR technology will result in any consumer benefits. Instead, any
benefit from TSL 1 is the result of product shifting as consumers
respond to the high upfront price of HIR lamps and substitute lower-
cost, out-of-scope alternatives. In accordance with OMB's guidelines on
regulatory analysis,\47\ DOE calculated NPV using both a 7-percent and
a 3-percent real discount rate. Table V.7 shows the consumer NPV
results with impacts counted over the lifetime of GSILs purchased in
2023-2052.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-4:
Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 2003. Available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf.
Table V.7--Cumulative Net Present Value of Quantifiable Consumer
Benefits for GSILs and GSIL Alternatives; 30 Years of Shipments
[2023-2052]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TSL 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 percent (billions 2018$):
GSILs............................................... 5.436
CFL alternatives.................................... (0.110)
LED alternatives.................................... (1.082)
Incandescent alternatives........................... (0.071)
---------------
Total........................................... 4.173
7 percent (billions 2018$):
[[Page 46855]]
GSILs............................................... 2.960
CFL alternatives.................................... (0.072)
LED alternatives.................................... (0.602)
Incandescent alternatives........................... (0.044)
---------------
Total........................................... 2.241
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NPV results based on the aforementioned 9-year analytical
period are presented in Table V.8. The impacts are counted over the
lifetime of products purchased in 2023-2031. 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.
Table V.8--Cumulative Net Present Value of Quantifiable Consumer
Benefits for GSIL and GSIL Alternatives; 9 Years of Shipments
[2023-2031]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TSL 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 percent (billions 2018$):
GSILs............................................... 2.154
CFL alternatives.................................... (0.088)
LED alternatives.................................... (0.441)
Incandescent alternatives........................... (0.040)
---------------
Total........................................... 1.585
7 percent (billions 2018$):
GSILs............................................... 1.548
CFL alternatives.................................... (0.062)
LED alternatives.................................... (0.328)
Incandescent alternatives........................... (0.030)
---------------
Total........................................... 1.128
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
DOE performed an MIA to estimate the impact of analyzed energy
conservation standards on manufacturers of GSILs. In this instance, DOE
also can look to the actual experience of manufacturers that have
produced HIR lamps in the recent past. The following section describes
the expected impacts on GSIL manufacturers at the analyzed TSL.
1. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results
In this section, DOE provides the results from the MIA, which
examines changes in the industry that would result from the analyzed
standards. The following tables illustrate the estimated financial
impacts (represented by changes in INPV) of potential amended energy
conservation standards on manufacturers of GSILs, as well as the
conversion costs that DOE estimates manufacturers of GSILs would incur
at the analyzed TSL.
To evaluate the range of cash-flow impacts on the GSIL industry,
DOE modeled two manufacturer markup scenarios that correspond to the
range of anticipated market responses to potential standards. Each
markup scenario results in a unique set of cash flows and corresponding
industry values at the analyzed TSL. In the following discussion, the
INPV results refer to the difference in industry value between the no-
new-standards case and the standards case that result from the sum of
discounted cash flows from the reference year (2019) through the end of
the analysis period (2052).
DOE modeled a preservation of gross margin markup scenario. This
scenario assumes that in the standards case, manufacturers would be
able to pass along all the higher production costs required for more
efficacious products to their consumers. DOE also modeled a technology
specific markup scenario. In the technology specific markup scenario,
different lamp technologies (incandescent, CFL, LED) have different
manufacturer markups.
Table V.8 and Table V.9 present the results of the industry cash
flow analysis for GSIL manufacturers under the preservation of gross
margin and the technology specific markup scenarios.
Table V.9--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for GSILs--Preservation of Gross Margin Markup Scenario
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No-new-
Units standards case TSL 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV.......................................... 2018$ millions.................. 317.5 312.2
Change in INPV................................ 2018$ millions.................. .............. (5.0)
%............................... .............. (1.6)
[[Page 46856]]
Product Conversion Costs...................... 2018$ millions.................. .............. 2.8
Capital Conversion Costs...................... 2018$ millions.................. .............. 6.0
Total Conversion Costs........................ 2018$ millions.................. .............. 8.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table V.10--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for GSILs--Technology Specific Markup Scenario
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No-new-
Units standards case TSL 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV.......................................... 2018$ millions.................. 317.5 313.6
Change in INPV................................ 2018$ millions.................. .............. (3.7)
%............................... .............. (1.2)
Product Conversion Costs...................... 2018$ millions.................. .............. 2.8
Capital Conversion Costs...................... 2018$ millions.................. .............. 6.0
Total Conversion Costs........................ 2018$ millions.................. .............. 8.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At TSL 1, DOE estimates that impacts on INPV will range from -$5
million to -$3.7 million, or a change in INPV of -1.6 to -1.2 percent.
At TSL 1, free cash-flow is $30.0 million, which is a decrease of
approximately $3.7 million compared to the no-new-standards case value
of $33.7 million in 2022, the year leading up to the potential
standard.
At TSL 1, GSIL manufacturers spend approximately $6 million to
purchase equipment necessary to manufacture HIR capsules and spend
approximately $2.8 million in R&D and testing costs to introduce the
newly created HIR products. Lighting manufacturers sell approximately
15 million fewer units annually after 2023 at TSL 1 because most
consumers purchase longer lifetime products. Should manufacturers make
the unlikely decision to produce HIR lamps, they might experience some
increase in revenue due to some consumers purchasing significantly more
expensive HIR lamps. However, any increase in revenue is outweighed by
the $8.8 million in conversion costs that is spent prior to the
compliance year in both the preservation of gross margin and technology
specific margin markup scenarios. This results in a slight decrease in
INPV in both markup scenarios. Manufacturers, anticipating the cost of
transitioning product lines and the lack of consumer interest in HIR
lamps, are highly unlikely to undertake these expenses.
2. Direct Impacts on Employment
DOE typically presents quantitative estimates of the potential
changes in production employment that could result from the analyzed
energy conservation standard levels. However, all production facilities
that once produced GSILs in the U.S. have either closed or are
scheduled to close prior to 2023, the estimated compliance year of
analyzed standards. Therefore, DOE assumed there will not be any
domestic employment for GSIL production after 2023, and that none of
the analyzed standards would impact domestic GSIL production
employment. While there is limited CFL and LED lamp production in the
U.S., DOE does not assume that any CFL or LED lamp domestic production
employment would be impacted by the analyzed standards. Therefore, the
proposed determination would not have a significant impact on domestic
employment in the GSIL industry.
3. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
DOE does not anticipate any significant capacity constraints at the
analyzed energy conservation standards. At TSL 1, manufacturers would
most likely need to purchase machines used to coat halogen capsules.
These machines are known equipment and are currently used for
incandescent reflector lamp production. Equipment costs for these
machines are included in the MIA as part of the capital conversion
costs at TSL 1. Supply would most likely be able to meet the increase
in demand for the machines given the 3-year compliance period for any
potential energy conservation standards.
4. 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 equipment
manufacturers, and manufacturers exhibiting cost structures
substantially different from the industry average could be affected
disproportionately. DOE identified one manufacturer subgroup for GSILs,
small manufacturers.
For the small business subgroup analysis, DOE applied the small
business size standards published by the Small Business Administration
(SBA) to determine whether a company is considered a small business.
The size standards are codified at 13 CFR part 121. To be categorized
as a small business under NAICS code 335110, ``electric lamp bulb and
part manufacturing,'' a GSIL 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.
The small business subgroup analysis is discussed in section VI.C of
this document.
5. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
One aspect of assessing manufacturer burden involves looking at the
cumulative impact of multiple DOE standards and the product-specific
regulatory actions of other Federal agencies that affect the
manufacturers of a covered product. While any one regulation may not
impose a significant burden on manufacturers, the combined effects of
several existing or impending regulations may have serious consequences
for some manufacturers, groups of manufacturers, or an entire industry.
Assessing the impact of a single regulation may overlook this
cumulative regulatory burden. In addition to energy conservation
[[Page 46857]]
standards, other regulations can significantly affect manufacturers'
financial operations. Multiple regulations affecting the same
manufacturer can strain profits and lead companies to abandon product
lines or markets with lower expected future returns than competing
products. For these reasons, DOE typically conducts an analysis of
cumulative regulatory burden as part of its rulemakings pertaining to
appliance efficiency. However, given the tentative conclusion discussed
in section V.E, DOE did not conduct a cumulative regulatory burden
analysis.
E. Proposed Determination
When considering proposed standards, the new or amended energy
conservation standard 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,
considering to the greatest extent practicable 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))
In response to the August 2017 NODA, energy efficiency advocates
\48\ (EEAs) submitted a comment in support of a standard that
eliminates incandescent lamps. EEAs stated that despite falling prices,
increased choices, and rising sales of LED lamps, incandescent lamps
will retain a large share of the U.S. lighting market unless a standard
eliminates them. EEAs noted that historical experience with technology
substitution indicates that legacy technologies, like the incandescent
light bulb, usually persist in the market long after they stop being a
cost-effective choice for consumers. (EEAs, No. 11 at p. 10) \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ The group described as the ``energy efficiency advocates''
includes the Appliance Standards Awareness Project, American Council
for an Energy Efficient Economy, National Consumer Law Center,
Consumer Federation of America, Natural Resources Defense Council,
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, Northeast Energy Efficiency
Partnerships, Alliance to Save Energy, Northwest Power &
Conservation Council, and the Southeast Energy Efficiency Alliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, NEMA stated the current energy conservation standards for
GSILs cannot be amended in accordance with the criteria set forth in 42
U.S.C. 6295(o), and therefore DOE should determine not to amend
standards for GSILs. (NEMA, No. 329 at p. 38) \12\ GE added that there
are only two pathways to achieve significant energy savings for GSILs:
(1) Consider a 45 lm/W standard or (2) consider mandating HIR
technology. Regarding the first approach, GE concluded that because
there are no incandescent or halogen products even close to 45 lm/W on
the market, DOE can quickly reach a conclusion that 45 lm/W GSIL
products are not technically feasible. DOE agrees with GE's assertion
concerning the technological feasibility of a 45 lm/W standard for
GSILs. DOE notes that EPCA requires that DOE make a determination
whether standards in effect for general service lamps should be amended
to establish more stringent standards than certain standards specified
in EPCA. 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)(I). In making that determination
DOE is not limited to incandescent technologies and DOE must consider a
minimum standard applicable to GSLs of 45 lm/W. 42 U.S.C.
6295(i)(6)(A)(ii) DOE will make that determination and will consider a
45 lm/W standard in a subsequent document. Regarding the second
approach, GE stated that DOE has already concluded in the 2015 IRL
final rule that a standard level mandating HIR technology is not
economically justified. GE pointed out that as nothing has changed with
this technology, DOE has no reason to believe that the outcome of such
an analysis for A-line lamps would produce a different result. (GE, No.
325 at p. 4) \12\
As described previously, when considering proposed standards, the
amended energy conservation standard 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)) Because an analysis of potential economic justification
and energy savings first requires an evaluation of the relevant
technology, in the following sections DOE first discusses the
technological feasibility of amended standards. DOE then addresses the
energy savings and economic justification associated with potential
amended standards.
1. Technological Feasibility
EPCA mandates that DOE consider whether amended energy conservation
standards for GSILs would be technologically feasible. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(A)) DOE has tentatively determined that there are design
options that would improve the efficacy of GSILs. These design options
are being used in similar products (IRLs) that are commercially
available and have been used in commercially available GSILs in the
past and therefore are technologically feasible. (See sections IV.A.3
and IV.A.4 for further information.) Hence, DOE has tentatively
determined that amended energy conservation standards for GSILs are
technologically feasible.
2. Significant Conservation of Energy
EPCA also mandates that DOE consider whether amended energy
conservation standards for GSILs would result in result in significant
conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) As stated in section
III.D.2, DOE has not finalized updates to the Process Rule, in which
DOE considers how to determine whether a new or amended standard would
result in a significant energy savings. As this rule is not yet
finalized, the Department is not relying on that proposed threshold for
this determination. However, DOE is still required by statute to issue
only such standards as will save a significant amount of energy. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
As described above, there are no energy savings or benefits from
transitioning to HIR technology. Any energy savings that might result
from establishing a standard at that TSL 1 are the result of product
shifting as consumers abandon GSIL-HIR products in favor of different
product types having different performance characteristics and
features. DOE notes that EPCA prohibits DOE from prescribing an amended
or new standard if 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 at the time of
the Secretary's finding. 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4)
3. Economic Justification
In determining whether a standard is economically justified, the
Secretary must determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed
its burdens, considering to the greatest extent practicable the seven
statutory factors discussed previously. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i))
One of those seven factors is 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
[[Page 46858]]
are likely to result from the standard. This factor is assessed using
life cycle cost and payback period analysis, discussed in section
III.E.1.b of this NOPD.
Given the high upfront cost and long payback period, these analyses
do not anticipate that consumers will benefit from introduction of HIR
lamp technology. Additionally, the recent experiences of two
manufacturers who attempted and failed to market such a products
illustrates that they are not commercially viable. At TSL 1, DOE
believes there is uncertainty as to whether manufacturers would spend
the capital required to produce HIR lamps given the low probability of
recovering those costs as consumers substitute less costly products.
Manufacturers could instead choose to forego the investment and produce
other lighting products or exit the market entirely.
After considering the analysis and weighing the benefits and the
burdens, DOE concluded that, at TSL 1 for GSILs, the benefits of energy
savings and positive NPV of consumer benefits would be outweighed by
the fact that the covered product PBP exceeds covered product lifetime
by nearly a factor of three. Based on the second EPCA factor that DOE
is required to evaluate, DOE has tentatively concluded that imposition
of a standard at TSL 1 is not economically justified because the
operating costs of the covered product are insufficient to recover the
upfront cost. Based on these considerations, DOE is not amending energy
conservation standards for GSILs.
DOE has presented additional consumer choice analysis anticipating
that if it were to establish a standard at TSL 1, most consumers will
substitute other available products, such as LEDs, CFLs, and non-GSIL
incandescent lamps (the substitution scenario). DOE then estimated the
NPV of the total costs and benefits experienced by the Nation in this
scenario. (See results in Table V.7 and Table V.8) DOE also conducted
an MIA to estimate the impact of amended energy conservation standards
on manufacturers of GSILs in this consumer choice scenario. (See
results in Table V.9 and Table V.10)
Under the consumer choice analysis, the NPV of consumer benefits at
TSL 1 would be $2.241 billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and
$4.173 billion using a discount rate of 3 percent. However, this NPV is
based on the anticipated lifecycle costs to consumers who substitute
other lamps due to price sensitivity or the unavailability of GSILs. At
TSL 1, the average covered product LCC impact is a cost of $4.77 in the
residential sector and $16.85 in the commercial sector. The simple
payback period is 6.09 years (compared to an average lifetime of 2.0
years) in the residential sector and 2.03 years (compared to an average
lifetime of 0.6 years) in the commercial sector. The fraction of GSIL
consumers who experience a net LCC cost is 97.7 percent in the
residential sector and 99 percent in the commercial sector. At TSL 1,
DOE estimates that INPV will decrease between $5.0 million to $3.7
million, or a decrease in INPV of 1.6 to 1.2 percent. However, EPCA
prohibits DOE from prescribing an amended or new standard if 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 at the time of the Secretary's finding. DOE cannot find economic
justification in a standard the purpose of which is to force the
unavailability of a product type, performance characteristic or feature
in contravention of EPCA.
In this proposed determination, based on the initial determination
that amended standards would not be economically justified, and that
there would not be any benefits from transitioning to HIR technology at
TSL 1, DOE has tentatively determined that energy conservation
standards for GSILs do not need to be amended. DOE will consider all
comments received on this proposed determination in issuing any final
determination.
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
This proposed determination has been determined to be a significant
regulatory action for purposes of Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory
Planning and Review,'' 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). As a result, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reviewed this proposed
determination.
B. Review Under Executive Orders 13771 and 13777
On January 30, 2017, the President issued Executive Order (E.O.)
13771, ``Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.'' E.O.
13771 stated the policy of the executive branch is to be prudent and
financially responsible in the expenditure of funds, from both public
and private sources. E.O. 13771 stated it is essential to manage the
costs associated with the governmental imposition of private
expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations.
Additionally, on February 24, 2017, the President issued E.O.
13777, ``Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda.'' E.O. 13777 required
the head of each agency to designate an agency official as its
Regulatory Reform Officer (RRO). Each RRO oversees the implementation
of regulatory reform initiatives and policies to ensure that agencies
effectively carry out regulatory reforms, consistent with applicable
law. Further, E.O. 13777 requires the establishment of a regulatory
task force at each agency. The regulatory task force is required to
make recommendations to the agency head regarding the repeal,
replacement, or modification of existing regulations, consistent with
applicable law. At a minimum, each regulatory reform task force must
attempt to identify regulations that:
(1) Eliminate jobs, or inhibit job creation;
(2) Are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective;
(3) Impose costs that exceed benefits;
(4) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with
regulatory reform initiatives and policies;
(5) Are inconsistent with the requirements of Information Quality
Act, or the guidance issued pursuant to that Act, in particular those
regulations that rely in whole or in part on data, information, or
methods that are not publicly available or that are insufficiently
transparent to meet the standard for reproducibility; or
(6) Derive from or implement Executive Orders or other Presidential
directives that have been subsequently rescinded or substantially
modified.
DOE initially concludes that this proposed determination is
consistent with the directives set forth in these executive orders. As
discussed in this document, DOE is not proposing to amend energy
conservation standards for GSILs and the proposed rule would not yield
any costs or cost savings. Therefore, if finalized as proposed, this
NOPD is expected to be an E.O. 13771 other action.
C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for
any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the
agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
As required by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small
Entities
[[Page 46859]]
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 (https://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel).
DOE reviewed this proposed determination under the provisions of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the policies and procedures
published on February 19, 2003. Because DOE is proposing not to amend
standards for GSILs, if adopted, the determination would not amend any
energy conservation standards. On the basis of the foregoing, DOE
certifies that the proposed determination, if adopted, would have no
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Accordingly, DOE has not prepared an IRFA for this proposed
determination. DOE will transmit this certification and supporting
statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
DOE is analyzing this NOPD in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and DOE's NEPA implementing
regulations (10 CFR part 1021). DOE's regulations include a categorical
exclusion for actions which are interpretations or rulings with respect
to existing regulations. 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, Appendix A4. DOE
anticipates that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion A4
because it is an interpretation or ruling in regards to an existing
regulation and otherwise meets the requirements for application of a
categorical exclusion. See 10 CFR 1021.410. DOE will complete its NEPA
review before issuing the final action.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999),
imposes certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and
implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that
have Federalism implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to
examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any
action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and
to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order
also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure
meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications.
On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the
intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the
development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has examined this
proposed determination and has tentatively determined that it would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
EPCA governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as
to energy conservation for the products that are the subject of this
proposed determination. States can petition DOE for exemption from such
preemption to the extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42
U.S.C. 6297) Therefore, no further action is required by Executive
Order 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 Executive Order 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 Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that
Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the
regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any, (2)
clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation, (3)
provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting
simplification and burden reduction, (4) specifies the retroactive
effect, if any, (5) adequately defines key terms, and (6) addresses
other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship
under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of
Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations
in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to
determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or
more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined
that, to the extent permitted by law, this proposed determination meets
the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531).
For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may
cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one
year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy.
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed ``significant
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small
governments before establishing any requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE published
a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation
under UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE's policy statement is also available at
https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf.
This proposed determination does not contain a Federal
intergovernmental mandate, nor is it expected to require expenditures
of $100 million or more in any one year by the private sector. As a
result, the analytical requirements of UMRA do not apply.
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being.
This proposed determination 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.
[[Page 46860]]
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
Pursuant to Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,'' 53 FR
8859 (March 15, 1988), DOE has determined that this proposed
determination would not result in any takings that might require
compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for Federal agencies to review
most disseminations of information to the public under information
quality guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general
guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452
(Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446
(Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed this NOPD under the OMB and DOE
guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable
policies in those guidelines.
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 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 proposed significant
energy action. A ``significant energy action'' is defined as any action
by an agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of
a final rule, and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866, or any successor Executive Order; and (2) is
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy, or (3) is designated by the
Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any proposed
significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of
any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the
proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action
and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
Because this proposed determination does not propose amended energy
conservation standards for GSILs, it is not a significant energy
action, nor has it been designated as such by the Administrator at
OIRA. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.
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 regulatory actions. The
purpose of the bulletin is to enhance the quality and credibility of
the Government's scientific information. Under the Bulletin, the energy
conservation standards rulemaking analyses are ``influential scientific
information,'' which the Bulletin defines as ``scientific information
the agency reasonably can determine will have, or does have, a clear
and substantial impact on important public policies or private sector
decisions.'' Id. at 70 FR 2667.
In response to OMB's Bulletin, DOE conducted formal peer reviews of
the energy conservation standards development process and the analyses
that are typically used and has prepared a report describing that peer
review.\49\ 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.
DOE has determined that the peer-reviewed analytical process continues
to reflect current practice, and the Department followed that process
for developing energy conservation standards in the case of the present
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ ``Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Peer Review
Report.'' 2007. Available at https://energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/energy-conservation-standards-rulemaking-peer-review-report-0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. Public Participation
A. Attendance at Public Meeting
The time, date and location of the public meeting are listed in the
DATES and ADDRESSES sections at the beginning of this document. If you
plan to attend the public meeting, please notify Ms. Regina Washington
at (202) 586-1214 or [email protected].
Please note that foreign nationals visiting DOE Headquarters are
subject to advance security screening procedures which require advance
notice prior to attendance at the public meeting. If a foreign national
wishes to participate in the public meeting, please inform DOE of this
fact as soon as possible by contacting Ms. Regina Washington at (202)
586-1214 or by email: [email protected] so that the
necessary procedures can be completed.
DOE requires visitors to have laptops and other devices, such as
tablets, checked upon entry into the building. Any person wishing to
bring these devices into the Forrestal Building will be required to
obtain a property pass. Visitors should avoid bringing these devices,
or allow an extra 45 minutes to check in. Please report to the
visitor's desk to have devices checked before proceeding through
security.
Due to the REAL ID Act implemented by the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), there have been recent changes regarding ID
requirements for individuals wishing to enter Federal buildings from
specific States and U.S. territories. DHS maintains an updated website
identifying the State and territory driver's licenses that currently
are acceptable for entry into DOE facilities at https://www.dhs.gov/real-id-enforcement-brief. A driver's license from a State or territory
identified as not compliant by DHS will not be accepted for building
entry and one of the alternate forms of ID listed below will be
required. Acceptable alternate forms of Photo-ID include U.S. Passport
or Passport Card; an Enhanced Driver's License or Enhanced ID-Card
issued by States and territories as identified on the DHS website
(Enhanced licenses issued by these States and territories are clearly
marked Enhanced or Enhanced Driver's License); a military ID or other
Federal government-issued Photo-ID card.
In addition, you can attend the public meeting via webinar. Webinar
registration information, participant instructions, and information
about the capabilities available to webinar participants will be
published on DOE's website: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/product.aspx/productid/41. Participants are
responsible for ensuring their systems are compatible with the webinar
software.
B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for
Distribution
Any person who has plans to present a prepared general statement
may request that copies of his or her statement be made available at
the public meeting. Such persons may submit requests, along with an
advance electronic copy of their statement in PDF (preferred),
Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format, to
the appropriate address
[[Page 46861]]
shown in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this NOPR. The
request and advance copy of statements must be received at least one
week before the public meeting and may be emailed, hand-delivered, or
sent by mail. DOE prefers to receive requests and advance copies via
email. Please include a telephone number to enable DOE staff to make a
follow-up contact, if needed.
C. Conduct of Public Meeting
DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the public meeting
and may also use a professional facilitator to aid discussion. The
meeting will not be a judicial or evidentiary-type public hearing, but
DOE will conduct it in accordance with section 336 of EPCA (42 U.S.C.
6306). A court reporter will be present to record the proceedings and
prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the right to schedule the order of
presentations and to establish the procedures governing the conduct of
the public meeting. After the public meeting and until the end of the
comment period, interested parties may submit further comments on the
proceedings and any aspect of the rulemaking.
The public meeting will be conducted in an informal, conference
style. DOE will present summaries of comments received before the
public meeting, allow time for prepared general statements by
participants, and encourage all interested parties to share their views
on issues affecting this rulemaking. Each participant will be allowed
to make a general statement (within time limits determined by DOE),
before the discussion of specific topics. DOE will permit, as time
permits, other participants to comment briefly on any general
statements.
At the end of all prepared statements on a topic, DOE will permit
participants to clarify their statements briefly and comment on
statements made by others. Participants should be prepared to answer
questions by DOE and by other participants concerning these issues. DOE
representatives may also ask questions of participants concerning other
matters relevant to this rulemaking. The official conducting the public
meeting will accept additional comments or questions from those
attending, as time permits. The presiding official will announce any
further procedural rules or modification of the above procedures that
may be needed for the proper conduct of the public meeting.
A transcript of the public meeting will be included in the docket,
which can be viewed as described in the Docket section at the beginning
of this notice. In addition, any person may buy a copy of the
transcript from the transcribing reporter.
D. The Time and Date of the Public Meeting and Submission of Comments
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this
proposed rule before or after the public meeting but no later than the
date provided in the DATES section at the beginning of this NOPD.
Interested parties may submit comments, data, and other information
using any of the methods described in the ADDRESSES section at the
beginning of this document.
Submitting comments via https://www.regulations.gov. The https://www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE
Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be
publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization
name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your
comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties,
DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you
include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your
comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable
should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to
your comment. Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see only first
and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments,
and any documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to https://www.regulations.gov information for which
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as
Confidential Business Information (CBI)). Comments submitted through
https://www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received
through the website will waive any CBI claims for the information
submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential
Business Information section.
DOE processes submissions made through https://www.regulations.gov
before posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of
being submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being
processed simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to
several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that https://www.regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your
comment.
Submitting comments via email, hand delivery/courier, or postal
mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery/
courier, or postal mail also will be posted to https://www.regulations.gov. If you do not want your personal contact
information to be publicly viewable, do not include it in your comment
or any accompanying documents. Instead, provide your contact
information in a cover letter. Include your first and last names, email
address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover
letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any
comments.
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data,
documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via postal mail
or hand delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if
feasible, in which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies.
No telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that
are not secured, that are written in English, and that are free of any
defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or
any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the
electronic signature of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting
time.
Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any
person submitting information that he or she believes to be
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via
email, postal mail, or hand delivery/courier two well-marked copies:
One copy of the document marked ``confidential'' including all the
information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document
marked ``non-confidential'' with the information believed to be
confidential deleted. Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if
feasible. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential
[[Page 46862]]
status of the information and treat it according to its determination.
Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat
submitted information as confidential include (1) a description of the
items, (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as
confidential within the industry, (3) whether the information is
generally known by or available from other sources, (4) whether the
information has previously been made available to others without
obligation concerning its confidentiality, (5) an explanation of the
competitive injury to the submitting person that would result from
public disclosure, (6) when such information might lose its
confidential character due to the passage of time, and (7) why
disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public
docket, without change and as received, including any personal
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be
exempt from public disclosure).
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, DOE
is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of
interested parties concerning the following issues:
(1) DOE seeks comment on the technology options identified and the
ones selected as design options in the screening analysis. See sections
IV.A.3 and IV.A.4 of this document.
(2) DOE seeks comment on the performance characteristics of the
more efficacious substitute modeled for GSILs. See section IV.B.3 of
this document.
(3) DOE welcomes any relevant data and comment on the energy use
analysis methodology. See section IV.D of this document.
(4) DOE welcomes any relevant data and comment on the LCC and PBP
analysis methodology. See section IV.E of this document.
(5) DOE welcomes any relevant data and comment on the shipments
analysis methodology. See section IV.F of this document.
(6) DOE seeks any relevant data and comment on the potential
rebound effect for GSILs. See section IV.G.1 of this document.
VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this notice of
proposed determination.
Signed in Washington, DC, on August 28, 2019.
Daniel R. Simmons,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 2019-18941 Filed 9-4-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P