Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts, 81558-81586 [2020-27045]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
81558
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 430
[EERE–2015–BT–STD–0006]
RIN 1905–AD51
Energy Conservation Program: Energy
Conservation Standards for
Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Final determination.
AGENCY:
The Energy Policy and
Conservation Act, as amended
(‘‘EPCA’’), prescribes energy
conservation standards for various
consumer products and certain
commercial and industrial equipment,
including fluorescent lamp ballasts
(‘‘FLBs’’). EPCA also requires the U.S.
Department of Energy (‘‘DOE’’) to
periodically determine whether morestringent standards would be
technologically feasible and cost
effective, and would result in significant
energy savings. In this final
determination, DOE has determined that
energy conservation standards for
fluorescent lamp ballasts do not need to
be amended.
DATES: The effective date of this final
determination is December 16, 2020.
ADDRESSES: The docket for this
rulemaking, which includes Federal
Register notices, public meeting
attendee lists and transcripts,
comments, and other supporting
documents/materials, is available for
review at 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/
document?D=EERE-2015-BT-STD-0006.
The docket web page contains
instructions on how to access all
documents, including public comments,
in the docket.
For further information on how to
review the docket, contact the
Appliance and Equipment Standards
Program staff at (202) 287–1445 or by
email: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
SUMMARY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. John Cymbalsky, U.S. Department
of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000
Independence Avenue SW, Washington,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Dec 15, 2020
Jkt 253001
DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 287–
1692. Email:
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
Ms. Amelia Whiting, U.S. Department
of Energy, Office of the General Counsel,
GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 586–2588. Email:
Amelia.Whiting@hq.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Synopsis of the Final Determination
II. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
1. Current Standards
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for
Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts
III. General Discussion
A. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage
B. Test Procedure
C. Technological Feasibility
1. General
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible
Levels
D. Energy Savings
1. Determination of Savings
2. Significance of Savings
E. Cost Effectiveness
F. Other Analyses
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related
Comments
A. Analysis Approach and Determination
B. Market and Technology Assessment
1. Scope of Coverage
2. Metric
3. Product Classes
4. Technology Options
C. Screening Analysis
1. Screened-Out Technologies
2. Remaining Technologies
D. Engineering Analysis
1. Representative Product Classes
2. Baseline Ballasts
3. More Efficient Ballasts
4. Efficiency Levels
5. Scaling to Other Product Classes
E. Product Price Determination
F. Energy Use Analysis
G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
Analysis
1. Product Cost
2. Installation Cost
3. Annual Energy Consumption
4. Energy Prices
5. Maintenance and Repair Costs
6. Product Lifetime
7. Discount Rates
8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the NoNew-Standards Case
9. Payback Period Analysis
H. Shipments Analysis
I. National Impact Analysis
1. Product Efficiency Trends
2. National Energy Savings
3. Net Present Value Analysis
J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
1. Overview
2. Manufacturer Production Costs
3. Shipments Projections
4. Product and Capital Conversion Costs
5. Markup Scenarios
6. Manufacturer Interviews
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
V. Analytical Results and Conclusions
A. Economic Justification and Energy
Savings
1. Economic Impacts on Individual
Consumers
2. National Impact Analysis
a. Significance of Energy Savings
b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs
and Benefits
3. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results
b. Direct Impacts on Employment
c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers
e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
B. Final Determination
1. Technological Feasibility
2. Cost Effectiveness
3. Significant Conservation of Energy
4. Other Analysis
5. Summary
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866
and 13563
B. Review Under Executive Orders 13771
and 13777
C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act
D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction
Act
E. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
F. Review Under Executive Order 13132
G. Review Under Executive Order 12988
H. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995
I. Review Under the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 1999
J. Review Under Executive Order 12630
K. Review Under the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 2001
L. Review Under Executive Order 13211
M. Information Quality
N. Congressional Notification
VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Synopsis of the Final Determination
Title III, Part B 1 of the Energy Policy
and Conservation Act, as amended
(‘‘EPCA’’),2 established the Energy
Conservation Program for Consumer
Products Other Than Automobiles. (42
U.S.C. 6291–6309) These products
include fluorescent lamp ballasts, the
subject of this final determination.
Pursuant to the EPCA requirement
that not later than 6 years after issuance
of any final rule establishing or
amending an energy conservation
standard for a covered product, DOE
must publish either a notice of
determination indicating that standards
for the product do not need to be
amended, or a notice of proposed
rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’) including new
proposed energy conservation
standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and
(B))
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).
E:\FR\FM\16DER2.SGM
16DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
DOE analyzed fluorescent lamp
ballasts subject to standards specified in
title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (‘‘CFR’’) 430.32(m). In
addition, DOE evaluated whether
current standards should be extended to
additional fluorescent lamp ballasts.
Specifically, DOE considered standards
for dimming ballasts and 4-foot T8
medium bipin (‘‘MBP’’) programmed
start (‘‘PS’’) ballasts with an average
current less than 140 milliampere
(‘‘mA’’) (hereafter low-current PS
ballasts). Hence, potential amended
energy conservation standards in this
final determination refer not only to
changes to existing standards but also
extension of standards to additional
fluorescent lamp ballasts.
DOE first analyzed the technological
feasibility of more efficient fluorescent
lamp ballasts. For those fluorescent
lamp ballasts for which DOE
determined it to be technologically
feasible to have higher standards or be
subject to standards, DOE estimated
energy savings that would result from
potential energy conservation standards
by conducting a national impact
analysis (‘‘NIA’’). DOE evaluated
whether these amended standards
would be cost effective by conducting
life-cycle cost (‘‘LCC’’) and payback
period (‘‘PBP’’) analyses, and estimated
the net present value (‘‘NPV’’) of the
total costs and benefits experienced by
consumers. 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 determined that
current standards for fluorescent lamp
ballasts do not need to be amended
because amended standards would not
be cost effective and would not result in
significant energy savings.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
II. Introduction
The following section briefly
discusses the statutory authority
underlying this final determination, as
well as some of the relevant historical
background related to the establishment
of standards for fluorescent lamp
ballasts.
A. Authority
EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the
energy efficiency of a number of
consumer products and certain
industrial equipment. Title III Part B of
EPCA, established the Energy
Conservation Program for Consumer
Products Other Than Automobiles.
These products include fluorescent
lamp ballasts, the subject of this
document. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(13)) EPCA
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Dec 15, 2020
Jkt 253001
prescribed energy conservation
standards for these products (42 U.S.C.
6295(g)(5), and directs DOE to conduct
future rulemakings to determine
whether to amend these standards. (42
U.S.C. 6295(g)(7)(A)–(B)) Through
amendments to EPCA under the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 (‘‘EPACT 2005’’),
Public Law 109–58, Congress
promulgated new energy conservation
standards for certain fluorescent lamp
ballasts. (EPACT 2005 section 135(c)(2);
codified at 42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(8)(A))
The energy conservation program
under EPCA, consists essentially of four
parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) the
establishment of Federal energy
conservation standards, and (4)
certification and enforcement
procedures. Relevant provisions of the
EPCA specifically include definitions
(42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42
U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42
U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation
standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), and the
authority to require information and
reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C.
6296).
Subject to certain criteria and
conditions, DOE is required to develop
test procedures to measure the energy
efficiency, energy use, or estimated
annual operating cost of each covered
product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A) and 42
U.S.C. 6295(r)) Manufacturers of
covered products must use the
prescribed DOE test procedure as the
basis for certifying to DOE that their
products comply with the applicable
energy conservation standards adopted
under EPCA and when making
representations to the public regarding
the energy use or efficiency of those
products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and 42
U.S.C. 6295(s)) Similarly, DOE must use
these test procedures to determine
whether the products comply with
standards adopted pursuant to EPCA.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The DOE test
procedures for fluorescent lamp ballasts
appear at title 10 CFR part 430, subpart
B, appendix Q.
Federal energy efficiency
requirements for covered products
established under EPCA generally
supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing,
labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C.
6297(a)–(c)) DOE may, however, grant
waivers of Federal preemption in
limited instances for particular State
laws or regulations, in accordance with
the procedures and other provisions set
forth under EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C.
6297(d)).
Pursuant to the amendments
contained in the Energy Independence
and Security Act of 2007 (‘‘EISA 2007’’),
Public Law 110–140, any final rule for
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
81559
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 and standards for fluorescent
lamp ballasts address standby mode and
off mode energy use. In this analysis,
DOE considers such energy use in its
determination of whether energy
conservation standards need to be
amended.
DOE is issuing this final
determination pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
6295(m), which states that DOE must
periodically review its already
established energy conservation
standards for a covered product no later
than 6 years from the issuance of a final
rule establishing or amending a
standard for a covered product. As a
result of this review, DOE must either
publish a determination that standards
do not need to be amended or a NOPR,
including new proposed standards
(proceeding to a final rule, as
appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1))
EPCA further provides that, not later
than 3 years after the issuance of a final
determination not to amend standards,
DOE must make a new determination
and publish either a notice of
determination that standards for the
product do not need to be amended, or
a NOPR including new proposed energy
conservation standards (proceeding to a
final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C.
6295(m)(3)(B))
DOE must make the analysis on
which the determination is based
publicly available and provide an
opportunity for written comment. (42
U.S.C. 6295(m)(2)) A determination that
amended standards are not needed must
be based on consideration of whether
amended standards will result in
significant conservation of energy, are
technologically feasible, and are cost
effective. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and
42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)) Additionally, any
new or amended energy conservation
standard prescribed by the Secretary for
any type (or class) of covered product
shall be designed to achieve the
maximum improvement in energy
efficiency which the Secretary
determines is technologically feasible
and economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(A)) Among the factors DOE
E:\FR\FM\16DER2.SGM
16DER2
81560
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
considers in evaluating whether a
proposed standard level is economically
justified includes whether the proposed
standard at that level is cost-effective, as
defined under 42 U. S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II). Under 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II), an evaluation of cost
effectiveness requires that DOE consider
savings in operating costs throughout
the estimated average life of the covered
products in the type (or class) compared
to any increase in the price of, or initial
charges for, or maintenance expenses of,
the covered products that are likely to
result from the standard. (42 U.S.C.
6295(n)(2) and 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II))
B. Background
1. Current Standards
In a final rule published on November
14, 2011, DOE prescribed the current
energy conservation standards for
fluorescent lamp ballasts manufactured
on and after November 14, 2014 (‘‘2011
FL Ballast Rule’’). 76 FR 70548. These
standards require a minimum power
factor of 0.9 or greater for ballasts that
are not residential ballasts or 0.5 or
greater for residential ballasts and a
minimum ballast luminous efficiency
(‘‘BLE’’) as set forth in DOE’s regulations
at 10 CFR 430.32(m) and repeated in
Table II.1.
TABLE II.1—FEDERAL ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR FLUORESCENT LAMP BALLASTS
BLE = A / (1 + B * average total lamp arc power ∧¥C) Where A, B, and C are as follows:
Description
A
Instant start and rapid start ballasts (not classified as residential) that are designed and marketed to operate: ......................................................................................................................
4-foot medium bipin lamps.
2-foot U-shaped lamps.
8-foot slimline lamps.
Programmed start ballasts (not classified as residential) that are designed and marketed to
operate: ....................................................................................................................................
4-foot medium bipin lamps.
2-foot U-shaped lamps.
4-foot miniature bipin standard output lamps.
4-foot miniature bipin high output lamps.
Instant start and rapid start ballasts (not classified as sign ballasts) that are designed and
marketed to operate 8-foot high output lamps ........................................................................
Programmed start ballasts (not classified as sign ballasts) that are designed and marketed to
operate 8-foot high output lamps .............................................................................................
Sign ballasts that are designed and marketed operate 8-foot high output lamps ......................
Instant start and rapid start residential ballasts that are designed and marketed operate: .......
4-foot medium bipin lamps.
2-foot U-shaped lamps.
8-foot slimline lamps.
Programmed start residential ballasts that are designed and marketed to operate: ..................
4-foot medium bipin lamps.
2-foot U-shaped lamps.
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for
Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts
In support of the present review of the
fluorescent lamp ballast energy
conservation standards, DOE prepared
the ‘‘Energy Conservation Standards
Rulemaking Framework Document for
Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts’’
(‘‘Framework Document’’), which
describes the procedural and analytical
approaches DOE anticipated using to
evaluate energy conservation standards
for fluorescent lamp ballasts. On June
23, 2015, DOE published a notice
announcing the availability of the
Framework Document. 80 FR 35886.
The Framework Document is available
in the docket provided under the
ADDRESSES section. DOE held a public
meeting on July 17, 2015, at which it
described the various analyses that DOE
would conduct as part of its review of
the energy conservation standards for
fluorescent lamp ballasts, such as the
engineering analysis, the LCC and PBP
analyses, and the NIA. Representatives
for manufacturers, trade associations,
environmental and energy efficiency
advocates, and other interested parties
attended the meeting. The transcript of
the public meeting is available in the
docket provided under the ADDRESSES
section.
B
C
0.993
0.27
0.25
0.993
0.51
0.37
0.993
0.38
0.25
0.973
0.993
0.993
0.70
0.47
0.41
0.37
0.25
0.25
0.973
0.71
0.37
On October 22, 2019, DOE published
a notice of proposed determination
(‘‘October 2019 NOPD’’) with the initial
determination that energy conservation
standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts
do not need to be amended. 84 FR
56540. DOE held a webinar on October
30, 2019 to discuss the analysis and
results of the October 2019 NOPD. A
transcript of the webinar is available in
the docket provided under the
ADDRESSES section.
DOE received six comments in
response to the October 2019 NOPD
from the interested parties listed in
Table II.2.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
TABLE II.2—OCTOBER 2019 NOPD WRITTEN COMMENTS
Organization(s)
Reference in this
final determination
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E), and Southern
California Edison (SCE).
Signify North America Corporation ...........................................................................................................
National Electrical Manufacturers Association .........................................................................................
Lutron Electronics Co., Inc .......................................................................................................................
CA IOUs ................
Utilities.
Signify ...................
NEMA ....................
Lutron ....................
Manufacturer.
Trade Association.
Manufacturer.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Dec 15, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\16DER2.SGM
16DER2
Organization type
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
81561
TABLE II.2—OCTOBER 2019 NOPD WRITTEN COMMENTS—Continued
Organization(s)
Reference in this
final determination
Institute for Policy Integrity .......................................................................................................................
John Danison ............................................................................................................................................
IPI ..........................
Danison .................
A parenthetical reference at the end of
a comment quotation or paraphrase
provides the location of the item in the
public record.3
III. General Discussion
DOE developed the conclusions in
this notice after considering oral and
written comments, data, and
information from interested parties that
represent a variety of interests.
A. Product Classes and Scope of
Coverage
When evaluating and establishing
energy conservation standards, DOE
divides covered products into product
classes by the type of energy used or by
capacity or other performance-related
features that justify differing standards.
In making a determination whether a
performance-related feature justifies a
different standard, DOE must consider
such factors as the utility of the feature
to the consumer and other factors DOE
determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C.
6295(q))
The product classes for this proposed
determination are discussed in further
detail in section IV.B.3 of this
document. This final determination
covers fluorescent lamp ballasts defined
as devices that are used to start and
operate fluorescent lamps by providing
a starting voltage and current and
limiting the current during normal
operation. 10 CFR 430.2. The scope of
coverage is discussed in further detail in
section IV.B.1 of this document.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
B. Test Procedure
EPCA sets forth generally applicable
criteria and procedures for DOE’s
adoption and amendment of test
procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6293)
Manufacturers of covered products must
use these test procedures to certify to
DOE that their product complies with
energy conservation standards and to
quantify the efficiency of their product.
DOE’s current energy conservation
3 The
parenthetical reference provides a reference
for information located in the docket of DOE’s
rulemaking to develop energy conservation
standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts. (Docket No.
EERE- EERE–2015–BT–STD–0006, which is
maintained at https://www.regulations.gov/
docket?D=EERE-2015-BT-STD-0006). The
references are arranged as follows: (commenter
name, comment docket ID number at page of that
document).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Dec 15, 2020
Jkt 253001
standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts
are expressed in terms of BLE. 10 CFR
430.32(m)
DOE initiated a review of the FLB test
procedure and on March 18, 2019,
published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NOPR) for the FLB test
procedure. In that NOPR DOE proposed
to (1) update references to industry
standards, (2) clarify the selection of
reference lamps, (3) provide a second
stabilization option for measuring
ballast luminous efficiency, (4) provide
a test procedure for measuring the
performance of ballasts at light outputs
less than full light output, and (5) revise
the test procedure for measuring
standby mode energy consumption. 84
FR 9910. In the final rule published
September 14, 2020 DOE adopted (1)
updates to references to industry
standards, (2) clarification of selection
reference lamps, (3) a second
stabilization option for measuring BLE
and general updates to the stabilization
steps, and (4) revision of the standby
mode energy consumption test
procedure. 85 FR 56475. DOE did not
adopt the proposed test procedure for
measuring performance of ballasts at
light output less than full light output.
85 FR 56485
C. Technological Feasibility
1. General
In each energy conservation standards
rulemaking, DOE conducts a screening
analysis based on information gathered
on all current technology options and
prototype designs that could improve
the efficiency of the products or
equipment that are the subject of the
rulemaking. As the first step in such an
analysis, DOE develops a list of
technology options for consideration in
consultation with manufacturers, design
engineers, and other interested parties.
Section 6(c)(1) of 10 CFR part 430,
subpart C, appendix A (the ‘‘Process
Rule’’). DOE then determines which of
those means for improving efficiency
are technologically feasible. DOE
considers technologies incorporated in
commercially available products or in
working prototypes to be
technologically feasible. Sections
6(c)(3)(i) and 7(b)(1) of the ‘‘Process
Rule’’.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Organization type
Think Tank.
Individual.
After DOE has determined that
particular technology options are
technologically feasible, it further
evaluates each technology option in
light of the following additional
screening criteria: (1) Practicability to
manufacture, install, and service; (2)
adverse impacts on product utility or
availability; (3) adverse impacts on
health or safety; and (4) unique-pathway
proprietary technologies. Sections
6(c)(3)(ii)–(v) and 7(b)(2)–(5) of the
Process Rule. Section IV.C of this
document discusses the results of the
screening analysis for fluorescent lamp
ballasts, particularly the designs DOE
considered, those it screened out, and
those that are the basis for the standards
considered in this rulemaking. For
further details on the screening analysis
for this rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the
final determination technical support
document (‘‘TSD’’).
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible
Levels
When DOE considers amended
standards for a type or class of covered
product, it must determine the
maximum improvement in energy
efficiency or maximum reduction in
energy use that is technologically
feasible for such product. (42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(1)) Accordingly, in the
engineering analysis, DOE determined
the maximum technologically feasible
(‘‘max-tech’’) improvements in energy
efficiency for fluorescent lamp ballasts,
using the design parameters for the most
efficient products available on the
market or in working prototypes. The
max-tech levels that DOE determined
for this rulemaking are described in
section IV.D of this final determination
and in chapter 5 of the final
determination TSD.
D. Energy Savings
1. Determination of Savings
For each efficiency level (‘‘EL’’), DOE
projected energy savings from the
application of the EL to fluorescent
lamp ballasts purchased in the 30-year
period that begins in the year of
compliance with the potential standards
E:\FR\FM\16DER2.SGM
16DER2
81562
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
(2023–2052).4 The savings are measured
over the entire lifetime of fluorescent
lamp ballasts purchased in the 30-year
analysis period. DOE quantified the
energy savings attributable to each EL as
the difference in energy consumption
between each standards case and the nonew-standards case. The no-newstandards case represents a projection of
energy consumption that reflects how
the market for a product would likely
evolve in the absence of amended
energy conservation standards.
DOE used its NIA spreadsheet models
to estimate national energy savings
(‘‘NES’’) from potential amended
standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts.
The NIA spreadsheet model (described
in section IV.I of this document)
calculates energy savings in terms of site
energy, which is the energy directly
consumed by products at the locations
where they are used. For electricity,
DOE reports NES in terms of primary
energy savings, which is the savings in
the energy that is used to generate and
transmit the site electricity. For natural
gas, the primary energy savings are
considered to be equal to the site energy
savings. DOE also calculates NES in
terms of full fuel cycle (‘‘FFC’’) energy
savings. The FFC metric includes the
energy consumed in extracting,
processing, and transporting primary
fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum
fuels), and thus presents a more
complete picture of the impacts of
energy conservation standards.5 DOE’s
approach is based on the calculation of
an FFC multiplier for each of the energy
types used by covered products or
equipment. For more information on
FFC energy savings, see section V.A.2.a
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); 42
U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)) The term
‘‘significant’’ is not defined in EPCA.
DOE has established a significance
threshold for energy savings. (See
Section 6(b) of the Process Rule.) In
evaluating the significance of energy
savings, DOE conducts a two-step
approach that considers both an
absolute site energy savings threshold
and a threshold that is the percent
reduction in the covered energy use. Id.
4 DOE also presents a sensitivity analysis that
considers impacts for products shipped in a 9-year
period.
5 The FFC metric is discussed in DOE’s statement
of policy and notice of policy amendment. 76 FR
51282 (Aug. 18, 2011), as amended at 77 FR 49701
(Aug. 17, 2012).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Dec 15, 2020
Jkt 253001
DOE first evaluates the projected energy
savings from a potential max-tech
standard over a 30-year period against a
0.3 quads of site energy threshold. (See
Section 6(b)(2) of the Process Rule.) If
the 0.3 quad-threshold is not met, DOE
then compares the max-tech savings to
the total energy usage of the covered
equipment to calculate a percentage
reduction in energy usage. (See Section
6(b)(3) of the Process Rule.) If this
comparison does not yield a reduction
in site energy use of at least 10 percent
over a 30-year period, DOE proposes
that no significant energy savings would
likely result from setting new or
amended standards. (See Section 6(b)(4)
of the Process Rule.) The two-step
approach allows DOE to ascertain
whether a potential standard satisfies
EPCA’s significant energy savings
requirements in 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.’’
EPCA defines ‘‘energy efficiency’’ as
the ratio of the useful output of services
from a consumer product to the energy
use of such product, measured
according to the Federal test procedures.
(42 U.S.C. 6291(5), emphasis added)
EPCA defines ‘‘energy use’’ as the
quantity of energy directly consumed by
a consumer product at point of use, as
measured by the Federal test
procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6291(4)) Further,
EPCA uses a household energy
consumption metric as a threshold for
setting standards for new covered
products. (42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(1)(A–B))
Given this context, DOE relies on site
energy as the appropriate metric for
evaluating the significance of energy
savings.
At the time of the October 2019 NOPD
analysis, the two-step approach to
determining significant energy savings
had not been finalized. In the October
2019 NOPD, DOE reported the projected
site energy savings over a 30-year
analysis period for each EL evaluated.
DOE tentatively determined in the
October 2019 NOPD that amended
standards at the evaluated ELs would
not be cost effective. 84 FR 56540,
56583.
E. Cost Effectiveness
Under EPCA’s six-year-lookback
review provision for existing energy
conservation standards at 42 U.S.C.
6295(m)(1), cost-effectiveness of
potential amended standards is a
relevant consideration both where DOE
proposes to adopt such standards, as
well as where it does not. In considering
cost-effectiveness when making a
determination of whether existing
energy conservation standards do not
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
need to be amended, DOE considers the
savings in operating costs throughout
the estimated average life of the covered
product compared to any increase in the
price of, or in the initial charges for, or
maintenance expenses of, the covered
product that is likely to result from a
standard. (42 U.S.C.
6295(m)(1)(A)(referencing 42 U.S.C.
6295(n)(2))) Additionally, any new or
amended energy conservation standard
prescribed by the Secretary for any type
(or class) of covered product shall be
designed to achieve the maximum
improvement in energy efficiency which
the Secretary determines is
technologically feasible and
economically justified. 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(A) Cost-effectiveness is one
of the factors that DOE must ultimately
consider under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)
to support a finding of economic
justification, if it is determined that
amended standards are appropriate
under the applicable statutory criteria.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II))
F. Other Analyses
In addition to the analyses conducted
in consideration of the statutory criteria
under EPCA’s periodic review
requirement at 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1),
DOE also conducted an MIA that
determines the potential economic
impact of amended standards on FLB
manufacturers.
The analyses employed by DOE in its
consideration of each of the criteria
applied are discussed in the following
sections.
IV. Methodology and Discussion of
Related Comments
This section addresses the analyses
DOE has performed for this final
determination with regards to
fluorescent lamp ballasts. Separate
subsections address each component of
DOE’s analyses and respond to
comments received.
A. Analysis Approach and
Determination
DOE conducted several analyses
(described in the following subsections)
to estimate the impact of the standards
considered in this document. Several of
these analyses utilized spreadsheets as
tools to generate quantitative results.
The first spreadsheet calculates the LCC
savings and PBP of potential amended
or new energy conservation standards.
The NIA uses a second spreadsheet set
that provides shipments projections and
calculates NES and net NPV of total
consumer costs and savings expected to
result from potential energy
conservation standards. DOE uses the
third spreadsheet, the Government
E:\FR\FM\16DER2.SGM
16DER2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Regulatory Impact Model (‘‘GRIM’’), to
assess manufacturer impacts of potential
standards. These three spreadsheet tools
are available on the DOE website for this
rulemaking: https://
www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE2015-BT-STD-0006.
DOE received several comments on its
analytical approach. IPI stated that by
not including an analysis of potential
emissions reductions from setting
higher efficiency standards for
fluorescent lamp ballasts DOE violated
the statutory requirements. (IPI, No. 26
at p. 1) First, IPI discussed the
significance of energy conservation
criteria and asserted that even if
significance of the energy conservation,
technological feasibility, and cost
effectiveness are the criteria for a
determination, emissions reductions are
directly relevant to the ‘‘significance’’ of
the energy savings. Further, IPI stated
that ‘‘significance’’ can be evaluated by
comparing whether the ‘‘value’’ of
energy savings ‘‘outweighed’’ the ‘‘cost’’
(citing NRDC v. Herrington, 768 F.2d
1355, 1374 n.19 (D.C. Cir. 1985)) and
under that interpretation, environmental
benefits should be a central factor in
weighing the significance of energy
savings. (IPI, No. 26 at p. 2) IPI further
asserted EPCA provides analogous
factors to the ‘‘significance of energy’’
criteria, such as consideration of the
‘‘need for national energy . . .
conservation’’ in evaluating the
economic justification for standards,
which include consideration of
environmental effects, and that DOE
must consider these additional factors.
(IPI, No. 26 at pp. 2, 3; referencing Zero
Zone Inc. v. Dept. of Energy, 832 F.3d
654, 677 (7th Cir. 2016)) IPI also relied
on court interpretations of statutory
authority other than that governing the
Appliance Standards Program. (IPI, No.
26 at p. 3)
Second, IPI discussed DOE’s reliance
on cost effectiveness rather than
economic justification for the
determination. IPI stated that DOE
summarizes it review of standards as
fulfilling the requirements ‘‘to
periodically determine whether more
stringent, amended standards would be
technologically feasible and
economically justified’’, but failed to
explain why it ignored the factors for
determining if a standard is
economically justified. IPI asserted that
there are two possible outcomes
outlined in 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1) of a
single review process and that criteria
for developing an amended standard
should be relevant in determination if
amended standards are appropriate or
not, which includes ‘‘the need for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Dec 15, 2020
Jkt 253001
nation energy . . . conservation’’. (IPI,
No. 26 at pp. 2–3)
Additionally, IPI stated that by not
including an analysis of the potential
emissions reductions and the monetized
values of such reductions, DOE violated
the 2015 Framework Document, which
described emissions analysis as part of
the methodology DOE would employ.
Additionally, IPI stated DOE
contravened past DOE practices of
routinely analyzing emissions and
considering the social cost of
greenhouse gasses in its analysis. (IPI,
No. 26 at p. 1)
DOE disagrees with IPI’s
characterization of the statutory
requirements applicable in the present
case. In the Process Rule, DOE defined
how to determine significance of energy
savings under EPCA and developed a
two-step process to make that
determination. (See 85 FR 8703, 8655–
8676.) In this rulemaking DOE applied
the two-step approach which considers
both an absolute site energy savings
threshold and a threshold that is the
percent reduction in the covered energy
use. (See Section 6(b) of the Process
Rule.)
Further, as stated in section II.A of
this document, DOE is issuing this final
determination pursuant to periodic
review required under 42 U.S.C.
6295(m). Section 6295(m) provides that
not later than 6 years after issuance of
any final rule establishing or amending
a standard, the Secretary of Energy
(‘‘Secretary’’) shall publish (A) a notice
of the determination of the Secretary
that standards for the product do not
need to be amended, based on the
criteria established under subsection
(n)(2); or (B) a notice of proposed
rulemaking including new proposed
standards based on the criteria
established under subsection (o) and the
procedures established under
subsection (p). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A)
and (B)) The statute plainly provides
two separate sets of criteria—one set for
a determination that standards do not
need to be amended, and one set for
proposed standards. The criteria that are
the basis for proposed standards include
the requirements that any new or
amended standard for a 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(m)(1)(B) and 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(3)(B))
A determination of ‘‘economically
justified’’ requires consideration of
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
81563
seven factors,6 including the ‘‘need for
national energy conservation’’ factor
cited by IPI. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)–(VII))
However, DOE did not propose
amended or new standards for
fluorescent lamp ballasts, and is not
adopting any such amendments. DOE
proposed to determine that energy
conservation standards for fluorescent
lamp ballasts do not need to be
amended. EPCA explicitly provides a
more limited set of criteria on which a
determination that standards do not
need to be amended must be based.
Such a determination must be based on
consideration of whether amended
standards will result in significant
conservation of energy, are
technologically feasible, and are cost
effective. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and
42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2); emphasis added)
The ‘‘cost effective’’ consideration is a
more limited consideration than the
‘‘economically justified’’ consideration
required for proposing and adopting
amended energy conservation
standards.
EPCA specifies that consideration of
cost effectiveness requires DOE
consider, only one of the seven factors
for economic justification, savings in
operating costs throughout the
estimated average life of the covered
products in the type (or class) compared
to any increase in the price, initial
charges, or maintenance expenses for
the covered products that are likely to
result from the standard. (42 U.S.C.
6295(n)(2) and 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) The cost
effectiveness evaluation required by the
plain language of EPCA requires DOE to
evaluate impacts to consumers (i.e.,
operating costs and increase in initial
price). DOE has historically addressed
the ‘‘cost effectiveness’’ criterion
6 In deciding whether a proposed standard is
economically justified, DOE must determine
whether the benefits of the standard exceed its
burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must
make this determination after receiving comments
on the proposed standard, and by considering, to
the greatest extent practicable, the following seven
statutory factors: (1) The economic impact of the
standard on manufacturers and consumers of the
products subject to the standard; (2) the savings in
operating costs throughout the estimated average
life of the covered products in the type (or class)
compared to any increase in the price, initial
charges, or maintenance expenses for the covered
products that are likely to result from the standard;
(3) the total projected amount of energy (or as
applicable, water) savings likely to result directly
from the standard; (4) any lessening of the utility
or the performance of the covered products likely
to result from the standard; (5) the impact of any
lessening of competition, as determined in writing
by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from
the standard; (6) the need for national energy and
water conservation; and (7) other factors the
Secretary considers relevant. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)–(VII))
E:\FR\FM\16DER2.SGM
16DER2
81564
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
through LCC, PBP, and NPV analyses,7
and has continued to do so in the
present case. IPI’s reliance on the ‘‘need
for national energy conservation’’ and
related interpretations are misplaced.
EPCA does not direct DOE to consider
the ‘‘need for national energy
conservation’’ as part of a determination
that energy conservation standards do
not need to be amended.
In advance of the October 2019
NOPD, DOE prepared the Framework
Document, which describes the
procedural and analytical approaches
DOE anticipated using to evaluate FLB
standards. As stated in that document,
the Framework Document provided a
starting point for developing standards
used to facilitate input and was not
definitive with respect to any issue to be
determined in the rulemaking.
(Framework Document, No. 1 at p. 1)
Discussion of an emissions analysis in
the Framework Document was
presented in the context of the analyses
DOE would expect to conduct for a
NOPR, i.e., analyses that would be
conducted in support of proposed
standards. (Framework Document, No. 1
at pp. 5–6) As stated, DOE is not
proposing new or amended standards
for fluorescent lamp ballasts.
DOE received general comments
agreeing with its tentative conclusion in
the October 2019 NOPD that amended
FLB standards are not warranted.
NEMA, Signify, Lutron, and CA IOUs
agreed with DOE’s proposed
determination to not amend FLB
standards. (NEMA, No. 24 at p. 2;
Signify, No. 27 at p. 2; Signify, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 21 at p. 50;
Lutron, No. 23 at p. 2; CA IOUs, No. 25
at p. 1) CA IOUs stated that because of
the steady decline of ballast shipments
due to advances in light-emitting diode
(‘‘LED’’) luminaires, the changes in
ballast technology to achieve what
would be minimal energy savings are
not warranted and would also likely not
be cost effective. (CA IOUs, No. 25 at p.
2) Lutron also cited the small potential
for energy savings and conclusions of
DOE’s NPV analysis as reasons not to
amend standards. (Lutron, No. 23 at p.
2) NEMA stated that manufacturers are
focusing on LED lighting systems and
are not investing now or in the future
in fluorescent ballast technology. NEMA
7 See e.g., 76 FR 70548, 70595 (‘‘Consumers
affected by new or amended standards usually
experience higher purchase prices and lower
operating costs. Generally, these effects on
individual consumers are best summarized by
changes in LCCs and by the payback period.’’) and
76 FR 70548, 70562 (‘‘For consumers in the
aggregate, DOE calculates the NPV from a national
perspective of the economic impacts on consumers
over the forecast period used in a particular
rulemaking.’’)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Dec 15, 2020
Jkt 253001
stated that any changes to existing
standards would result in manufacturers
discontinuing products, thereby limiting
product availability. NEMA stated that
the burdens and negative impacts of
such actions would not be outweighed
by the minor energy savings that may
remain at the max tech efficiency level.
(NEMA, No. 24 at pp. 1–3) Signify
added that regulatory action was not
necessary to accelerate the transition
from fluorescent lighting to LED
lighting. (Signify, No. 27 at p. 2) Lutron
agreed that amended standards would
result in discontinuing products that in
turn could require end users to replace
entire systems when doing only minor
retrofits or replacing failed components.
(Lutron, No. 23 at p. 2)
NEMA asserted that there is naturallyoccurring market adoption of LED
technology by users of fluorescent
technology. NEMA stated that the
switch to LED fixtures can be triggered
by (1) newer lamp/older ballast
compatibility problems in lamp
replacements, (2) ballast failure, (3)
reducing electricity operating costs, or
(4) building renovation. NEMA added
that lower cost and longer life are
driving forces for migration away from
FLB technology, and this consumer and
technology driven shift is a good
example of ‘‘other than regulatory
action’’ accomplishing an intended
outcome without government
regulation. NEMA concluded that
regulations that impacted cost or
availability of products to hasten
migration to other technology are
unnecessary. (NEMA, No. 24 at
pp. 5–6)
Lutron requested that if DOE changed
the conclusion of the proposed
determination based on stakeholder
comments, a supplementary NOPR or
similar document with an updated
analysis be published for comment.
(Lutron, No. 23 at p. 2)
In this final determination, DOE is
finalizing its initial conclusion that
changes to FLB standards are not
warranted (see section V.B for further
details). The following sections describe
the analyses DOE conducted in support
of this final determination.
B. Market and Technology Assessment
DOE develops information in the
market and technology assessment that
provides an overall picture of the
market for the products concerned,
including the purpose of the products,
the industry structure, manufacturers,
market characteristics, and technologies
used in the products. This activity
includes both quantitative and
qualitative assessments, based primarily
on publicly-available information. The
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
subjects addressed in the market and
technology assessment for this
rulemaking include: (1) A determination
of the scope of the rulemaking and
product classes, (2) manufacturers and
industry structure, (3) existing
efficiency programs, (4) shipments
information, (5) market and industry
trends, and (6) technologies or design
options that could improve the energy
efficiency of fluorescent lamp ballasts.
The key findings of DOE’s market
assessment are summarized in the
following sections. See chapter 3 of the
Final Determination TSD for further
discussion of the market and technology
assessment.
1. Scope of Coverage
Fluorescent lamp ballast means a
device that is used to start and operate
fluorescent lamps by providing a
starting voltage and current and limiting
the current during normal operation. 10
CFR 430.2. In this analysis, DOE relied
on the definition of ‘‘fluorescent lamp’’
in 10 CFR 430.2, which provides the
specific lamp lengths, bases, and
wattages included by the term. Any
product meeting the definition of
fluorescent lamp ballast is included in
DOE’s scope of coverage, though all
products within the scope of coverage
may not be subject to standards.
As part of its review of energy
conservation standards for fluorescent
lamp ballasts, DOE evaluated whether
current standards should be extended to
additional fluorescent lamp ballasts.
Fluorescent lamp ballasts
manufactured on or after November 14,
2014, that are designed and marketed to
operate at an input voltage at or between
120 volts (V) and 277 V, to operate with
an input current frequency of 60 hertz,
and for use with fluorescent lamps as
defined in 10 CFR 430.2 are currently
required to comply with the energy
conservation standards at 10 CFR
430.32(m)(1).
Fluorescent lamp ballasts
manufactured on or after November 14,
2014, that are designed and marketed to
operate at an input voltage at or between
120 and 277 V; to operate with an input
current frequency of 60 hertz for
dimming to 50 percent or less of the
maximum output of the ballast; and to
operate one or two F34T12 lamps, two
F96T12 Energy Saver (‘‘ES’’) lamps, or
two F96T12 high output (‘‘HO’’) ES
lamps are required to comply with the
energy conservation standards at 10 CFR
430.32(m)(2).
The following fluorescent lamp
ballasts are exempt from standards: (1)
A dimming ballast designed and
marketed to operate exclusively lamp
types other than one F34T12, two
E:\FR\FM\16DER2.SGM
16DER2
F34T12, two F96T12/ES, or two
F96T12HO/ES lamps; (2) a lowfrequency ballast that is designed and
marketed to operate T8 diameter lamps,
is designed and marketed for use in
electromagnetic interference-sensitiveenvironments only, and is shipped by
the manufacturer in packages containing
10 or fewer ballasts; and (3) a
programmed start ballast that operates
4-foot medium bipin T8 lamps and
delivers on average less than 140 mA to
each lamp. 10 CFR 430.32(m)(3).
Of these exemptions, in the October
2019 NOPD, DOE included in the
analysis all fluorescent lamp ballasts
that are dimmable and PS ballasts
operating 4-foot MBP T8 lamps and
using less than 140 mA (i.e., low-current
PS ballasts). 84 FR 56540, 56545–56548.
In the October 2019 NOPD, DOE
determined that alternative options such
as using PS ballasts with operating
current at 140 mA or higher, paired with
reduced-wattage lamps or decreasing
the number of lamps in the system
could provide low light output levels
comparable to those attained using lowcurrent PS ballasts. DOE identified
lamp-and-ballast replacements that
maintained system light output within
10 percent of a lamp-and-ballast system
using a low-current PS ballast and saved
energy. Because reasonable alternatives
to providing low light output utility
offered by low-current PS ballasts were
available, DOE found no reason to
continue the exemption of low-current
PS ballasts. DOE did not receive any
comments on this assessment. 84 FR
56540, 56547. In this final
determination, DOE continued to
include low-current PS ballasts in the
analysis.
In the October 2019 NOPD, DOE
determined that standards for dimming
ballasts could potentially result in
energy savings. Since the 2011 FL
Ballast Rule, DOE has observed an
increase in dimming products. DOE’s
review of manufacturer catalogs
indicates a wide range of dimming
ballast products available for use with
several lamp types.8 Further, DOE has
observed a range of efficiencies for
dimming ballasts, indicating that less
efficient products can be improved.
Additionally, state and local regulations
and building codes with increased
dimming and/or lighting control
requirements (e.g., CA Title 24 and
ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1–
2016 9) will continue to support
8 Specifically, 4-foot MBP lamps, 2-foot U-shaped
lamps, 4-foot MiniBP SO lamps, and 4-foot MiniBP
HO lamps.
9 American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and
Air-Conditioning Engineers. ANSI/ASHRAE/IES
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Dec 15, 2020
Jkt 253001
installation of dimming ballasts in the
near future. 84 FR 56540, 56545–56546.
DOE did not receive any comments on
this assessment. In this final
determination, DOE continued to
include dimming ballasts in the
analysis.
In summary, in addition to
fluorescent lamp ballasts subject to
current energy conservation standards,
in this analysis DOE evaluated all
fluorescent lamp ballasts that are
dimmable and PS fluorescent lamp
ballasts that operate 4-foot T8 MBP
lamps and deliver on average less than
140 mA to each lamp.
2. Metric
DOE’s current energy conservation
standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts
are expressed in terms of BLE. It is
calculated using the following equation
where A, B, and C are predefined
constants and power is the total lamp
arc power operated by a ballast (see
section IV.D.4 for further details):
NEMA stated that the constants used
to determine BLE would need to be
adjusted for dimming ballasts as these
ballasts have greater fixed losses due to
the additional functionality. (NEMA,
No. 24 at p. 3)
In this final determination, as in the
October 2019 NOPD, DOE evaluated
dimming ballasts as a separate product
class in order to account for the added
circuitry in dimming ballasts that make
them less efficient than comparable
standard ballasts. (See section IV.B.3
and 84 FR 56540, 56555–6). Because
dimming ballasts have a separate set of
efficiency levels, a separate equation to
account for their lower efficiency
compared to standards ballasts is not
required.
NEMA stated that due to
complications in evaluating cathode
heat losses, effective and repeatable BLE
measurements of dimming ballasts
could only be taken at full light output.
(NEMA, No. 24 at p. 3) Signify agreed
stating that at full light output when the
filament (i.e., cathode) heating circuit is
disconnected. (Signify, No. 27 at p. 1)
NEMA also commented that as ballasts
enter dimming mode, the operational
frequency increases, as well introducing
instrument uncertainty. Additionally,
NEMA stated that while no change is
required to the current DOE test
procedure for measuring dimming
Standard 90.1–2016—Energy Standard for
Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings.
Atlanta, GA: ASHRAE, 2016.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
81565
ballasts at 100 percent light output, at
any other light output, a new test circuit
and multiport power analyzer
equipment would be required. (NEMA,
No. 24 at p. 3)
No comments were received
suggesting that dimming ballasts be
tested at an output other than 100
percent.
This analysis is based on measuring
the BLE at full light output for all
ballasts, including dimming ballasts.
3. 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)(1))
In the October 2019 NOPD, DOE
assessed the product classes shown in
the following list in its analysis. 84 FR
56540, 56556. In describing product
classes, DOE includes the types of
lamps each class of ballast operates. In
the October 2019 NOPD, DOE updated
the lamp types for existing product
classes based on a review of the latest
product offerings on the market and
added 4-foot miniature bipin (MiniBP)
standard output (‘‘SO’’) and 4-foot
MiniBP HO lamp types to the instant
start (‘‘IS’’)/rapid start (‘‘RS’’) (not
classified as residential), IS/RS
residential, and PS residential product
classes. Id. Additionally, DOE evaluated
dimming ballasts as a separate product
class. Id. at 84 FR 56555. The product
classes assessed are as follows:
(1) IS and RS ballasts (not classified as
residential) that operate
(a) 4-foot MBP lamps
(b) 2-foot U-shaped lamps
(c) 4-foot MiniBP SO lamps
(d) 4-foot MiniBP HO lamps
(e) 8-foot single pin (‘‘SP’’) slimline
lamps
(2) PS ballasts (not classified as
residential) that operate
(a) 4-foot MBP lamps
(b) 2-foot U-shaped lamps
(c) 4-foot MiniBP SO lamps
(d) 4-foot MiniBP HO lamps
(3) IS and RS ballasts (not classified as
sign ballasts) that operate
(a) 8-foot HO lamps
(4) PS ballasts (not classified as sign
ballasts) that operate
(a) 8-foot HO lamps
(5) Sign ballasts that operate
(a) 8-foot HO lamps
(6) IS and RS residential ballasts that
operate
E:\FR\FM\16DER2.SGM
16DER2
ER16DE20.000</GPH>
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
81566
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
(a) 4-foot MBP lamps
(b) 2-foot U-shaped lamps
(c) 4-foot MiniBP SO lamps
(d) 4-foot MiniBP HO lamps
(e) 8-foot SP slimline lamps
(7) PS residential ballasts that operate
(a) 4-foot MBP lamps
(b) 2-foot U-shaped lamps
(c) 4-foot MiniBP SO lamps
(d) 4-foot MiniBP HO lamps
(8) Dimming ballasts that operate
(a) 4-foot MBP lamps
(b) 2-foot U-shaped lamps
(c) 4-foot MiniBP SO lamps
(d) 4-foot MiniBP HO lamps
Id. at 84 FR 56556.
DOE did not receive comments on
product classes presented in the October
2019 NOPD. In this final determination
DOE continues to separate fluorescent
lamp ballasts into the same product
classes as in the October 2019 NOPD.
See chapter 3 of the final determination
TSD for further discussion.
4. Technology Options
In the October 2019 NOPD market and
technology assessment, DOE identified
the technology options listed in Table
IV.1 to improve the efficiency of
fluorescent lamp ballasts, as measured
by the DOE test procedure.
TABLE IV.1—FLUORESCENT LAMP BALLAST TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS
Technology option
Description
Electronic ballast
Use an electronic ballast design
Improved Components:
Transformers/Inductors .....................................................................
Diodes ...............................................................................................
Capacitors .........................................................................................
Transistors .........................................................................................
Improved Circuit Design:
Cathode Cutout or Cutback ..............................................................
Integrated Circuits .............................................................................
Starting Method .................................................................................
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
84 FR 56540, 56552.
CA IOUs stated that the use of smaller
coils or increasing steel laminations
would cause larger ballast sizes and that
shape-optimized windings are not cost
effective for the small savings potential.
(CA IOUs, No. 25 at p. 1)
As an initial matter, DOE does not
consider cost when identifying
technology options; a cost assessment of
each efficiency level is assessed in the
LCC and PBP analysis and NIA. Using
multiple smaller coils instead of one
larger coil will increase the number of
turns of wire, which can increase the
induced voltage, and thereby minimize
losses from the transformer.10 The total
number of windings needed is divided
into several coils, which allows for
greater flexibility in utilizing the space
of the assembly and not changing the
size of the ballast.11 Regarding
increasing steel laminations, this
technology option was not proposed in
the October 2019 NOPD as DOE
determined that it may not minimize
losses in ballasts that operate at high
frequencies (i.e., electronic ballasts),
10 US20110018666A1, Multiple coils fluorescent
lamp ballast. April 1, 2008. Available at https://
patents.google.com/patent/US20110018666.
11 US20110018666A1, Multiple coils fluorescent
lamp ballast. April 1, 2008. Available at https://
patents.google.com/patent/US20110018666.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Dec 15, 2020
Jkt 253001
Use litz wire to reduce winding losses.
Use wire with multiple smaller coils instead of one larger coil to increase the number of turns of wire.
Use optimized-gauge copper to increase the conductor cross section to
reduce winding losses.
Use shape-optimized winding to reduce the proximity effect.
Use low-loss ferrite materials to create the core of the inductor.
Use diodes with a lower voltage drop.
Use capacitors with a lower effective series resistance.
Use transistors with low drain-to-source resistance.
Remove or reduce cathode/filament heating after lamp has started.
Substitute discrete components with an integrated circuit.
Use the IS starting method instead of a rapid start RS starting method.
which are the ballasts analyzed in this
determination. 84 FR 56540, 56551.
NEMA asserted that there had been no
technological changes in FLB
technology since the last DOE energy
conservation standards rule on
fluorescent lamp ballasts became
effective in 2014. (NEMA, No. 24 at p.
2)
Based on DOE’s review of the product
offerings and their efficiencies in
manufacturer catalogs and DOE’s
Compliance Certification Database
(‘‘CCD’’), there are ballasts on the
market at multiple levels of efficiencies.
DOE finds that the technology options
identified, individually and/or in
combination, are being utilized to
improve the efficiency of products.
DOE continues to consider the
technology options identified in the
October 2019 NOPD (see Table IV.1) in
this final determination. See chapter 3
of the final determination TSD for
further discussion.
C. Screening Analysis
DOE uses the following five screening
criteria to determine which technology
options are suitable for further
consideration in an energy conservation
standards rulemaking:
(1) Technological feasibility.
Technologies that are not incorporated
in commercial products or in
commercially-viable, existing
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
prototypes will not be considered
further.
(2) Practicability to manufacture,
install, and service. If it is determined
that mass production of a technology in
commercical products and reliable
installation and servicing of the
technology could not be achieved on the
scale necessary to serve the relevant
market at the time of the projected
compliance date of the standard, then
that technology will not be considered
further.
(3) Impacts on product utility or
product availability. If a technology is
determined that a technology would
have significant adverse impact on the
utility of the product to subgroups of
consumers, or would result in the
unavailability of any covered product
type with performance characteristics
(including reliability), features, sizes,
capacities, and volumes that are
substantially the same as products
generally available in the United States
at the time, it will not be considered
further.
(4) Adverse impacts on health or
safety. If it is determined that a
technology would have significant
adverse impacts on health or safety, it
will not be considered further.
(5) Unique-Pathway Proprietary
Technologies. If a technology has
proporiety protection and represents a
unique pathway to achieving a given
E:\FR\FM\16DER2.SGM
16DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
efficiency level, it will not be
considered further.
Sections 6(c)(3) and 7(b) of the Process
Rule.
In summary, if DOE determines that a
technology, or a combination of
technologies, fails to meet one or more
of the listed five criteria, it will be
excluded from further consideration in
the engineering analysis.
1. Screened-Out Technologies
In the October 2019 NOPD, DOE did
not screen out any technology options
identified. DOE did not receive any
comments on technology options that
should be screened out. 84 FR 56540,
56554. In this final determination, DOE
did not screen out any technology
options identified.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
2. Remaining Technologies
Through a review of each technology,
DOE concludes that all of the identified
technologies listed in section IV.B.4
meet all five screening criteria and are
examined further as design options. In
summary, DOE did not screen out the
following technology options:
(1) Electronic Ballasts
(2) Improved Components
(a) Use litz wire to reduce winding
losses.
(b) Use wire with multiple smaller coils
instead of one larger coil to increase
the number of turns of wire.
(c) Use optimized-gauge copper or
increase the conductor cross section
to reduce winding losses.
(d) Use shape-optimized winding to
reduce the proximity effect losses.
(e) Use diodes with lower voltage drop
to lower losses.
(f) Use capacitors with a lower effective
series resistance.
(g) Use transistors with low drain-tosource resistance.
(h) Use low-loss ferrite to create the core
of the inductor.
(3) Improved Circuit Design
(a) Remove filament heating after the
lamp has started.
(b) Substitute discrete components with
an integrated circuit.
DOE determined that these
technology options are technologically
feasible because they are being used or
have previously been used in
commercially-available products or
working prototypes. DOE also finds that
these technology options meet the other
screening criteria (i.e., practicable to
manufacture, install, and service; do not
result in adverse impacts on product
utility, product availability, health, or
safety; and are not proprietary).
John Danison, an individual
commentator, stated researchers should
make fluorescent lamp ballasts safer,
more cost effective, and last longer. He
stated the current expectancy of a
ballast is 6 months after which it will
start leaking and/or sparking, and if a
bad ballast burns, it could release toxins
resulting in serious health issues.
(Danison, No. 22 at p. 1)
As noted, DOE has determined that
the design options used to achieve the
efficiency of fluorescent lamp ballasts
do not have an adverse impact on
product utility or safety. Danison
provided references regarding pre-1979
ballast technology and general
information on fluorescent ballasts but
did not provide any support for his
stated safety concern, and DOE was
unable to verify it through other
resources. DOE did not receive any
comments during any phase of this
rulemaking or the previous 2011 FL
Ballast Rule to indicate that a ballast’s
life expectancy is only 6 months or that
its mode of failure could present health
and safety concerns. DOE also did not
find any similar concerns cited in
relevant product or industry literature.
Therefore, DOE continues to consider
the design options identified in the
October 2019 NOPD in this final
determination. For additional details,
see chapter 4 of the final determination
TSD.
derived typical inputs for use in the
LCC analysis and NIA. Section IV.E
discusses the product price
determination (see chapter 6 of the final
determination TSD for further detail).
The methodology for the engineering
analysis consists of the following steps:
(1) selecting representative product
classes,
(2) selecting baseline ballasts,
(3) identifying more efficient
substitutes,
(4) developing efficiency levels, and
(5) scaling efficiency levels to nonrepresentative product classes.
DOE used the BLE values from the
compliance certification database to
identify ballasts for all product classes
except dimming. Because most dimming
ballasts are not currently subject to
standards and therefore do not have
data in the compliance certification
database, DOE determined BLE values
by using catalog input power and the
associated total lamp arc power. As
fluorescent lamp ballasts are designed to
operate fluorescent lamps, DOE
considered properties of the entire
lamp-and-ballast system in the
engineering analysis. DOE paired
baseline and more-efficient ballasts with
full-wattage and/or reduced wattage
lamps, where appropriate, to reflect the
most common configurations of lampand-ballast systems.
The results of these steps are
summarized in the following sections.
The details of the engineering analysis
are discussed in chapter 5 of the final
determination TSD.
D. Engineering Analysis
As in the October 2019 NOPD, for this
final determination, DOE selected more
efficient substitutes in the engineering
analysis and determined the end-user
consumer prices of those substitutes in
the product price determination. DOE
estimated the consumer price of ballasts
directly because reverse engineering
ballasts is impractical due to the use of
potting, which is a black pitch added to
the ballast enclosure to reduce vibration
damage and act as a heat sink for the
circuit board. Potting does not allow for
the visual observation and identification
of individual components of the ballast
making it infeasible to apply a reverseengineering approach. By combining the
results of the engineering analysis and
the product price determination, DOE
1. Representative Product Classes
In the case where a covered product
has multiple product classes, DOE may
identify and select certain product
classes as ‘‘representative’’ and
concentrates its analytical effort on
those classes. For fluorescent lamp
ballasts, DOE chose product classes as
representative primarily because of their
high market volumes. Within certain
representative product classes, DOE also
selected multiple representative ballast
types to account for multiple highvolume units within the same product
class.
Table IV.2 shows the FLB product
classes, and shaded in grey are the
representative product classes and
representative ballast types selected for
analysis in the October 2019 NOPD.
TABLE IV.2—REPRESENTATIVE PRODUCT CLASSES AND REPRESENTATIVE BALLAST TYPES
Product class description *
Representative ballast type(s)
IS/RS Commercial
IS/RS Commercial ballasts that operate:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Dec 15, 2020
Jkt 253001
81567
PO 00000
2L 4-foot MBP; 4L 4-foot MBP, 2L 8-foot SP slimline.
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\16DER2.SGM
16DER2
81568
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE IV.2—REPRESENTATIVE PRODUCT CLASSES AND REPRESENTATIVE BALLAST TYPES—Continued
Product class description *
•
•
•
•
•
Representative ballast type(s)
4-foot
2-foot
4-foot
4-foot
8-foot
MBP.
U-shaped.
MiniBP SO.
MiniBP HO.
SP slimline lamps.
PS Commercial
PS Commercial ballasts that operate:
• 4-foot MBP
• 2-foot U-shaped
• 4-foot T5 SO
• 4-foot T5 HO lamps
IS/RS 8-foot HO
IS/RS ballasts that operate 8-foot HO lamps
PS 8-foot HO
PS ballasts that operate 8-foot HO lamps ...............................................
Sign
Sign ballasts that operate 8-foot HO lamps .............................................
IS/RS Residential
IS/RS Residential ballasts that operate:
• 4-foot MBP.
• 2-foot U-shaped.
• 4-foot MiniBP SO.
• 4-foot MiniBP HO.
• 8-foot SP slimline lamps.
PS Residential
PS Residential ballasts that operate:
• 4-foot MBP.
• 4-foot MiniBP SO.
• 4-foot MiniBP HO.
• 2-foot U-shaped.
Dimming
Dimming ballasts that operate:
• 4-foot MBP.
• 4-foot MiniBP SO.
• 4-foot MiniBP HO.
• 2-foot U-shaped.
2L 4-foot MBP, 4L 4-foot MBP, 2L 4-foot MiniBP SO, 2L 4-foot MiniBP
HO.
2L 8-foot recessed double contact (RDC) HO.
N/A.
4L 8-foot RDC HO.
2L 4-foot MBP.
N/A.
2L 4-foot MBP 0–10V, 2L 4-foot MiniBP SO 0–10 V, 2L 4-foot MiniBP
HO 0–10 V.
* Grey shading indicates a representative product class.
84 FR 56540, 56558.
2. Baseline Ballasts
DOE did not receive any comments on
the representative product classes
presented in the October 2019 NOPD.
DOE continues to analyze the
representative product classes analyzed
in the October 2019 NOPD in this final
determination.
For each representative product class,
DOE selected a baseline ballast as a
reference point against which to
measure changes resulting from energy
conservation standards. Typically, the
baseline ballast is the most common,
least efficient ballast that meets existing
energy conservation standards. In this
analysis, DOE selected as baselines the
least efficient ballast meeting standards
that operated the most common lamp
type (i.e., wattage and diameter) and
where possible, has the most common
ballast factor, input voltage, and
operating voltage type 12 for the product
class. In the October 2019 NOPD, DOE
directly analyzed the baseline ballasts
shown in Table IV.3.
TABLE IV.3—BASELINE BALLASTS
Product class
Ballast type
IS/RS Commercial
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
PS Commercial ...
IS/RS 8-foot HO ..
Sign .....................
IS/RS Residential
Dimming ..............
2L
4L
2L
2L
4L
2L
2L
2L
4L
2L
2L
2L
4-foot
4-foot
8-foot
4-foot
4-foot
4-foot
4-foot
8-foot
8-foot
4-foot
4-foot
4-foot
MBP ...................................
MBP ...................................
SP slimline .........................
MBP ...................................
MBP ...................................
MiniBP SO .........................
MiniBP HO .........................
RDC HO ............................
RDC HO ............................
MBP ...................................
MBP 0–10V .......................
MiniBP SO 0–10V .............
12 Operating voltage type denotes whether the
ballast can operate multiple voltages and is
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Dec 15, 2020
Jkt 253001
Starting
method
Lamp type
32 W T8 ........
32 W T8 ........
59 W T8 ........
32 W T8 ........
32 W T8 ........
28 W T5 ........
54 W T5 ........
110 W T12 ....
110 W T12 ....
32 W T8 ........
32 W T8 ........
28 W T5 ........
IS
IS
IS
PS
PS
PS
PS
RS
RS
IS
PS
PS
Input voltage/
operating
voltage *
(V)
277,
277,
277,
277,
277,
277,
277,
277,
120,
120,
277,
277,
Universal ...
Universal ...
Universal ...
Universal ...
Universal ...
Universal ...
Universal ...
Universal ...
Dedicated ..
Dedicated ..
Universal ...
Universal ...
Power
factor
Ballast
factor
0.97
0.98
0.98
0.90
0.90
0.98
0.98
0.99
0.90
0.50
0.98
0.98
considered universal or can only operate one
voltage and is considered dedicated.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\16DER2.SGM
16DER2
0.89
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.87
1.00
0.99
0.89
** 0.61
0.88
0.88
1.00
Input power
(W)
57.6
112.2
109.2
57.1
110.5
62.4
116.8
197.7
271.6
58.9
59.0
64.0
BLE
0.903
0.916
0.920
0.900
0.920
0.891
0.912
0.900
0.898
0.872
0.871
0.869
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
81569
TABLE IV.3—BASELINE BALLASTS—Continued
Product class
Input voltage/
operating
voltage *
(V)
Starting
method
Ballast type
Lamp type
2L 4-foot MiniBP HO 0–10V .............
54 W T5 ........
PS
Power
factor
277, Universal ...
Ballast
factor
0.98
Input power
(W)
1.00
118.0
BLE
0.912
* Universal indicates that the ballast can operate multiple voltages (i.e., 120 V or 277 V); dedicated indicates it can only operate the voltage specified.
** DOE found limited information on ballast factors of ballasts in the Sign product class. Based on this information, DOE used the most common ballast factor found
in catalogs for the product class for representative units that did not specify ballast factor.
84 FR 56540, 56559.
DOE did not receive any comments on
the baseline ballasts selected in the
October 2019 NOPD and maintained the
selected baseline ballasts for this final
determination. See chapter 5 of the final
determination TSD for more detail.
3. More Efficient Ballasts
In the analysis for the October 2019
NOPD, DOE selected more-efficient
ballasts as replacements for each of the
baseline ballasts by considering
technologies not eliminated in the
screening analysis. 84 FR 56540, 56559.
DOE considered these technologies in
the engineering analysis, either by
modeling potential efficiency
improvements due to the design options
or by analyzing commercially available
ballasts in which the design options are
incorporated. Id.
DOE selected a more-efficient
fluorescent lamp ballast with the same
or similar ballast factor as the baseline
ballast, so that light output would be
maintained without needing to change
the spacing of the fixture. Id.
Specifically, DOE ensured that potential
substitutes maintained the system light
output within 10 percent of the baseline
lamp-and-ballast system light output. Id.
Finally, DOE selected more-efficient
substitutes that showed an improvement
in BLE and a reduction in input power.
Id.
DOE did not receive any comments on
the more-efficient ballasts selected in
the October 2019 NOPD. DOE
maintained the more-efficient ballasts
selected in the October 2019 NOPD for
this final determination. See section
IV.D.4 and chapter 5 of the final
determination TSD for more detail.
4. Efficiency Levels
drove the market to achieve the highest
tier of efficiency practically available
and they were unaware of higher
efficiency ballasts on the market. CA
IOUs stated that ballasts on the market
are at or close to achieving the highest
operational efficiency that is still cost
effective, and there is no premium
ballast that represents EL 4. (CA IOUs,
No. 25 at pp. 1–2) NEMA also
commented that no changes should be
made to the ELs. (NEMA, No. 24 at
p. 3)
Signify stated it was unsure of the
validity of the data used to project a BLE
increase from 0.913 (EL 1) to 0.940
(max-tech) for the 2-lamp 4-foot MBP
ballasts in the IS/RS commercial
product class and that it had to conduct
a more detailed review. Signify further
stated that regardless, the increase in
BLE is too small to support amending
standards. (Signify, No. 27 at p. 1)
DOE used BLE values certified by
manufacturers in the DOE compliance
certification database to develop
efficiency levels. For each
representative ballast type, DOE
examined the spread of BLE values,
including clusters of similar BLE values
and distinctive increases in BLE values
to identify ELs. DOE also examined BLE
values for different product families for
each of several manufacturers to
confirm tiers of efficiencies.
DOE maintained the ELs and
associated representative units
presented in the October 2019 NOPD in
this final determination. The ELs and
the representative units for each
representative product class are shown
in Table IV.4 through Table IV.9. See
chapter 5 of the final determination TSD
for more detail.
After identifying more-efficient
substitutes for each of the baseline
ballasts, DOE developed ELs based on
the consideration of several factors,
including: (1) The design options
associated with the specific ballasts
being studied, (2) the ability of ballasts
across wattages to comply with the
standard level of a given product class,
and (3) the max-tech level. In the
October 2019 NOPD, DOE used the
same equation-based approach used in
the 2011 FL Ballast Rule. 84 FR 56540,
56560. DOE determined that a power
law equation best modeled the observed
trend between total lamp arc power and
average BLE. Specifically, DOE used the
following equation to develop ELs that
relate the total lamp arc power operated
by a ballast to BLE:
The ELs and the characteristics of the
representative units identified in the
October 2019 NOPD (84 FR 56540,
56564) are summarized in Table IV.4 to
Table IV.9. Product classes have up to
two or three levels of efficiencies. EL 1
represents an improved ballast with
more-efficient components (e.g.,
transformers, diodes, capacitors,
transistors) that minimize losses and
improved circuit design (e.g., integrated
circuitry). EL 2 represents an advanced
ballast with improved components and
improved circuit design. EL 3 represents
a ballast with the most efficient
combination of improved components
and circuit design.
CA IOUs stated that the last FLB
standards rule set requirements that
Product class
EL
IS/RS Commercial ...
EL 1 ....
IS/RS Commercial ...
EL 2 ....
IS/RS ........................
EL 3 ....
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Ballast type
2L
4L
2L
2L
4L
2L
2L
4L
18:41 Dec 15, 2020
4-foot
4-foot
8-foot
4-foot
4-foot
8-foot
4-foot
4-foot
MBP ...........................
MBP ...........................
SP slimline ................
MBP ...........................
MBP ...........................
SP slimline ................
MBP ...........................
MBP ...........................
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
32
32
59
32
32
59
32
32
Frm 00013
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
T8
T8
T8
T8
T8
T8
T8
T8
Input voltage/
operating
voltage,
(V) *
Starting
method
Lamp type
IS
IS
IS
IS
IS
IS
IS
IS
Fmt 4701
277,
277,
277,
277,
277,
277,
277,
277,
Sfmt 4700
Universal
Universal
Universal
Universal
Universal
Universal
Universal
Universal
Power
factor
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
E:\FR\FM\16DER2.SGM
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.99
0.98
16DER2
Ballast
factor
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.87
0.89
0.87
Input
power
(W)
56.3
110.9
108.5
55.7
109.7
106.4
55.3
107.0
BLE
0.913
0.927
0.926
0.923
0.937
0.934
0.940
0.950
ER16DE20.001</GPH>
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
TABLE IV.4—IS/RS COMMERCIAL REPRESENTATIVE UNITS
81570
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE IV.4—IS/RS COMMERCIAL REPRESENTATIVE UNITS—Continued
Product class
EL
Ballast type
2L 8-foot SP slimline ** .............
59 W T8
Input voltage/
operating
voltage,
(V) *
Starting
method
Lamp type
IS
Power
factor
277, Universal ...
Ballast
factor
0.98
0.87
Input
power
(W)
105.1
BLE
0.945
* Universal indicates that the ballast can operate multiple voltages (i.e., 120 V or 277 V).
** Grey shading indicates a modeled product.
TABLE IV.5—PS COMMERCIAL REPRESENTATIVE UNITS
Product class
EL
PS Commercial ........
EL 1
EL 2
Ballast type
2L
4L
2L
2L
2L
4L
2L
2L
4-foot
4-foot
4-foot
4-foot
4-foot
4-foot
4-foot
4-foot
Starting
method
Lamp type
MBP ................................
MBP ................................
MiniBP SO ......................
MiniBP HO ......................
MBP ................................
MBP ................................
MiniBP SO ......................
MiniBP HO ......................
32
32
28
54
32
32
28
54
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
T8
T8
T5
T5
T8
T8
T5
T5
PS
PS
PS
PS
PS
PS
PS
PS
Input voltage/
operating voltage
(V *)
277,
277,
277,
277,
277,
277,
277,
277,
Universal
Universal
Universal
Universal
Universal
Universal
Universal
Universal
Power
factor
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
Ballast
factor
0.97
0.98
0.98
0.97
0.98
0.99
0.98
0.98
0.88
0.87
1.00
1.00
0.88
0.87
1.00
1.00
Input
power
(W)
56.3
109.5
61.4
115.9
53.9
107.6
59.8
113.6
BLE
0.913
0.928
0.905
0.928
0.953
0.944
0.929
0.947
* Universal indicates that the ballast can operate multiple voltages (i.e., 120 V or 277 V).
TABLE IV.6—IS/RS 8-FOOT HO REPRESENTATIVE UNITS
Product class
EL
Ballast type
Lamp type
IS/RS 8-foot HO .......
EL 1
EL 2
2L 8-foot RDC HO ** ......................
2L 8-foot RDC HO .........................
110 W T12
110 W T12
Starting
method
RS
RS
Input voltage/
operating voltage
(V *)
Power
factor
277, Dedicated ..
277, Universal ...
Ballast
factor
0.98
0.98
0.90
0.90
Input
power
(W)
192.7
188.0
BLE
0.934
0.957
* Universal indicates that the ballast can operate multiple voltages (i.e., 120 V or 277 V).
TABLE IV.7—SIGN REPRESENTATIVE UNITS
Product class
EL
Ballast type
Lamp type
Sign ..........................
EL 1
EL 2
4L 8-foot RDC HO .........................
4L 8-foot RDC HO .........................
110 W T12
110 W T12
Starting
method
IS
IS
Input voltage/
operating voltage
(V *)
Power
factor
120, Dedicated ..
120, Dedicated ..
Ballast
factor **
0.99
0.90
0.61
0.61
Input
power
(W)
265.1
258.4
BLE
0.920
0.944
* Dedicated indicates it can only operate the voltage specified.
** DOE found limited information for ballast factor, and therefore used the most common ballast factor found in product class for representative units that did not
specify ballast factor.
TABLE IV.8—IS/RS RESIDENTIAL REPRESENTATIVE UNITS
Product class
EL
Ballast type
IS/RS Residential .....
EL 1
EL 2
EL 3
2L 4-foot MBP ................................
2L 4-foot MBP ................................
2L 4-foot MBP ................................
Starting
method
Lamp type
32 W T8
32 W T8
32 W T8
IS
IS
IS
Input voltage/
operating voltage
(V) *
Power
factor
120, Dedicated ..
120, Dedicated ..
120, Dedicated ..
Ballast
factor
0.56
0.56
0.55
0.85
0.85
0.83
Input
power
(W)
56.2
55.2
53.1
BLE
0.884
0.899
0.913
* Dedicated indicates it can only operate the voltage specified.
TABLE IV.9—DIMMING REPRESENTATIVE UNITS
Product class
EL
Dimming ...................
EL 1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
EL 2
EL 3
Ballast type
2L
2L
2L
2L
2L
2L
2L
2L
2L
4-foot
4-foot
4-foot
4-foot
4-foot
4-foot
4-foot
4-foot
4-foot
Starting
method
Lamp type
MBP 0–10V ....................
MiniBP SO 0–10V ..........
MiniBP HO 0–10 V .........
MBP 0–10V ** .................
MiniBP SO 0–10V ..........
MiniBP HO 0–10 V ** .....
MBP 0–10V ....................
MiniBP SO 0–10V ..........
MiniBP HO 0–10V ..........
32 W T8
28 W T5
54 W T5
..................
28W T5
..................
32 W T8
28 W T5
54 W T5
PS
PS
PS
PS
PS
PS
PS
Input voltage/
operating voltage
(V) *
Power
factor
Ballast
factor
Input
power
(W)
BLE
277, Universal ...
277, Universal ...
277, Universal ...
...........................
277, Universal ...
...........................
277, Universal ...
277, Universal ...
277, Universal ...
0.98
0.98
0.98
..................
0.98
..................
0.99
0.99
0.98
0.87
1.00
1.00
..................
1.00
..................
0.88
1.00
1.00
57.0
63.0
118.0
..................
62.0
..................
56.0
61.0
115.9
0.891
0.883
0.912
..................
0.897
..................
0.918
0.911
0.928
* Universal indicates that the ballast can operate multiple voltages (i.e., 120 V or 277 V).
** Grey shading indicates levels at which products did not exist.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Dec 15, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\16DER2.SGM
16DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
81571
Table IV.10 summarizes the
efficiency requirements at each EL for
the representative product classes.
TABLE IV.10—SUMMARY OF ELS FOR REPRESENTATIVE PRODUCT CLASSES
BLE = A / (1 + B * total lamp arc power¥C)
where A, B, and C are as follows:
Efficiency
level
Representative product class
A
IS/RS Commercial ...........................................................................................
PS Commercial ................................................................................................
IS/RS Residential ............................................................................................
IS/RS 8-foot HO ..............................................................................................
Sign ..................................................................................................................
Dimming ...........................................................................................................
5. Scaling to Other Product Classes
DOE identified and selected certain
product classes as representative and
analyzed these product classes directly.
DOE chose these representative product
classes primarily due to their high
market volumes. The ELs for product
classes that were not directly analyzed
(‘‘non-representative product classes’’)
were then determined by scaling the ELs
of the representative product classes.
Specifically, DOE did not analyze PS 8foot HO ballasts or PS residential
ballasts directly. In the October 2019
EL
EL
EL
EL
EL
EL
EL
EL
EL
EL
EL
EL
EL
EL
EL
1
2
3
1
2
1
2
3
1
2
1
2
1
2
3
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
B
0.993
........................
........................
0.993
........................
0.993
........................
........................
0.993
........................
0.993
........................
0.993
........................
........................
NOPD, DOE developed ELs for the PS 8foot HO product class by scaling the ELs
of the IS/RS 8-foot HO product class and
developed ELs for PS residential
product class by scaling the ELs of the
IS/RS residential product class. 84 FR
56540, 56564. The primary difference
between these sets of product classes is
the starting method. From its analysis of
pairs of ballasts between the product
classes, DOE determined that the
ballasts with a PS starting method are 2
percent less efficient than those with IS
starting method. DOE then applied this
reduction in BLE to develop the
C
0.24
0.21
0.16
0.43
0.31
0.33
0.28
0.24
0.24
0.14
0.32
0.24
0.56
0.48
0.40
0.25
........................
........................
0.37
........................
0.25
........................
........................
0.25
........................
0.25
........................
0.37
........................
........................
appropriate EL equation curves for the
PS 8-foot HO and PS residential product
class. See chapter 5 of the final
determination TSD for more detail.
Table IV.11 summarizes the efficiency
requirements at each EL for the nonrepresentative product classes.
DOE did not receive any comments on
the scaling to non-representative
product classes presented in the October
2019 NOPD. In this final determination,
DOE maintained the scaling factors and
resulting efficiency levels from the
October 2019 NOPD for the nonrepresentative product classes.
TABLE IV.11—SUMMARY OF ELS FOR NON-REPRESENTATIVE PRODUCT CLASSES
Non-representative product class
BLE = A / (1 + B * total lamp arc power¥C)
where A, B, and C are as follows:
Efficiency level
A
PS 8-foot HO ...................................................................................................
PS Residential .................................................................................................
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
E. Product Price Determination
Typically, DOE develops
manufacturer selling prices (‘‘MSPs’’)
for covered products in the engineering
analysis and applies markups to create
end-user prices to use as inputs to the
LCC analysis and NIA. Because
fluorescent lamp ballasts are difficult to
reverse-engineer (i.e., not easily
disassembled due to potting), DOE
directly derives end-user prices for the
ballasts covered in this final
determination.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Dec 15, 2020
Jkt 253001
EL
EL
EL
EL
EL
1
2
1
2
3
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
0.973
........................
0.973
........................
........................
In the October 2019 NOPD, DOE
developed end-user consumer prices for
the representative units sold in each of
the main distribution channels
identified for fluorescent lamp ballasts.
DOE then calculated an average
weighted consumer price using
estimated shipments that go through
each distribution channel. 84 FR 56540,
56565–56566.
DOE did not receive any comments on
the pricing methodology or results. For
this final determination DOE
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
B
C
0.45
0.26
0.54
0.46
0.39
0.37
........................
0.37
........................
........................
maintained the methodology and final
average weighted end-user prices for
representative units from the October
2019 NOPD. See chapter 6 of the final
determination TSD for further details
and pricing results.
F. Energy Use Analysis
The purpose of the energy use
analysis is to determine the annual
energy consumption of fluorescent lamp
ballasts at different BLE in
representative U.S. commercial and
industrial buildings, outdoor
E:\FR\FM\16DER2.SGM
16DER2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
81572
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
installations, and single-family homes
and multi-family residences, and to
assess the energy savings potential of
increased BLE for fluorescent lamp
ballasts. The energy use analysis
estimates the range of energy use of
fluorescent lamp ballasts 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 standards.
The energy conservation standards for
fluorescent lamps are not within the
scope of this analysis; however, the
input power of the complete lamp-andballast system is considered for the
energy use analysis because ballasts are
not intended to operate without lamps.
The energy use characterization
provides estimates of annual energy use
for representative lamp-and-ballast
systems that DOE evaluates in the LCC
and PBP analyses and the NIA. To
develop annual energy use estimates,
DOE multiplied annual usage (in hours
per year) by the system input power (in
watts). In the October 2019 NOPD, DOE
developed an energy use analysis. 84 FR
56540, 56566–56568.
DOE analyzed the typical operating
hours of the different sectors. DOE then
weighted the ballast operation by sector
to develop average operating hours.
DOE selected the most common
fluorescent lamps used with each
analyzed ballast to develop
representative lamp-and-ballast systems.
DOE developed the system input power
estimates in the engineering analysis. To
characterize the country’s average use of
fluorescent lamp ballasts for a typical
year, DOE developed annual operating
hours by sector, using the most recent
data available from the 2015 U.S.
Lighting Market Characterization
(‘‘LMC’’), which was published in
2017.13 84 FR 56540, 56566.
Fluorescent lamp ballasts can operate
a variety of lamp types. The October
2019 NOPD included a mixture of lamp
types operated by the fluorescent lamp
ballast including full wattage
fluorescent lamp (e.g., 32 W 4-foot T8),
reduced wattage fluorescent lamp (e.g.,
30 W 4-foot T8, 28 W 4-foot T8, and 25
W 4-foot T8), and tubular light-emitting
diode (‘‘TLED’’) lamps (e.g., UL Type A
13 W 4-foot T8). The mixture of specific
lamps operated by the fluorescent lamp
directly relates to the input power of the
13 U.S.
Department of Energy–Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 2015 U.S.
Lighting Market Characterization. November 2017.
https://energy.gov/eere/ssl/2015-us-lighting-marketcharacterization.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Dec 15, 2020
Jkt 253001
fluorescent ballast. DOE included a
mixture of full wattage fluorescent
lamps, reduced wattage fluorescent
lamps, and TLED lamps in the energy
use analysis. 84 FR 56540, 56566–
56568.
Lighting controls can reduce the
energy use of fluorescent lamp ballasts.
In the October 2019 NOPD, DOE
assumed reduced energy from lighting
controls for programmed-start ballasts.
Id. These ballasts are intended for use
with occupancy sensors.
In the October 2019 NOPD, DOE
requested comment to improve DOE’s
energy-use analysis, as well as any data
supporting alternate operating hour
estimates or assumptions regarding
dimming of fluorescent lamp ballasts,
operating hours, and operating hour
reductions from lighting controls in
commercial, industrial, and residential
sectors. 84 FR 56540, 56568. NEMA
stated that DOE’s methodology and
estimating assumptions were sufficient.
(NEMA, No. 24 a pp. 3–4) Signify
provided some suggested papers
regarding use of lighting controls that
could be found within the Illuminating
Engineering Society (‘‘IES’’) technical
library. Signify also stated that the
papers specifically cited in their
comments were illustrative. (Signify,
No. 27 at p. 2)
DOE’s analysis did utilize research
papers within the IES technical library.
DOE included data from Lighting
Controls in Commercial Buildings,
which was published in an IES journal,
in the energy use analysis (see chapter
7 of the final determination TSD).14
DOE received no comments related to
changing the mixture of lamp operated
by the fluorescent ballasts, operating
hours of the fluorescent lamp ballasts,
nor the application of lighting controls.
For the final determination, DOE
maintained the mixture of lamps
operated by the fluorescent ballasts,
operating hours of the fluorescent lamp
ballasts, and the application of lighting
controls as in the analysis for the 2019
October NOPD. Chapter 7 of the final
determination TSD provides details on
DOE’s energy use analysis for
fluorescent lamp ballasts.
G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
Analysis
DOE conducted LCC and PBP
analyses to evaluate the economic
impacts on individual consumers of
potential energy conservation standards
14 Williams, AA, BA Atkinson, K Garbesi, E Page,
FM Rubinstein. Lighting Controls in Commercial
Buildings. Leukos: The Journal of the Illuminating
Engineering Society. 2012. 8(3): pp. 161–180.
https://eaei.lbl.gov/publications/lighting-controlscommercial.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
for fluorescent lamp ballasts in the
October 2019 NOPD. 84 FR 56540,
56568. The effect of amended energy
conservation standards on individual
consumers usually involves a reduction
in operating cost and an increase in
purchase cost. DOE used the following
two metrics to measure consumer
impacts:
• The LCC is the total consumer
expense of an appliance or product over
the life of that product, consisting of
total installed cost (MSP, distribution
chain markups, sales tax, and
installation costs) plus operating costs
(expenses for energy use, maintenance,
and repair). To compute the operating
costs, DOE discounts future operating
costs to the time of purchase and sums
them over the lifetime of the product.
• The PBP is the estimated amount of
time (in years) it takes consumers to
recover the increased purchase cost
(including installation) of a moreefficient product through lower
operating costs. DOE calculates the PBP
by dividing the change in purchase cost
at higher efficiency levels by the change
in annual operating cost for the year that
amended standards are assumed to take
effect.
For any given efficiency level, DOE
measures the change in LCC relative to
the LCC in the no-new-standards case.
DOE refers to the change as ‘‘LCC
savings.’’ LCC savings reflect the
estimated efficiency distribution of
fluorescent lamp ballasts in the absence
of amended energy conservation
standards. In contrast, the PBP for a
given efficiency level is measured
relative to the baseline product.
For each considered efficiency level
in each product class, DOE calculated
the LCC and PBP for a nationally
representative set of potential
customers. Fluorescent lamp ballasts are
used widely in commercial, industrial,
and residential settings. For each
product class, DOE identified the types
of customers likely to use the ballasts,
the number of hours per year each
customer type would likely use the
ballasts, and a probability of selection
for each customer type in the Monte
Carlo analysis.
Inputs to the calculation of total
installed cost include the cost of the
product—which includes MPCs, all
manufacturer, retailer and distributor
markups, and sales taxes—and
installation costs. Inputs to the
calculation of operating expenses
include annual energy consumption,
energy prices and price projections,
repair and maintenance costs, product
lifetimes, and discount rates. DOE
created distributions of values for
product lifetime, discount rates, and
E:\FR\FM\16DER2.SGM
16DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
sales taxes, with probabilities attached
to each value, to account for their
uncertainty and variability.
The computer model DOE uses to
calculate the LCC and PBP 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 FLB user
samples. For this rulemaking, the Monte
Carlo approach is implemented in MS
Excel together with the Crystal BallTM
add-on.15 The model calculated the LCC
and PBP for products at each efficiency
level for 10,000 FLB installations per
simulation run. The analytical results
include a distribution of 10,000 data
points showing the range of LCC savings
for a given efficiency level relative to
the no-new-standards case efficiency
distribution. In performing an iteration
of the Monte Carlo simulation for a
given consumer, product efficiency is
chosen based on its probability. If the
chosen product efficiency is greater than
or equal to the efficiency of the standard
level under consideration, the LCC and
PBP calculation reveals that a consumer
is not impacted by the standard level.
By accounting for consumers who
already purchase more-efficient
products, DOE avoids overstating the
potential benefits from increasing
product efficiency. DOE calculated the
LCC and PBP for all consumers of
fluorescent lamp ballasts as if each were
to purchase a new product in the first
81573
year of required compliance with new
or amended standards. Amended
standards apply to fluorescent lamp
ballasts manufactured 3 years after the
date on which any new or amended
standard is published. (42 U.S.C.
6295(m)(4)(A)) Therefore, DOE used
2023 as the first year of compliance with
any amended standards for fluorescent
lamp ballasts.
Table IV.12 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 and its appendices of the final
determination TSD.
TABLE IV.12—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND METHODS FOR THE LCC AND PBP ANALYSIS *
Inputs
Source/method
Product Cost ...................................
Installation Costs .............................
Annual Energy Use .........................
Energy Prices ..................................
Derived by multiplying product costs from the engineering analysis by (one plus) sales tax rates.
Baseline installation cost determined with data from RS Means. Assumed no change with efficiency level.
The total annual energy use multiplied by the hours per year. Average number of hours based 2015 LMC.
Based on the Energy Information Administration’s (EIA’s) Form 861 data for 2018.** Average energy prices
determined for 50 states plus the District of Columbia.
Based on Annual Energy Outlook 2020 (AEO2020) price projections.
Assumed no change with efficiency level.
Average: 12.5 years for commercial installations (approximately 38,000 hours), 12.5 years for outdoor installations (approximately 41,000 hours), 11.4 years for industrial installations (50,000 hours), and 15
years for residential installations (approximately 10,800 hours).
For the residential product class, the calculations involve identifying all possible debt or asset classes that
might be used to purchase fluorescent lamp ballasts or might be affected indirectly. The primary data
source was the Federal Reserve Board’s Survey of Consumer Finances. For other product classes, the
calculations involve estimating weighted average cost of capital for large numbers of companies and
using the results to develop discount rate distributions. The primary data were from the Damodaran Online web site † and the Federal Reserve Board. ‡
Rebound is not assumed to be present among FLB consumers. Most consumers are commercial and industrial consumers, and the FLB/light user tends to not see the bills so there would be no perceived
change in the cost of using the light.
2023.
Energy Price Trends .......................
Repair and Maintenance Costs ......
Product Lifetime ..............................
Discount Rates ................................
Rebound Effect ...............................
Compliance Date ............................
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
* References for the data sources mentioned in this table are provided in the sections following the table or in chapter 8 of the final determination TSD.
** DOE used Average Price by State by Provider (EIA–826), sorted for Total Electric Industry, obtained from the EIA webpage https://
www.eia.gov/electricity/data/state/.
† See the data page on Damodaran Online, https://pages.stern.nyu.edu/∼adamodar.
‡ In addition to the previously referenced Survey of Consumer Finances, DOE used interest rate data obtained from the Federal Reserve Bank
of St. Louis’ FRED Economic Data tool found at https://fred.stlouisfed.org/.
1. Product Cost
As noted in section IV.E, DOE
rulemaking engineering analyses
typically calculate MSPs. Typically, the
MSPs are used to develop consumer
prices by applying wholesale and retail
delivery chain markups developed in a
separate markup analysis, and by
adding sales taxes. For fluorescent lamp
ballasts, the engineering analysis
determined end-user prices directly;
therefore, for the LCC analysis, the only
adjustment was to add sales taxes.
In prior energy conservation
standards rulemakings, DOE estimated
the total installed costs per unit for
equipment and then assumed that costs
remain constant throughout the analysis
period. For example, prices were held
constant throughout the analysis period
for the 2009 final rule for commercial
ice-cream freezers; self-contained
commercial refrigerators, commercial
freezers, and commercial refrigeratorfreezers without doors; and remote
condensing commercial refrigerators,
commercial freezers, and commercial
refrigerators-freezers. 74 FR 1092 (Jan. 9,
2009) This assumption is conservative
because equipment costs tend to
decrease over time. In 2011, DOE
published a notice of data availability
(‘‘NODA’’) titled Equipment Price
Forecasting in Energy Conservation
Standards Analysis. 76 FR 9696 (Feb.
22, 2011). In the NODA, DOE proposed
a methodology for determining whether
equipment prices have trended
downward in real terms. The
methodology examines so-called price
or experiential learning, wherein, with
ever-increasing experience with the
production of a product, manufacturers
are able to reduce their production costs
15 Crystal BallTM is a commercially available
software tool to facilitate the creation of these types
of models by generating probability distributions
and summarizing results within Excel, available at
https://www.oracle.com/technetwork/middleware/
crystalball/overview/ (last accessed June
18, 2020).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Dec 15, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\16DER2.SGM
16DER2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
81574
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
through innovations in technology and
process.
Consistent with the February 2011
NODA, DOE examined historical price
data specific to electronic ballasts for
the October 2019 NOPD and the
analysis yielded learning coefficients
indicating a 14.8 percent decrease in
ballast prices for every doubling in
cumulative ballast shipments. However,
the October 2019 NOPD analyses
excluded the price trends from the LCC
consumer prices, noting that with
shipments falling from historical values,
cumulative shipments do not double
relative to 2015 (the last year of
historical ballast price data compiled for
evaluating price trends) in any
shipments scenario. The price trends
assumptions were presented in the
October 2019 NOPD along with the
request for comments on any aspect of
the NOPD. 84 FR 56540, 56579–56580.
DOE received no comments on the
learning trends analysis. Consistent
with the October 2019 NOPD, for this
final determination DOE excluded price
trends from the consumer costs of
fluorescent lamp ballasts used in the
LCC and PBP analysis as well as
downstream analyses.
Lamp manufacturing is also subject to
the learning process. The focus of this
final determination is the fluorescent
lamp ballast. However, fluorescent lamp
ballasts are designed to operate
fluorescent lamps and therefore, the cost
analysis accounts for the lamp-andballast system. The analysis assumes a
differing mixture of general service
fluorescent lamps (‘‘GSFL’’) and TLEDs
operated by the ballasts. TLED prices
are expected to be affected by price
learning and are expected to decline
significantly over the next 3 years.
Therefore, to better represent the total
installed cost of the ballast and lamp
systems, price learning was applied to
the lamps operated by the fluorescent
lamp ballasts.
Because this final determination is
not analyzing lamps, lamp shipments
and price information were not
collected for this rulemaking. Rather,
price trend information for lamps was
developed from the final rule for the
GSFL standards rulemaking published
in January 2015. 80 FR 4041 (Jan. 26,
2015). As discussed in chapter 8 and
Appendix 8C of this FLB final
determination TSD, the GSFL price
trends were incorporated into the LCC
analysis to account for learning in the
lamp manufacturing process. The
distribution of lamps selected for use by
consumers is not expected to differ for
ballasts at different efficiency levels.
The calculations of product cost are
consistent with the October 2019 NOPD
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Dec 15, 2020
Jkt 253001
calculations. The October 2019 NOPD
requested input on all aspects of the
analysis, and no comments were
received on the calculation of product
cost. DOE updated the analysis to 2019
dollars (2019$), updated the state sales
tax rates, and otherwise retained the
product costs calculations used in the
October 2019 NOPD for use in the final
determination.
2. Installation Cost
Installation cost includes labor,
overhead, and any miscellaneous
materials and parts needed to install the
product. DOE used data from RSMeans
to estimate the baseline installation cost
for fluorescent lamp ballasts. For the
October 2019 NOPD, DOE used the
same installation costs for ballasts at
each efficiency level. 84 FR 56540,
56569–56570. The October 2019 NOPD
requested input on all aspects of the
analysis, and no comments were
received on the calculation of
installation cost used in the NOPD.
Given a lack of comment or other new
evidence, DOE updated input data to
use 2020 RSMeans values adjusted to
2019$ and continued using the same
installation costs for ballasts at each
efficiency level for the final
determination.
3. Annual Energy Consumption
DOE determined the energy
consumption for fluorescent lamp
ballasts at different efficiency levels
using the approach described previously
in section IV.F of this document.
4. Energy Prices
DOE derived average annual
electricity prices for 50 states plus the
District of Columbia using data from the
EIA’s Form EIA–861 annual survey.16
EIA calculated average electric prices by
dividing total electric revenues by total
kWh energy sales, using data aggregated
by customer class and by state. The final
determination analysis used the data for
2018, with prices adjusted to 2019$.
To estimate energy prices in future
years, DOE multiplied the average statelevel electricity prices by a projection of
annual change in regional electricity
prices in the Annual Energy Outlook
2020 (‘‘AEO2020’’), which has an end
year of 2050.17 AEO2020 includes price
projections by Census regions, which
were used for the analyses presented
herein. To estimate future electricity
16 Available at https://www.eia.gov/electricity/
data/state/.
17 U.S. Department of Energy—Energy
Information Administration. Annual Energy
Outlook 2020 with Projections to 2050. 2020.
Washington, DC. (#AEO2020). Available at https://
www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
prices, DOE uses the price index for the
Census region corresponding to each
state. To estimate price trends after
2050, DOE used the average annual rate
of change in prices from 2040 through
2050.
DOE did not receive any comments on
the energy prices used in the October
2019 NOPD. The final determination
methodology for developing energy
prices is the same as the October 2019
NOPD methodology. DOE used the most
current data available for the final
determination analyses. DOE updated
base year electricity prices from 2017 to
2018, future price trends from EIA
AEO2019 to AEO2020 projections, and
the dollar year from 2018$ to 2019$.
5. Maintenance and Repair Costs
Repair costs are associated with
repairing or replacing product
components that have failed in an
appliance; maintenance costs are
associated with maintaining the
operation of the product. Typically,
small incremental increases in product
efficiency produce no, or only minor,
changes in repair and maintenance costs
compared to baseline efficiency
products. In the October 2019 NOPD,
DOE modeled ballasts as not being
repaired, and maintenance costs as lamp
replacement costs only. 84 FR 56540,
56570. DOE received no comments on
maintenance and repair costs. In this
final determination, DOE treated
ballasts as not repaired and
maintenance as limited to lamp
replacement.
6. Product Lifetime
For the October 2019 NOPD, DOE
used a 12.5-year average lifetime for the
commercial sector installations, 11.4year average lifetime for industrial
sector installations, a 12.5-year average
lifetime for outdoor lighting, and a 15year life for the residential sector. In the
October 2019 NOPD, DOE explained
that combining DOE’s estimate of 50,000
hours from the FLB Framework
Document and the average operating
hours developed for the NOPD yielded
average ballast lifetimes of 16.6 years
and 11.4 years, for commercial and
industrial installations, respectively.
However, 16.6 years is significantly
longer than the lifetime of commercial
ballasts used in the 2011 Ballast Rule.
84 FR 56540, 56569–56570. For the
2011 Ballast Rule, DOE used 12.5 years.
While preparing the October 2019
NOPD, DOE found no literature
confirming a 16.6-year product lifetime
and focused instead on searching for
evidence contradicting the lifetime of
12.5 years. No such evidence was
identified. For the October 2019 NOPD,
E:\FR\FM\16DER2.SGM
16DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
DOE assumed commercial ballasts
would have a 12.5-year average lifetime
which, when multiplied by the average
commercial sector operating hours per
year, yields a lifetime of approximately
38,000 hours. 84 FR 56540, 56570. DOE
received no comments on product
lifetime. In this final determination,
DOE has retained the product lifetimes
expressed in years from the October
2019 NOPD.
by household income group using data
from the Federal Reserve Board’s Survey
of Consumer Finances 19 (‘‘SCF’’) for
1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2010,
2013, and 2016. 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. In the Crystal BallTM
analyses, for each of the 10,000
7. Discount Rates
simulations, the model selects an
In the calculation of LCC, DOE
income group and then selects a
applies discount rates appropriate to
discount rate from the distribution for
commercial, industrial, and residential
that group.
consumers to estimate the present value
For commercial and industrial
of future operating costs. DOE estimated consumers, DOE used the cost of capital
a distribution of discount rates for
to estimate the present value of cash
fluorescent lamp ballasts based on the
flows to be derived from a typical
cost of capital of publicly traded firms
company project or investment. Most
in the sectors that purchase fluorescent
companies use both debt and equity
lamp ballasts.
capital to fund investments, so the cost
As part of its analysis, DOE also
of capital is the weighted-average cost to
applies weighted average discount rates the firm of equity and debt financing.
calculated from consumer debt and
This corporate finance approach is
asset data, rather than marginal or
referred to as the weighted-average cost
implicit discount rates.18 DOE notes that of capital. DOE used currently available
the LCC does not analyze the product
economic data in developing discount
purchase decision, so the implicit
rates. See chapter 8 of the final
discount rate is not relevant in this
determination TSD for details on the
model. The LCC estimates net present
development of consumer discount
value over the lifetime of the product,
rates.
so the appropriate discount rate will
DOE described the discount rate
reflect the general opportunity cost of
calculations in the October 2019 NOPD
household or business funds, taking this and the accompanying TSD chapter 8
time scale into account. Given the long- and appendix 8D. 84 FR 56540, 56570–
time frame modeled in the LCC, the
56571. DOE received no comments on
application of a marginal interest rate
the discount rate calculations. For the
associated with an initial source of
final determination, DOE used the same
funds is inaccurate. Regardless of the
methodologies as used for the October
method of purchase, consumers are
2019 NOPD. The residential discount
expected to continue to rebalance their
rate and commercial discount rate
debt and asset holdings over the LCC
calculations were updated to include
analysis period, based on the
more current input data from the
restrictions consumers face in their debt Federal Reserve and Damodaran Online.
payment requirements and the relative
The commercial discount rate update
size of the interest rates available on
includes use of Damodaran Online data
debts and assets. DOE estimates the
disaggregated by industry sector, and
aggregate effect of this rebalancing using current as of the end of 2019.
the historical distribution of debts and
8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the
assets.
To establish residential discount rates No-New-Standards Case
To accurately estimate the share of
for the LCC analysis, DOE identified all
relevant household debt or asset classes consumers that would be affected by a
potential energy conservation standard
in order to approximate a consumer’s
at a particular efficiency level, DOE’s
opportunity cost of funds related to
LCC analysis considered the projected
appliance energy cost savings. It
estimated the average percentage shares distribution (market shares) of product
efficiencies under the no-new-standards
of the various types of debt and equity
case (i.e., the case without amended
18 The implicit discount rate is inferred from a
energy conservation standards) in the
consumer purchase decision between two otherwise compliance year.
identical goods with different first cost and
To estimate the energy efficiency
operating cost. It is the interest rate that equates the
distribution of fluorescent lamp ballasts
increment of first cost to the difference in net
present value of lifetime operating cost,
incorporating the influence of several factors:
Transaction costs, risk premiums and response to
uncertainty, time preferences, and interest rates at
which a consumer is able to borrow or lend.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Dec 15, 2020
Jkt 253001
19 Board
of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System. Survey of Consumer Finances. Available at
https://www.federalreserve.gov/PUBS/oss/oss2/
scfindex.html.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
81575
for 2023, DOE analyzed the distribution
of ballasts in the databases used in the
engineering analysis. For the nondimming ballasts, the main source of
information is the DOE compliance
certification database.20 For nondimming ballasts, DOE relied on
product offerings in manufacturer
catalogs.
DOE described the energy efficiency
distribution in the October 2019 NOPD
TSD chapter 8. 84 FR 56540, 56571.
DOE received no comments on the
NOPD energy efficiency distribution.
DOE used the same distribution in the
final determination. See chapter 8 of the
final determination TSD for the
estimated efficiency distributions.
9. 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. Payback periods are
expressed in years. Payback periods that
exceed the life of the product mean that
the increased total installed cost is not
recovered in reduced operating
expenses.
The inputs to the simple PBP
calculation for each efficiency level are
the change in total installed cost of the
product and the change in the first-year
annual operating expenditures relative
to the baseline. The PBP calculation
uses the same inputs as the LCC
analysis, except that discount rates are
not needed.
H. 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.21 The
shipments model takes an accounting
approach in tracking market shares of
each product class and the vintage of
units in the stock. Stock accounting uses
product shipments as inputs to estimate
the age distribution of in-service
product stocks for all years. The age
distribution of in-service product stocks
is a key input to calculations of both the
NES and NPV, because operating costs
for any year depend on the age
distribution of the stock.
In the October 2019 NOPD, DOE
modeled four declining shipment
scenarios. 84 FR 56540, 56572–56573.
DOE received written comments
supporting the projection of declining
20 https://www.regulations.doe.gov/ccms.
21 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.
E:\FR\FM\16DER2.SGM
16DER2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
81576
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
shipments. CA IOUs, Lutron, and
NEMA all stated that there is an ongoing
and continual decline in shipments of
fluorescent lamp ballasts. (CA IOUs, No.
25 at p. 2; Lutron, No. 23 at p. 2; NEMA,
No. 24 at p. 2)
Both Signify and NEMA also provided
data in comments related to the
shipment volume. Signify stated that the
current (2019) fluorescent lamp ballast
market may be only 15 percent of the
total shipments in 2011. (Signify, No. 27
at p. 2) NEMA provided a figure
indexed to 2015 indicating the 2019
volume was roughly 30 percent the
volume of 2015 shipments. (NEMA, No.
24 at pp. 4, Fluorescent Driver Index
graph)
In this final determination, DOE
continued to rely on projections of
declining shipments but calibrated the
volume of shipments by reducing the
volume of shipments per comments
received. In the October 2019 NOPD,
DOE modeled four shipment scenarios
and DOE retained those scenarios for
this final.
(1) Scenario #1—declining shipments
that all terminate in 2024.
(2) Scenario #2—declining shipments
that all terminate in 2040.
(3) Scenario #3—declining shipments
that approach zero near the end of the
analysis period (2052). This scenario is
close to a year-over-year linear
reduction of shipments by 20 percent.
(4) Scenario #4—declining shipments
that terminate near the end of the
analysis period. This scenario is based
on a slower decline rate in the initial
part of the analysis period and is similar
to a projected decline in fluorescent
lamps. See 84 FR 56540, 56572.
DOE presented in the October 2019
NOPD results under each of the four
scenarios but relied on scenario #3 as
the reference case. 84 FR 56540, 56572.
DOE requested comment in the October
2019 NOPD about whether the shipment
scenarios were reasonable and likely to
occur. Id. at 84 FR 56574. DOE also
requested comment on which of the four
scenarios best characterize future
shipments of fluorescent lamp ballasts.
Id.
NEMA stated that any shipment
scenario that includes a near-20 percent
rate of decline is useful for estimations/
modeling. (NEMA, No. 24 at p. 5)
Dimming ballasts were included in
the shipment scenarios. DOE requested
comment regarding the rate of decline
for dimming ballast shipments as
compared to non-dimming ballasts. 84
FR 56540, 56574. NEMA provided
general information about the cost of
dimming ballasts stating they involve
more complex circuitry and tend to sell
at a higher price than fixed output
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Dec 15, 2020
Jkt 253001
ballasts. NEMA stated that logically the
higher price would equate to a higher
rate of decline based on competition
with LED technology. (NEMA, No. 24 at
p. 4) NEMA stated that that the demand
for dimming ballasts is declining faster
than the decline for fluorescent lamps.
(NEMA, No. 24 at p. 2) NEMA stated
that the dimming ballast shipment
scenario appears accurate. (NEMA, No.
24 at p. 5) Therefore, DOE utilized a
similar declining shipment scenario for
dimming ballasts in the 2019 NOPD and
this final determination.
I. National Impact Analysis
DOE conducted a NIA in the October
2019 NOPD. 84 FR 56540, 56574–56576.
The NIA assesses the NES and the NPV
from a national perspective of total
consumer costs and savings that would
be expected to result from new or
amended standards at specific efficiency
levels.22 (‘‘Consumer’’ in this context
refers to consumers of the product being
regulated.) DOE calculates the NES and
NPV for the potential standard levels
considered based on projections of
annual product shipments, along with
the annual energy consumption and
total installed cost data from the energy
use and LCC analyses. For the present
analysis, DOE projected the energy
savings, operating cost savings, product
costs, and NPV of consumer benefits
over the lifetime of fluorescent lamp
ballasts sold from 2023 through 2052.
DOE evaluates the effects of amended
standards by comparing a case without
such standards with standards-case
projections. The no-new-standards case
characterizes energy use and consumer
costs for each product class in the
absence of amended energy
conservation standards. For this
projection, DOE considers historical
trends in efficiency and various forces
that are likely to affect the mix of
efficiencies over time. DOE compares
the no-new-standards case with
projections characterizing the market for
each product class if DOE adopted
amended standards at specific energy
efficiency levels (i.e., the ELs or
standards cases) for that class. For the
standards cases, DOE considers how a
given standard would likely affect the
market shares of products with
efficiencies greater than the standard.
DOE uses a spreadsheet model to
calculate the energy savings and the
national consumer costs and savings
from each EL. Interested parties can
review DOE’s analyses by changing
various input quantities within the
22 The NIA accounts for impacts in the 50 states
and U.S. territories.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
spreadsheet.23 The NIA spreadsheet
model uses typical values (as opposed
to probability distributions) as inputs.
Table IV.13 summarizes the inputs
and methods DOE used for the NIA
analysis for the final determination.
Discussion of these inputs and methods
follows the table. See chapter 10 of the
final determination TSD for further
details.
TABLE IV.13—SUMMARY OF INPUTS
AND METHODS FOR THE NATIONAL
IMPACT ANALYSIS
Inputs
Method
Shipments ......
Annual shipments from shipments model.
2023.
Compliance
Date of
Standard.
Efficiency
Trends.
Annual Energy
Consumption per Unit.
Total Installed
Cost per
Unit.
Annual Energy
Cost per
Unit.
Repair and
Maintenance
Cost per
Unit.
Energy Price
Trends.
Energy Site-toPrimary and
FFC Conversion.
Discount Rate
Present Year ..
No-new-standards case,
Standard cases.
Annual weighted-average
values are a function of
energy use at each EL.
Annual weighted-average
values are a function of
cost at each EL. Incorporates projection of future
product prices based on
historical data.
Annual weighted-average
values as a function of the
annual energy consumption per unit and energy
prices.
Annual values do not
change with efficiency
level.
AEO2020 projections (to
2050) and extrapolation
thereafter.
A time-series conversion factor based on AEO2020.
Three and seven percent.
2020.
NEMA stated that in the 2011 FL
Ballast Rule the difference in energy
savings between the two TSLs with the
highest efficiency levels was negligible,
the increase in net benefit to the country
was trivial, and the capital conversion
costs for manufacturers were significant
indicating fluorescent lamp ballasts are
already very efficient and additional
energy savings not needed.24 (NEMA,
23 The spreadsheet is in the docket and can be
found at https://www.regulations.gov/
document?D=EERE-2015-BT-STD-0006-0017.
24 For context, in the 2011 FL Ballast Rule, DOE
evaluated trial standard levels (‘‘TSLs’’) 3A and 3B.
TSL 3A represented energy conservation standards
at the maximum technologically feasible level for
all product classes except for residential and 8-foot
HO IS/RS product classes; and TSL 3B represented
the maximum technologically feasible level for all
product classes. 76 FR 70547, 70596. The difference
E:\FR\FM\16DER2.SGM
16DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
No. 24 at p. 2) Similarly Lutron stated
energy savings are small and supported
DOE’s net present value conclusion.
(Lutron, No. 23 at p. 2) No stakeholder
input was received related to different
methods or additional data sets. The
final determination NIA methodology
was consistent with the October 2019
NOPD.
1. Product Efficiency Trends
A key component of the NIA is the
trend in energy efficiency projected for
the no-new-standards case and each of
the standards cases. Section IV.G.8 of
this document describes how DOE
developed an energy efficiency
distribution for the no-new-standards
case (which yields a shipment-weighted
average efficiency) for each of the
considered product classes for the year
of anticipated compliance with an
amended or new standard.
For the standards cases, DOE used a
‘‘roll-up’’ scenario to establish the
shipment-weighted efficiency for the
year that standards are assumed to
become effective (2023). In this
scenario, the market shares of products
in the no-new-standards case that do not
meet the standard under consideration
would ‘‘roll up’’ to meet the amended
standard level, and the market share of
products above the standard would
remain unchanged.
DOE has included within the NIA
model a standards-induced shift
scenario in which if EL 1 is selected, 25
percent of the consumers would migrate
to a new LED technology. If EL 2 is
selected, 50 percent of the consumers
would migrate to a new LED technology,
and if EL 3 is selected, 75 percent of the
consumers would migrate to a new LED
technology. Within the NIA model, the
percentage of customers migrating away
is not fixed and can be changed by the
user.
Within DOE’s standard-induced shift
away from a FLB scenario, DOE
modeled the shift to occur at different
increments at each EL and not at a
specific PBP or specific increase in FLB
price. The PBPs vary for all of the
product classes and ballasts. The
potential cost differential between the
baseline ballast and a more efficient EL
ballast varies across the products classes
as well.
In the October 2019 NOPD, DOE
requested comment about the following:
(1) The percentage of customers that
in NPV between 3Aand 3B rounded to 1 percent at
a 7 percent discount rate and rounded to 0 percent
at a 3 percent discount rate. The impact on
industrial net present value was a decrease of $33
million between 3A and 3B, or a decrease of 4.4
percent relative to the no-new-standards base. 76
FR 70547, 70620.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Dec 15, 2020
Jkt 253001
might migrate away from FLB
technology, (2) the specific incremental
cost that could trigger a standardsinduced shift away from fluorescent
lamp ballasts, (3) the approach for input
power and price for LED devices
considered in a standards-induced shift,
(4) any potential impediments that
would prevent users of fluorescent lamp
ballasts from switching to LED lighting
to garner additional energy savings, and
(5) the expected effect of potential
standards on the rate at which FLB
consumers transition to non-FLB
technology. 84 FR 56540, 56575. NEMA
cited a lack of firsthand knowledge on
the subjects. NEMA postulated the shift
could be driven from amortization of
current investments, LED conversion
initial cost, and the role of TLEDs in the
industry. Specifically, NEMA stated that
TLEDs are compatible with most fixedoutput fluorescent ballasts, though less
so with dimming ballasts. NEMA also
stated that low operating hours of an
installation may decrease the incentive
to switch to LED lighting. NEMA was
not knowledgeable about the percentage
of installations shifting to LED but noted
the shift was occurring with any light
source. (NEMA, No. 24 at p. 6) With no
comments providing any additional data
or suggestions for the modeling
approach, for the final determination,
DOE calculated product efficiency
trends consistently with the October
2019 NOPD.
Chapter 10 of the final determination
TSD provides details on DOE’s NIA for
fluorescent lamp ballasts.
2. National Energy Savings
The NES analysis involves a
comparison of national energy
consumption of the considered products
between each potential standards case
(i.e., an EL) and the case with no
amended energy conservation
standards. DOE calculated the national
energy consumption by multiplying the
number of units (stock) of each product
(by vintage or age) by the unit energy
consumption (also by vintage). DOE
calculated annual NES based on the
difference in national energy
consumption for the no-new-standards
case and for each higher efficiency
standard case. DOE estimated energy
consumption and savings based on site
energy and converted the electricity
consumption and savings to source
energy (i.e., the energy consumed by
power plants to generate site electricity)
using annual conversion factors derived
from AEO2020. Cumulative energy
savings are the sum of the NES for each
year over the timeframe of the analysis.
Use of higher-efficiency products is
occasionally associated with a direct
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
81577
rebound effect, which refers to an
increase in utilization of the product
due to the increase in efficiency. As
discussed in Table IV.12, DOE did not
find rebound present in the FLB market
and therefore was not included in the
NIA.
In 2011, in response to the
recommendations of a committee on
‘‘Point-of-Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle
Measurement Approaches to Energy
Efficiency Standards’’ appointed by the
National Academy of Sciences, DOE
announced its intention to use FFC
measures of energy use and greenhouse
gas and other emissions in the national
impact analyses and emissions analyses
included in future energy conservation
standards rulemakings. 76 FR 51281
(Aug. 18, 2011). After evaluating the
approaches discussed in the August 18,
2011 notice, DOE published a statement
of amended policy in which DOE
explained its determination that EIA’s
National Energy Modeling System
(‘‘NEMS’’) is the most appropriate tool
for its FFC analysis and its intention to
use NEMS for that purpose. 77 FR 49701
(Aug. 17, 2012). NEMS is a public
domain, multi-sector, partial
equilibrium model of the U.S. energy
sector 25 that EIA uses to prepare its
Annual Energy Outlook. The FFC factors
incorporate losses in production and
delivery in the case of natural gas
(including fugitive emissions) and
additional energy used to produce and
deliver the various fuels used by power
plants. The approach used generally for
deriving FFC measures of energy use
and emissions is described in chapter 10
of the final determination TSD.
The calculations of energy savings are
consistent with the October 2019 NOPD
calculations with updates to energy
prices, costs, and shipments described
in IV.G and IV.H of this document.
3. Net Present Value Analysis
The inputs for determining the NPV
of the total costs and benefits
experienced by consumers are (1) total
annual installed cost, (2) total annual
operating costs (energy costs and repair
and maintenance costs), and (3) a
discount factor to calculate the present
value of costs and savings. DOE
calculates net savings each year as the
difference between the no-newstandards case and each standards case
in terms of total savings in operating
costs versus total increases in installed
costs. DOE calculates operating cost
25 For more information on NEMS, refer to The
National Energy Modeling System: An Overview
2009, DOE/EIA–0581(2009), October 2009.
Available at https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/
nems/overview/.
E:\FR\FM\16DER2.SGM
16DER2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
81578
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
savings over the lifetime of each product
shipped during the projection period.
As discussed in section IV.G of this
document, DOE developed FLB price
trends based on electronic ballasts. By
2052, which is the end date of the
projection period, the average FLB price
is projected to drop 4.5 percent relative
to 2016. DOE’s projection of product
prices is described in appendix 8C of
the final determination TSD. Consistent
with the October 2019 NOPD, for this
final determination, DOE excluded price
trends from the consumer costs of
fluorescent lamp ballasts used in the
NIA.
The operating cost savings are energy
cost savings, which are calculated using
the estimated energy savings in each
year and the projected price of the
appropriate form of energy. To estimate
energy prices in future years, DOE
multiplied the average regional energy
prices by the projection of annual
national-average energy price changes in
the Reference case from AEO2020,
which has an end year of 2050. To
estimate price trends after 2050, DOE
used the average annual rate of change
in prices from 2040 through 2050.
In calculating the NPV, DOE
multiplies the net savings in future
years by a discount factor to determine
their present value. For this final
determination, DOE estimated the NPV
of consumer benefits using both a 3percent 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.26
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.
No stakeholder input was received
that suggested either a different
methodology or additional data sets. In
the final determination NIA
methodology was consistent with the
October 2019 NOPD.
26 United States Office of Management and
Budget. Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis.
September 17, 2003. Section E. Available at https://
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/m0321.html.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Dec 15, 2020
Jkt 253001
J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
1. Overview
DOE performed an MIA to estimate
the financial impacts of potential
amended energy conservation standards
on manufacturers of fluorescent lamp
ballasts. 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 industry net
present value (‘‘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-newstandards case and each standards case.
The difference in INPV between the nonew-standards case and a standards case
represents the financial impact of the
amended energy conservation standard
on manufacturers.
To capture the uncertainty relating to
manufacturer pricing strategies
following amended standards, the GRIM
estimates a range of possible impacts
under different 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.27 DOE then further calibrated
these initial estimates during
manufacturer interviews to arrive at the
final estimates used in the GRIM.
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
27 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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 2020 (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 9.6 percent for FLB
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). DOE then
confirmed this initial estimate during
manufacturer interviews. Additional
details about the GRIM, the discount
rate, and other financial parameters can
be found in chapter 11 of the final
determination TSD.
2. Manufacturer Production Costs
Manufacturing more efficient
fluorescent lamp ballasts is typically
more expensive because of the use of
more complex components, which are
typically more costly than baseline
components. The changes in the MPCs
of covered products can affect the
revenues, gross margins, and cash flow
of the industry. Typically, DOE
develops MPCs for the covered products
using reverse-engineering. These costs
are used as an input to the LCC analysis
and NIA. However, because ballasts are
difficult to reverse-engineer, DOE
directly derived end-user prices in the
engineering analysis and then used the
end-user prices in conjunction with
markups to calculate the MPCs of
fluorescent lamp ballasts. DOE used the
same end-user prices in this final
determination that were used in the
proposed determination, however, DOE
updated the prices to 2019$. See IV.E
for a further explanation of product
price determination.
To determine MPCs of fluorescent
lamp ballasts from the wholesale prices
calculated in the engineering analysis,
DOE divided the wholesale prices by
the wholesaler markup to calculate the
MSP. DOE then divided the MSP by the
manufacturer markup to get the MPCs.
DOE determined the wholesaler markup
to be 1.23 and the manufacturer markup
to be 1.40 for all fluorescent lamp
ballasts. DOE used the same markups in
this final determination that were used
in the proposed determination. Markups
are further described in section IV.J.5 of
this document.
E:\FR\FM\16DER2.SGM
16DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
3. Shipments Projections
The GRIM estimates manufacturer
revenues based on total unit shipment
projections and the distribution of those
shipments by EL. 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 from shipments scenario #3
(reference case, see section IV.H)
starting in 2020 (the reference year) and
ending in 2052 (the end year of the
analysis period). DOE updated the
shipment analysis for the final
determination (see section IV.H). The
GRIM uses these updated shipments as
part of the final determination MIA. See
chapter 9 of the final determination TSD
for additional shipment details.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
4. Product and Capital Conversion Costs
Potential amended energy
conservation standards could cause
manufacturers to incur conversion costs
to bring their production facilities and
equipment designs into compliance.
DOE evaluated the level of conversionrelated expenditures that would be
needed to comply with each considered
EL in each product class. For the MIA,
DOE classified these conversion costs
into two major groups: (1) Product
conversion costs; and (2) capital
conversion costs. Product conversion
costs are investments in research,
development, testing, marketing, and
other non-capitalized costs necessary to
make product designs comply with
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 from the 2011 FL Ballast
Rule to estimate costs to update
manufacturer production lines by
product class. 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 each analyzed EL using
DOE’s 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
for each product class at each analyzed
EL. To evaluate the level of product
conversion costs manufacturers would
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Dec 15, 2020
Jkt 253001
likely incur to comply with the
analyzed energy conservation standards,
DOE used data from the 2011 FL Ballast
Rule to estimate per model R&D and
testing and certification costs for each
product class and EL. DOE then
estimated the number of models that
would need to be redesigned for each
product class at each analyzed EL. DOE
then multiplied these numbers together
to get the final estimated product
conversion costs for each product class
at each analyzed EL. DOE used the same
conversion cost estimates in this final
determination that were used in the
proposed determination; however, DOE
updated the conversion cost estimates to
2019$.
In general, DOE assumes all
conversion-related investments occur
between the announcement of a
potential energy conservation standard
(i.e., the 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.6 and Table V.7 of this
document. For additional information
on the estimated capital and product
conversion costs, see chapter 11 of the
final determination TSD.
DOE received comments related to
manufacturers’ willingness to make
investments related to fluorescent lamp
ballasts. Lutron stated it is not making
investments to create new fluorescent
lamp ballast products or improving
existing ones. (Lutron, No. 23 at p. 2)
Similarly, NEMA stated no NEMA
manufacturer is investing in fluorescent
lamp ballast technology and changes to
standards will lead discontinuation of
products rather than new investment to
meet potential energy conservation
standards. NEMA added that product
R&D in this area has shifted to LED
technology (i.e., LED drivers). (NEMA,
No. 24 at p. 2)
DOE understands that fluorescent
lamp ballasts are a declining lighting
technology and that most manufacturers
are focused on products that utilize LED
technology. However, DOE estimated
the conversion costs necessary for
manufacturers to produce the quantity
of fluorescent lamp ballasts projected in
the shipment analysis. As stated
previously these industry conversion
cost estimates are displayed in Table
V.6 and Table V.7 of this document.
5. Markup Scenarios
To calculate the MPCs used in the
GRIM, DOE divided the wholesaler
prices calculated in the engineering
analysis by the wholesaler markup and
the manufacturer markup. The
wholesaler markup was calculated in
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
81579
the 2011 FL Ballast Rule by reviewing
SEC 10–K reports of electrical
wholesalers. DOE also coordinated with
the National Association of Electrical
Distributors by contacting two
representative electrical wholesalers,
who confirmed that DOE’s calculated
markups were consistent with their
actual ballast markups. DOE continued
to use a wholesaler markup of 1.23 in
this final determination.
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
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 percentage
markup scenario and (2) a preservation
of operating profit 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 percentage scenario, DOE
applied a single uniform ‘‘gross margin
percentage’’ markup across all ELs,
which assumes that manufacturers
would be able to maintain the same
amount of profit as a percentage of
revenues at all ELs within a product
class. To calculate the preservation of
gross margin markup, DOE took the
manufacturer markup used in the 2011
FL Ballast Rule and compared it to the
manufacturer markups calculated by
examining the SEC 10-Ks of all publicly
traded FLB manufacturers and
confirmed this with manufacturers
during interviews. DOE determined that
the manufacturer markup used in the
2011 FL Ballast Rule was consistent
with the current SEC 10-Ks of the
publicly traded FLB manufacturers and
most manufacturers agreed during
manufacturer interviews. Therefore,
DOE used 1.40 as the manufacturer
markup in the preservation of gross
margin markup scenario. DOE assumes
that this markup scenario represents the
upper bound to industry profitability
under analyzed energy conservation
standards.
Under the preservation of operating
profit markup scenario, DOE modeled a
situation in which manufacturers are
not able to increase operating profit in
proportion to increases in manufacturer
production costs. Under this scenario,
as the cost of production increases,
manufacturers are generally required to
E:\FR\FM\16DER2.SGM
16DER2
81580
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
reduce the manufacturer markups to
maintain cost competitive offerings in
the market. Therefore, gross margin (as
a percentage) shrinks in the standards
cases in this markup scenario. This
markup scenario represents the lower
bound to industry profitability under
amended energy conservation
standards. DOE used the same
manufacturer markups in this final
determination that were used in the
proposed determination.
DOE did not receive comment on the
markup scenarios and continued with
the approach as presented in the
October 2019 NOPD. A comparison of
industry financial impacts under the
two manufacturer markup scenarios is
presented in section V.A.3.a of this
document.
6. Manufacturer Interviews
Prior to the publication of the October
2019 NOPD, DOE interviewed
manufacturers of fluorescent lamp
ballasts and asked them to describe their
major concerns regarding a potential
rulemaking to amend the standards for
fluorescent lamp ballasts. Major areas of
concerns identified in manufacturer
interviews were discussed in the
October 2019 NOPD. 84 FR 56540,
56578. DOE considered the information
received during these interviews in the
development of the NOPD and this final
determination as discussed in the
October 2019 NOPD. See id.
V. Analytical Results and Conclusions
The following section addresses the
results from DOE’s analyses with
respect to the considered energy
conservation standards for fluorescent
lamp ballasts. It addresses the ELs
examined by DOE, and the projected
impacts of each of these levels.
Additional details regarding DOE’s
analyses are contained in the final
determination TSD supporting this
document.
A. Economic Justification and Energy
Savings
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
1. Economic Impacts on Individual
Consumers
DOE analyzed the economic impacts
on FLB consumers by looking at the
effects that potential amended standards
at each EL would have on the LCC and
PBP. DOE usually evaluates the LCC
impacts of potential standards on
identifiable subgroups of consumers
that may be affected disproportionately
by a national standard. However, given
the negative NPV at each EL and the
conclusion discussed in section V.B.2,
DOE did not conduct a consumer
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:44 Dec 15, 2020
Jkt 253001
subgroup analysis for this final
determination.
In general, higher-efficiency products
affect consumers in two ways: (1)
Purchase price increases and (2) annual
operating costs decrease. Inputs used for
calculating the LCC and PBP include
total installed costs (i.e., product price
plus installation costs) and operating
costs (i.e., annual energy use, energy
prices, energy price trends, repair costs,
and maintenance costs). The LCC
calculation also uses product lifetime
and a discount rate. Table V.1 shows the
LCC and PBP results for the ELs
considered for fluorescent lamp ballasts.
TABLE V.2—CUMULATIVE NATIONAL
ENERGY SAVINGS FOR FLUORESCENT LAMP BALLASTS; 30 YEARS OF
SHIPMENTS (2023–2052)
Efficiency level
Quads
Site energy ........................
Source energy ...................
FFC energy .......................
1
2
3
0.009
0.023
0.024
0.026
0.069
0.072
0.032
0.086
0.090
OMB Circular A–4 28 requires
agencies to present analytical results,
including separate schedules of the
monetized benefits and costs that show
TABLE V.1—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP the type and timing of benefits and
RESULTS FOR FLUORESCENT LAMP costs. Circular A–4 also directs agencies
to consider the variability of key
BALLASTS
elements underlying the estimates of
benefits and costs. For this rulemaking,
Simple payEfficiency
LCC savings
DOE undertook a sensitivity analysis
back
period
level *
2019$
years
using 9 years, rather than 30 years, of
product shipments. The choice of a 9EL 1 ..........
0
12
year period is a proxy for the timeline
EL 2 ..........
1
10
in EPCA for the review of certain energy
EL 3 ..........
1
10
conservation standards and potential
* Note: The results for each EL are cal- revision of and compliance with such
culated assuming that all consumers use prod- revised standards.29 The review
ucts at that efficiency level. The PBP is meastimeframe established in EPCA is
ured relative to the baseline product.
generally not synchronized with the
2. National Impact Analysis
product lifetime, product manufacturing
cycles, or other factors specific to
This section presents DOE’s estimates
fluorescent lamp ballasts. Thus, such
of the NES and the NPV of consumer
results are presented for informational
impacts that would result from each of
purposes only and are not indicative of
the ELs considered as potential
any change in DOE’s analytical
amended standards.
methodology. The NES sensitivity
analysis results based on a 9-year
a. Significance of Energy Savings
analytical period are presented in Table
To estimate the energy savings
V.3 for reference shipment scenario 3
attributable to potential amended
(see section IV.H). The impacts are
standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts,
counted over the lifetime of fluorescent
DOE compared their energy
lamp ballasts urchased in 2023–2031.
consumption under the no-newstandards case to their anticipated
energy consumption under each EL. The
savings are measured over the entire
28 U.S. Office of Management and Budget.
lifetime of products purchased in the
Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis. September 17,
30-year period that begins in the year of 2003. https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_
a004_a-4/.
anticipated compliance with amended
29 Section 325(m) of EPCA requires DOE to review
standards (2023–2052). Table V.2
its standards at least once every 6 years, and
presents DOE’s projections of the NES
requires, for certain products, a 3-year period after
for each EL considered for fluorescent
any new standard is promulgated before
compliance is required, except that in no case may
lamp ballasts for reference shipment
any new standards be required within 6 years of the
scenario 3 (see IV.H). Results of all
compliance date of the previous standards. While
shipment scenarios are provided in
adding a 6-year review to the 3-year compliance
chapter 10 of the final determination
period adds up to 9 years, DOE notes that it may
TSD. The savings were calculated using undertake reviews at any time within the 6 year
the approach described in section IV.I.2 period and that the 3-year compliance date may
yield to the 6-year backstop. A 9-year analysis
of this document.
period may not be appropriate given the variability
PO 00000
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.
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\16DER2.SGM
16DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
81581
TABLE V.3—CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR FLUORESCENT LAMP BALLASTS; 9 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS
(2023–2031)
Efficiency level
Quads
1
Site energy ...............................................................................................................................................
Source energy .........................................................................................................................................
FFC energy ..............................................................................................................................................
b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs
and Benefits
DOE estimated the cumulative NPV of
the total costs and savings for
consumers that would result from the
ELs considered for fluorescent lamp
ballasts. In accordance with OMB’s
guidelines on regulatory analysis,30
DOE calculated NPV using both a 7percent and a 3-percent real discount
rate. Table V.4 shows the consumer
NPV results with impacts counted over
2
0.006
0.015
0.016
3
0.017
0.045
0.047
0.022
0.058
0.061
the lifetime of products purchased in
2023–2052 for reference shipment
scenario 3 (see section IV.H). Results of
all shipment scenarios are provided in
chapter 10 of the final determination
TSD.
TABLE V.4—CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR FLUORESCENT LAMP BALLASTS; 30 YEARS
OF SHIPMENTS (2023–2052)
Efficiency level
billion 2019$
1
3 percent .....................................................................................................................................................
7 percent .....................................................................................................................................................
The NPV results based on the
aforementioned 9-year analytical period
and reference shipment scenario (see
section IV.H) are presented in Table V.5.
The impacts are counted over the
lifetime of products purchased in 2023–
2031. As mentioned previously, such
results are presented for informational
2
(0.077)
(0.71)
3
(0.053)
(0.084)
(0.098)
(0.127)
purposes only and are not indicative of
any change in DOE’s analytical
methodology or decision criteria.
TABLE V.5—CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR FLUORESCENT LAMP BALLASTS; 9 YEARS
OF SHIPMENTS (2023–2031)
Efficiency level
billion 2019$
1
3 percent .....................................................................................................................................................
7 percent .....................................................................................................................................................
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 fluorescent lamp
ballasts, as well as the conversion costs
that DOE estimates manufacturers of
fluorescent lamp ballasts would incur at
each EL.
To evaluate the range of cash-flow
impacts on the FLB industry, DOE
modeled two markup scenarios that
correspond to the range of anticipated
market responses to potential standards.
Each scenario results in a unique set of
cash flows and corresponding industry
values at each EL. In the following
discussion, the INPV results refer to the
30 U.S. Office of Management and Budget.
Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis. September 17,
2003. https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_
a004_a-4/.
3. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
In addition to the analysis conducted
as required under 42 U.S.C.
6395(m)(1)(A), DOE performed an MIA
to estimate the impact of analyzed
energy conservation standards on
manufacturers of fluorescent lamp
ballasts. The following sections describe
the expected impacts on fluorescent
lamp manufacturers at each EL. Chapter
11 of the final determination TSD
explains the analysis in further detail.
a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:44 Dec 15, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
2
(0.050)
(0.053)
3
(0.023)
(0.059)
(0.043)
(0.087)
difference in industry value between the
no-new-standards case and the
standards cases that result from the sum
of discounted cash flows from the
reference year (2020) through the end of
the analysis period (2052).
To assess the upper (less severe) end
of the range of potential impacts on FLB
manufacturers, 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 efficient products to their
consumers. To assess the lower (more
severe) end of the range of potential
impacts, DOE modeled a preservation of
E:\FR\FM\16DER2.SGM
16DER2
81582
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
operating profit markup scenario. The
preservation of operating profit markup
scenario assumes that in the standards
cases, manufacturers would be able to
earn the same operating margin in
absolute dollars as they would in the
no-new-standards case.
Table V.6 and Table V.7 present the
results of the industry cash flow
analysis for FLB manufacturers under
the preservation of gross margin and
preservation of operating profit markup
scenarios, respectively. See chapter 11
of the final determination TSD for
results of the complete industry cash
flow analysis by product class.
TABLE V.6—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR ALL FLUORESCENT LAMP BALLAST—PRESERVATION OF GROSS
MARGIN MARKUP SCENARIO
INPV ......................................................................
Change in INPV ....................................................
Product Conversion Costs ....................................
Capital Conversion Costs .....................................
Total Conversion Costs ........................................
Units
No-newstandards
case
2019$ millions ..............
2019$ millions ..............
% ..................................
2019$ millions ..............
2019$ millions ..............
2019$ millions ..............
210.0
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
EL 1
EL 2
147.4
(62.6)
(29.8)
69.2
17.5
86.7
83.4
(126.6)
(60.3)
132.9
33.2
166.2
EL 3
70.6
(139.5)
(66.4)
147.7
35.9
183.6
TABLE V.7—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR ALL FLUORESCENT LAMP BALLAST—PRESERVATION OF OPERATING
PROFIT MARKUP SCENARIO
INPV ......................................................................
Change in INPV ....................................................
Product Conversion Costs ....................................
Capital Conversion Costs .....................................
Total Conversion Costs ........................................
b. 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,
for this final determination, DOE
determined that no manufacturers have
domestic FLB production. Therefore,
this determination would not have a
significant impact on domestic
employment in the FLB industry.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
DOE does not anticipate any
significant capacity constraints at any of
the analyzed energy conservation
standards. The more efficient
components are currently being used in
existing FLB models and worldwide
supply would most likely be able to
meet the increase in demand given the
3-year compliance period for any
potential energy conservation standards.
d. Impacts on Subgroups of
Manufacturers
Using average cost assumptions to
develop an industry cash-flow estimate
may not be adequate for assessing
differential impacts among
manufacturer subgroups. Small
manufacturers, niche equipment
manufacturers, and manufacturers
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Dec 15, 2020
Jkt 253001
Units
No-newstandards
case
2019$ millions ..............
2019$ millions ..............
% ..................................
2019$ millions ..............
2019$ millions ..............
2019$ millions ..............
210.0
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
exhibiting cost structures substantially
different from the industry average
could be affected disproportionately.
DOE only identified one manufacturer
subgroup for fluorescent lamp ballasts,
small manufacturers. Given that DOE is
issuing this final determination
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1) and
given the conclusion discussed in
section V.B, DOE did not conduct a
manufacturer subgroup analysis on
small business manufacturers for this
final determination.
e. 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
standards, other regulations can
significantly affect manufacturers’
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
EL 1
EL 2
144.3
(65.7)
(31.3)
69.2
17.5
86.7
76.4
(133.7)
(63.6)
132.9
33.2
166.2
EL 3
61.0
(149.0)
(70.9)
147.7
35.9
183.6
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
proposing new or amended energy
conservation standards. However, given
the conclusion discussed in section
V.A.3, DOE did not conduct a
cumulative regulatory burden analysis.
B. Final Determination
As required by EPCA, this final
determination analyzes whether
amended standards for fluorescent lamp
ballasts would result in significant
conservation of energy, be
technologically feasible, and be costeffective. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and
42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)) Any new or
amended standards issued by the
Secretary would be required to comply
with the economic justification and
other requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o).
In addition to these criteria, DOE also
estimated the impact on manufacturers.
The criteria considered under 42 U.S.C.
6295(m)(1)(A) and the additional
analysis are discussed below. Because
an analysis of cost effectiveness and
E:\FR\FM\16DER2.SGM
16DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
energy savings first require an
evaluation of the relevant technology,
DOE first discusses the technological
feasibility of amended standards. DOE
then addresses the cost effectiveness
and energy savings associated with
potential amended standards.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
1. Technological Feasibility
EPCA mandates that DOE consider
whether amended energy conservation
standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts
would be technologically feasible. (42
U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C.
6295(n)(2)(B)) DOE has determined that
there are technology options that would
improve the efficiency of fluorescent
lamp ballasts. These technology options
are being used in commercially
available fluorescent lamp ballasts and
therefore are technologically feasible.
(See section IV.C.2 for further
information.) Hence, DOE has
determined that new and amended
energy conservation standards for
fluorescent lamp ballasts are
technologically feasible.
2. Cost Effectiveness
EPCA requires DOE to consider
whether energy conservation standards
for fluorescent lamp ballasts would be
cost effective through an evaluation of
the savings in operating costs
throughout the estimated average life of
the covered product compared to any
increase in the price of, or in the initial
charges for, or maintenance expenses of,
the covered products which are likely to
result from the imposition of the
standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A), 42
U.S.C 6295(n)(2)(C), and 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducted an
LCC analysis to estimate the net costs/
benefits to users from increased
efficiency in the considered fluorescent
lamp ballasts. (See results in Table V.1).
DOE then aggregated the results from
the LCC analysis to estimate the NPV of
the total costs and benefits experienced
by the Nation. (See results in Table V.4.)
As noted, the inputs for determining the
NPV are (1) total annual installed cost,
(2) total annual operating costs (energy
costs and repair and maintenance costs),
and (3) a discount factor to calculate the
present value of costs and savings. DOE
first considered the most efficient level,
EL 3 (max-tech), which would result in
negative NPV at a 3-percent and 7percent discount rate. On the basis of
negative NPV, DOE determined that EL
3 is not cost effective.
DOE then considered the next most
efficient level, EL 2, which would result
in negative NPV at a 3-percent and 7percent discount rate. On the basis of
negative NPV, DOE determined that EL
2 is not cost effective.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Dec 15, 2020
Jkt 253001
DOE then considered the next most
efficient level, EL 1, which would result
in negative NPV at a 3-percent and 7percent discount rate. On the basis of
negative NPV, DOE determined that EL
1 is not cost effective.
3. Significant Conservation of Energy
EPCA also mandates that DOE
consider whether amended energy
conservation standards for fluorescent
lamp ballasts would result in significant
conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C.
6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C.
6295(n)(2)(A)) As discussed, to
determine whether energy savings is
significant, DOE conducts a two-step
approach that considers both an
absolute site energy savings threshold
and a threshold that is the percent
reduction in the covered energy use.
(See Section 6(b) of the Process Rule.)
DOE first evaluates the projected energy
savings from a potential max-tech
standard over a 30-year period against a
0.3 quads of site energy threshold. (See
Section 6(b)(2) of the Process Rule.) If
the 0.3 quad-threshold is not met, DOE
then compares the max-tech savings to
the total energy usage of fluorescent
lamp ballast to calculate a percentage
reduction in energy usage. (See Section
6(b)(3) of the Process Rule.) If this
comparison does not yield a reduction
in site energy use of at least 10 percent
over a 30-year period, the energy
savings are deemed to not be significant.
(See Section 6(b)(4) of the Process Rule.)
DOE estimates that amended
standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts
would result in site energy savings of
0.009 quads at EL 1, 0.026 quads at EL
2, and 0.032 quads at EL 3 over a 30year analysis period (2023–2052). (See
results in Table V.2.) Therefore, the
projected energy savings from potential
standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts
do not meet the 0.3 quad of site energy
threshold.
DOE then determined that over the
30-year analysis period the percentage
of reduction in energy use at the
potential max-tech standard level
compared to the total energy usage of
fluorescent lamp ballasts was one
percent. This does not yield a reduction
in site energy use of at least 10 percent
over a 30-year period.
Because neither criterion for
determining significant energy savings
specified in Section 6(b)(3) of the
Process Rule are met by the potential
max-tech standard for fluorescent lamp
ballasts, no significant energy savings
will result from setting new or amended
standards.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
81583
4. Other Analysis
In this analysis, DOE also conducted
an MIA to estimate the impact of
potential energy conservation standards
on manufacturers of fluorescent lamp
ballasts. (See results in Table V.6 and
Table V.7.) Each EL for all applicable
product classes is estimated to result in
FLB manufacturers experiencing a loss
in INPV.
5. Summary
In this final determination, based on
the consideration of cost effectiveness
and significant energy savings, DOE is
not amending energy conservation
standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts.
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory
Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders
12866 and 13563
This final determination has been
determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order (‘‘E.O.’’)
12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and
Review,’’ 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993) and
E.O. 13563, a supplement to E.O. 12866,
76 FR 3281 (Jan. 21, 2011). As a result,
OMB did not review this final
determination.
B. Review Under Executive Orders
13771 and 13777
On January 30, 2017, the President
issued E.O. 13771, ‘‘Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs.’’ 82 FR 9339 (Feb. 3, 2017). 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.’’ 82 FR 12285 (Mar. 1, 2017).
E.O. 13777 required the head of each
agency 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
E:\FR\FM\16DER2.SGM
16DER2
81584
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
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 concludes that this final
determination is consistent with the
directives set forth in these Executive
orders.
As discussed in this document, DOE
is not amending the energy conservation
standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts.
Therefore, this final determination is 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’’) and a final regulatory
flexibility analysis (‘‘FRFA’’) for any
rule that by law must be proposed for
public comment, unless the agency
certifies that the rule, if promulgated,
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. As required by E.O. 13272,
‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities
in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461
(Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published
procedures and policies on February 19,
2003, to ensure that the potential
impacts of its rules on small entities are
properly considered during the
rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE
has made its procedures and policies
available on the Office of the General
Counsel’s website (https://energy.gov/gc/
office-general-counsel).
DOE reviewed this final
determination under the provisions of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the
policies and procedures published on
February 19, 2003. This final
determination is not amending energy
conservation standards for fluorescent
lamp ballasts. Therefore, DOE certifies
that this final determination has no
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Dec 15, 2020
Jkt 253001
Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a
FRFA for this final 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 Paperwork
Reduction Act
Manufacturers of fluorescent lamp
ballasts must certify to DOE that their
products comply with any applicable
energy conservation standards. In
certifying compliance, manufacturers
must test their products according to the
DOE test procedures for fluorescent
lamp ballasts, including any
amendments adopted for those test
procedures. DOE has established
regulations for the certification and
recordkeeping requirements for all
covered consumer products and
commercial equipment, including
fluorescent lamp ballasts. 76 FR 12422
(Mar. 7, 2011); 80 FR 5099 (Jan. 30,
2015). The collection-of-information
requirement for the certification and
recordkeeping is subject to review and
approval by OMB under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (‘‘PRA’’). This
requirement has been approved by OMB
under OMB control number 1910–1400.
Public reporting burden for the
certification is estimated to average 35
hours per response, including the time
for reviewing instructions, searching
existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and
completing and reviewing the collection
of information.
Notwithstanding any other provision
of the law, no person is required to
respond to, nor shall any person be
subject to a penalty for failure to comply
with, a collection of information subject
to the requirements of the PRA, unless
that collection of information displays a
currently valid OMB Control Number.
E. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
Pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(‘‘NEPA’’), DOE has analyzed this final
determination in accordance with NEPA
and DOE’s NEPA implementing
regulations (10 CFR part 1021). DOE has
determined that this rule 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. Therefore, DOE has
determined that promulgation of this
rule is not a major Federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment within the meaning
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
of NEPA, and does not require an
environmental assessment or an
environmental impact statement.
F. Review Under Executive Order 13132
E.O. 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 64 FR
43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), imposes certain
requirements on Federal agencies
formulating and implementing policies
or regulations that preempt State law or
that have federalism implications. The
Executive Order requires agencies to
examine the constitutional and statutory
authority supporting any action that
would limit the policymaking discretion
of the States and to carefully assess the
necessity for such actions. The
Executive order also requires agencies to
have an accountable process to ensure
meaningful and timely input by State
and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have federalism
implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE
published a statement of policy
describing the intergovernmental
consultation process it will follow in the
development of such regulations. 65 FR
13735. DOE has examined this rule and
has determined that it would not have
a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the
National Government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. EPCA governs and
prescribes Federal preemption of State
regulations as to energy conservation for
the products that are the subject of this
final 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.
G. Review Under Executive Order 12988
With respect to the review of existing
regulations and the promulgation of
new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O.
12988, ‘‘Civil Justice Reform,’’ imposes
on Federal agencies the general duty to
adhere to the following requirements:
(1) Eliminate drafting errors and
ambiguity, (2) write regulations to
minimize litigation, (3) provide a clear
legal standard for affected conduct
rather than a general standard, and (4)
promote simplification and burden
reduction. 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996).
Regarding the review required by
section 3(a), section 3(b) of E.O. 12988
specifically requires that Executive
agencies make every reasonable effort to
ensure that the regulation (1) clearly
specifies the preemptive effect, if any,
(2) clearly specifies any effect on
existing Federal law or regulation, (3)
provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct while promoting
E:\FR\FM\16DER2.SGM
16DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
simplification and burden reduction, (4)
specifies the retroactive effect, if any, (5)
adequately defines key terms, and (6)
addresses other important issues
affecting clarity and general
draftsmanship under any guidelines
issued by the Attorney General. Section
3(c) of E.O. 12988 requires Executive
agencies to review regulations in light of
applicable standards in section 3(a) and
section 3(b) to determine whether they
are met or it is unreasonable to meet one
or more of them. DOE has completed the
required review and determined that, to
the extent permitted by law, this final
determination meets the relevant
standards of E.O. 12988.
H. Review Under the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (‘‘UMRA’’) requires
each Federal agency to assess the effects
of Federal regulatory actions on State,
local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. Public Law 104–4, sec.
201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a
regulatory action likely to result in a
rule that may cause the expenditure by
State, local, and Tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of
$100 million or more in any one year
(adjusted annually for inflation), section
202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency
to publish a written statement that
estimates the resulting costs, benefits,
and other effects on the national
economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The
UMRA also requires a Federal agency to
develop an effective process to permit
timely input by elected officers of State,
local, and Tribal governments on a
‘‘significant intergovernmental
mandate,’’ and requires an agency plan
for giving notice and opportunity for
timely input to potentially affected
small governments before establishing
any requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect them. On
March 18, 1997, DOE published a
statement of policy on its process for
intergovernmental consultation under
UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE’s policy
statement is also available at https://
energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/
documents/umra_97.pdf.
This final determination does not
contain a Federal intergovernmental
mandate, nor is it expected to require
expenditures of $100 million or more in
any one year by the private sector. As
a result, the analytical requirements of
UMRA do not apply.
I. Review Under the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Dec 15, 2020
Jkt 253001
Act, 1999, (Pub. L. 105–277) requires
Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule
that may affect family well-being. This
final determination would not have any
impact on the autonomy or integrity of
the family as an institution.
Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it
is not necessary to prepare a Family
Policymaking Assessment.
J. Review Under Executive Order 12630
Pursuant to E.O. 12630,
‘‘Governmental Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988),
DOE has determined that this final
determination would not result in any
takings that might require compensation
under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.
K. 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 final determination under
the OMB and DOE guidelines and has
concluded that it is consistent with
applicable policies in those guidelines.
L. Review Under Executive Order 13211
E.O. 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,’’ 66
FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires
Federal agencies to prepare and submit
to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (‘‘OIRA’’) at OMB, a
Statement of Energy Effects for any
significant energy action. A ‘‘significant
energy action’’ is defined as any action
by an agency that promulgates or is
expected to lead to promulgation of a
final rule, and that (1) is a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866, or any successor order; and (2)
is likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy; or (3) is designated by the
Administrator of OIRA as a significant
energy action. For any significant energy
action, the agency must give a detailed
statement of any adverse effects on
energy supply, distribution, or use
should the proposal be implemented,
and of reasonable alternatives to the
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
81585
action and their expected benefits on
energy supply, distribution, and use.
Because this final determination does
not amend energy conservation
standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts,
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 on this final
determination.
M. 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.’’ 70 FR 2664, 2667.
In response to OMB’s Bulletin, DOE
conducted formal peer reviews of the
energy conservation standards
development process and the analyses
that are typically used and prepared a
report describing that peer review.31
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 its
determination in the case of the present
rulemaking.
N. Congressional Notification
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will
report to Congress on the promulgation
of this final determination prior to its
31 The 2007 ‘‘Energy Conservation Standards
Rulemaking Peer Review Report’’ is available at the
following website: https://energy.gov/eere/buildings/
downloads/energy-conservation-standardsrulemaking-peer-review-report-0.
E:\FR\FM\16DER2.SGM
16DER2
81586
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
effective date. The report will state that
it has been determined that the final
determination is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
VII. Approval of the Office of the
Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved
publication of this final determination.
Signing Authority
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
This document of the U.S.
Department of Energy was signed on
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Dec 15, 2020
Jkt 253001
December 3, 2020, by Daniel R
Simmons, Assistant Secretary for Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
pursuant to delegated authority from the
Secretary of Energy. That document
with the original signature and date is
maintained by DOE. For administrative
purposes only, and in compliance with
requirements of the Office of the Federal
Register, the undersigned DOE Federal
Register Liaison Officer has been
authorized to sign and submit the
document in electronic format for
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
publication, as an official document of
the U.S. Department of Energy. This
administrative process in no way alters
the legal effect of this document upon
publication in the Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on December 4,
2020.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S.
Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2020–27045 Filed 12–15–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
E:\FR\FM\16DER2.SGM
16DER2
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 242 (Wednesday, December 16, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 81558-81586]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27045]
[[Page 81557]]
Vol. 85
Wednesday,
No. 242
December 16, 2020
Part II
Department of Energy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Railroad Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10 CFR Part 430
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 85 , No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 81558]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 430
[EERE-2015-BT-STD-0006]
RIN 1905-AD51
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Final determination.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''),
prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products
and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including fluorescent
lamp ballasts (``FLBs''). EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of
Energy (``DOE'') to periodically determine whether more-stringent
standards would be technologically feasible and cost effective, and
would result in significant energy savings. In this final
determination, DOE has determined that energy conservation standards
for fluorescent lamp ballasts do not need to be amended.
DATES: The effective date of this final determination is December 16,
2020.
ADDRESSES: The docket for this rulemaking, which includes Federal
Register notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts,
comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for
review at 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/document?D=EERE-2015-BT-STD-0006. The docket web page contains
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments,
in the docket.
For further information on how to review the docket, contact the
Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by
email: [email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. John Cymbalsky, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 287-1692. Email: [email protected].
Ms. Amelia Whiting, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the
General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-2588. Email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Synopsis of the Final Determination
II. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
1. Current Standards
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts
III. General Discussion
A. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage
B. Test Procedure
C. Technological Feasibility
1. General
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
D. Energy Savings
1. Determination of Savings
2. Significance of Savings
E. Cost Effectiveness
F. Other Analyses
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments
A. Analysis Approach and Determination
B. Market and Technology Assessment
1. Scope of Coverage
2. Metric
3. Product Classes
4. Technology Options
C. Screening Analysis
1. Screened-Out Technologies
2. Remaining Technologies
D. Engineering Analysis
1. Representative Product Classes
2. Baseline Ballasts
3. More Efficient Ballasts
4. Efficiency Levels
5. Scaling to Other Product Classes
E. Product Price Determination
F. Energy Use Analysis
G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
1. Product Cost
2. Installation Cost
3. Annual Energy Consumption
4. Energy Prices
5. Maintenance and Repair Costs
6. Product Lifetime
7. Discount Rates
8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case
9. Payback Period Analysis
H. Shipments Analysis
I. National Impact Analysis
1. Product Efficiency Trends
2. National Energy Savings
3. Net Present Value Analysis
J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
1. Overview
2. Manufacturer Production Costs
3. Shipments Projections
4. Product and Capital Conversion Costs
5. Markup Scenarios
6. Manufacturer Interviews
V. Analytical Results and Conclusions
A. Economic Justification and Energy Savings
1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers
2. National Impact Analysis
a. Significance of Energy Savings
b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits
3. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results
b. Direct Impacts on Employment
c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers
e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
B. Final Determination
1. Technological Feasibility
2. Cost Effectiveness
3. Significant Conservation of Energy
4. Other Analysis
5. Summary
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
B. Review Under Executive Orders 13771 and 13777
C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
E. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
F. Review Under Executive Order 13132
G. Review Under Executive Order 12988
H. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
I. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
J. Review Under Executive Order 12630
K. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2001
L. Review Under Executive Order 13211
M. Information Quality
N. Congressional Notification
VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Synopsis of the Final Determination
Title III, Part B \1\ of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as
amended (``EPCA''),\2\ established the Energy Conservation Program for
Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309) These
products include fluorescent lamp ballasts, the subject of this final
determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to the EPCA requirement that not later than 6 years after
issuance of any final rule establishing or amending an energy
conservation standard for a covered product, DOE must publish either a
notice of determination indicating that standards for the product do
not need to be amended, or a notice of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'')
including new proposed energy conservation standards. (42 U.S.C.
6295(m)(1)(A) and (B))
[[Page 81559]]
DOE analyzed fluorescent lamp ballasts subject to standards
specified in title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (``CFR'')
430.32(m). In addition, DOE evaluated whether current standards should
be extended to additional fluorescent lamp ballasts. Specifically, DOE
considered standards for dimming ballasts and 4-foot T8 medium bipin
(``MBP'') programmed start (``PS'') ballasts with an average current
less than 140 milliampere (``mA'') (hereafter low-current PS ballasts).
Hence, potential amended energy conservation standards in this final
determination refer not only to changes to existing standards but also
extension of standards to additional fluorescent lamp ballasts.
DOE first analyzed the technological feasibility of more efficient
fluorescent lamp ballasts. For those fluorescent lamp ballasts for
which DOE determined it to be technologically feasible to have higher
standards or be subject to standards, DOE estimated energy savings that
would result from potential energy conservation standards by conducting
a national impact analysis (``NIA''). DOE evaluated whether these
amended standards would be cost effective by conducting life-cycle cost
(``LCC'') and payback period (``PBP'') analyses, and estimated the net
present value (``NPV'') of the total costs and benefits experienced by
consumers. 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 determined that current standards for
fluorescent lamp ballasts do not need to be amended because amended
standards would not be cost effective and would not result in
significant energy savings.
II. Introduction
The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority
underlying this final determination, as well as some of the relevant
historical background related to the establishment of standards for
fluorescent lamp ballasts.
A. Authority
EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number
of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III Part B
of EPCA, established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer
Products Other Than Automobiles. These products include fluorescent
lamp ballasts, the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(13))
EPCA prescribed energy conservation standards for these products (42
U.S.C. 6295(g)(5), and directs DOE to conduct future rulemakings to
determine whether to amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(7)(A)-
(B)) Through amendments to EPCA under the Energy Policy Act of 2005
(``EPACT 2005''), Public Law 109-58, Congress promulgated new energy
conservation standards for certain fluorescent lamp ballasts. (EPACT
2005 section 135(c)(2); codified at 42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(8)(A))
The energy conservation program under EPCA, consists essentially of
four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of Federal
energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement
procedures. Relevant provisions of the EPCA specifically include
definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293),
labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation standards (42
U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to require information and reports from
manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).
Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to
develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use,
or estimated annual operating cost of each covered product. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(3)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(r)) Manufacturers of covered products
must use the prescribed DOE test procedure as the basis for certifying
to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy
conservation standards adopted under EPCA and when making
representations to the public regarding the energy use or efficiency of
those products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) Similarly,
DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the products
comply with standards adopted pursuant to EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The
DOE test procedures for fluorescent lamp ballasts appear at title 10
CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix Q.
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered products
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42
U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c)) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal
preemption in limited instances for particular State laws or
regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions set
forth under EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C. 6297(d)).
Pursuant to the amendments contained in the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007 (``EISA 2007''), Public Law 110-140, any final
rule for new or amended energy conservation standards promulgated after
July 1, 2010, is required to address standby mode and off mode energy
use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) Specifically, when DOE adopts a standard
for a covered product after that date, it must, if justified by the
criteria for adoption of standards under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)),
incorporate standby mode and off mode energy use into a single
standard, or, if that is not feasible, adopt a separate standard for
such energy use for that product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)(A)-(B)) DOE's
current test procedure and standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts
address standby mode and off mode energy use. In this analysis, DOE
considers such energy use in its determination of whether energy
conservation standards need to be amended.
DOE is issuing this final determination pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
6295(m), which states that DOE must periodically review its already
established energy conservation standards for a covered product no
later than 6 years from the issuance of a final rule establishing or
amending a standard for a covered product. As a result of this review,
DOE must either publish a determination that standards do not need to
be amended or a NOPR, including new proposed standards (proceeding to a
final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) EPCA further
provides that, not later than 3 years after the issuance of a final
determination not to amend standards, DOE must make a new determination
and publish either a notice of determination that standards for the
product do not need to be amended, or a NOPR including new proposed
energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as
appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(3)(B))
DOE must make the analysis on which the determination is based
publicly available and provide an opportunity for written comment. (42
U.S.C. 6295(m)(2)) A determination that amended standards are not
needed must be based on consideration of whether amended standards will
result in significant conservation of energy, are technologically
feasible, and are cost effective. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and 42
U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)) Additionally, any new or amended energy conservation
standard prescribed by the Secretary for any type (or class) of covered
product shall be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency which the Secretary determines is technologically feasible
and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Among the factors
DOE
[[Page 81560]]
considers in evaluating whether a proposed standard level is
economically justified includes whether the proposed standard at that
level is cost-effective, as defined under 42 U. S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II). Under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II), an
evaluation of cost effectiveness requires that DOE consider savings in
operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered
products in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price
of, or initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered
products that are likely to result from the standard. (42 U.S.C.
6295(n)(2) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II))
B. Background
1. Current Standards
In a final rule published on November 14, 2011, DOE prescribed the
current energy conservation standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts
manufactured on and after November 14, 2014 (``2011 FL Ballast Rule'').
76 FR 70548. These standards require a minimum power factor of 0.9 or
greater for ballasts that are not residential ballasts or 0.5 or
greater for residential ballasts and a minimum ballast luminous
efficiency (``BLE'') as set forth in DOE's regulations at 10 CFR
430.32(m) and repeated in Table II.1.
Table II.1--Federal Energy Conservation Standards for Fluorescent Lamp
Ballasts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLE = A / (1 + B * average total lamp arc power [supcaret]-C) Where A,
B, and C are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description A B C
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instant start and rapid start ballasts (not classified as 0.993 0.27 0.25
residential) that are designed and marketed to operate:........
4-foot medium bipin lamps.
2-foot U-shaped lamps.
8-foot slimline lamps.
Programmed start ballasts (not classified as residential) that 0.993 0.51 0.37
are designed and marketed to operate:..........................
4-foot medium bipin lamps.
2-foot U-shaped lamps.
4-foot miniature bipin standard output lamps.
4-foot miniature bipin high output lamps.
Instant start and rapid start ballasts (not classified as sign 0.993 0.38 0.25
ballasts) that are designed and marketed to operate 8-foot high
output lamps...................................................
Programmed start ballasts (not classified as sign ballasts) that 0.973 0.70 0.37
are designed and marketed to operate 8-foot high output lamps..
Sign ballasts that are designed and marketed operate 8-foot high 0.993 0.47 0.25
output lamps...................................................
Instant start and rapid start residential ballasts that are 0.993 0.41 0.25
designed and marketed operate:.................................
4-foot medium bipin lamps.
2-foot U-shaped lamps.
8-foot slimline lamps.
Programmed start residential ballasts that are designed and 0.973 0.71 0.37
marketed to operate:...........................................
4-foot medium bipin lamps.
2-foot U-shaped lamps.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts
In support of the present review of the fluorescent lamp ballast
energy conservation standards, DOE prepared the ``Energy Conservation
Standards Rulemaking Framework Document for Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts''
(``Framework Document''), which describes the procedural and analytical
approaches DOE anticipated using to evaluate energy conservation
standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts. On June 23, 2015, DOE
published a notice announcing the availability of the Framework
Document. 80 FR 35886. The Framework Document is available in the
docket provided under the ADDRESSES section. DOE held a public meeting
on July 17, 2015, at which it described the various analyses that DOE
would conduct as part of its review of the energy conservation
standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts, such as the engineering
analysis, the LCC and PBP analyses, and the NIA. Representatives for
manufacturers, trade associations, environmental and energy efficiency
advocates, and other interested parties attended the meeting. The
transcript of the public meeting is available in the docket provided
under the ADDRESSES section.
On October 22, 2019, DOE published a notice of proposed
determination (``October 2019 NOPD'') with the initial determination
that energy conservation standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts do not
need to be amended. 84 FR 56540. DOE held a webinar on October 30, 2019
to discuss the analysis and results of the October 2019 NOPD. A
transcript of the webinar is available in the docket provided under the
ADDRESSES section.
DOE received six comments in response to the October 2019 NOPD from
the interested parties listed in Table II.2.
Table II.2--October 2019 NOPD Written Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference in this final
Organization(s) determination Organization type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), CA IOUs........................... Utilities.
San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E), and
Southern California Edison (SCE).
Signify North America Corporation....... Signify........................... Manufacturer.
National Electrical Manufacturers NEMA.............................. Trade Association.
Association.
Lutron Electronics Co., Inc............. Lutron............................ Manufacturer.
[[Page 81561]]
Institute for Policy Integrity.......... IPI............................... Think Tank.
John Danison............................ Danison........................... Individual.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop
energy conservation standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts. (Docket
No. EERE- EERE-2015-BT-STD-0006, which is maintained at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2015-BT-STD-0006). The references
are arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID number
at page of that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. General Discussion
DOE developed the conclusions in this notice after considering oral
and written comments, data, and information from interested parties
that represent a variety of interests.
A. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage
When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE
divides covered products into product classes by the type of energy
used or by capacity or other performance-related features that justify
differing standards. In making a determination whether a performance-
related feature justifies a different standard, DOE must consider such
factors as the utility of the feature to the consumer and other factors
DOE determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q))
The product classes for this proposed determination are discussed
in further detail in section IV.B.3 of this document. This final
determination covers fluorescent lamp ballasts defined as devices that
are used to start and operate fluorescent lamps by providing a starting
voltage and current and limiting the current during normal operation.
10 CFR 430.2. The scope of coverage is discussed in further detail in
section IV.B.1 of this document.
B. Test Procedure
EPCA sets forth generally applicable criteria and procedures for
DOE's adoption and amendment of test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6293)
Manufacturers of covered products must use these test procedures to
certify to DOE that their product complies with energy conservation
standards and to quantify the efficiency of their product. DOE's
current energy conservation standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts are
expressed in terms of BLE. 10 CFR 430.32(m)
DOE initiated a review of the FLB test procedure and on March 18,
2019, published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) for the FLB test
procedure. In that NOPR DOE proposed to (1) update references to
industry standards, (2) clarify the selection of reference lamps, (3)
provide a second stabilization option for measuring ballast luminous
efficiency, (4) provide a test procedure for measuring the performance
of ballasts at light outputs less than full light output, and (5)
revise the test procedure for measuring standby mode energy
consumption. 84 FR 9910. In the final rule published September 14, 2020
DOE adopted (1) updates to references to industry standards, (2)
clarification of selection reference lamps, (3) a second stabilization
option for measuring BLE and general updates to the stabilization
steps, and (4) revision of the standby mode energy consumption test
procedure. 85 FR 56475. DOE did not adopt the proposed test procedure
for measuring performance of ballasts at light output less than full
light output. 85 FR 56485
C. Technological Feasibility
1. General
In each energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE conducts a
screening analysis based on information gathered on all current
technology options and prototype designs that could improve the
efficiency of the products or equipment that are the subject of the
rulemaking. As the first step in such an analysis, DOE develops a list
of technology options for consideration in consultation with
manufacturers, design engineers, and other interested parties. Section
6(c)(1) of 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A (the ``Process
Rule''). DOE then determines which of those means for improving
efficiency are technologically feasible. DOE considers technologies
incorporated in commercially available products or in working
prototypes to be technologically feasible. Sections 6(c)(3)(i) and
7(b)(1) of the ``Process Rule''.
After DOE has determined that particular technology options are
technologically feasible, it further evaluates each technology option
in light of the following additional screening criteria: (1)
Practicability to manufacture, install, and service; (2) adverse
impacts on product utility or availability; (3) adverse impacts on
health or safety; and (4) unique-pathway proprietary technologies.
Sections 6(c)(3)(ii)-(v) and 7(b)(2)-(5) of the Process Rule. Section
IV.C of this document discusses the results of the screening analysis
for fluorescent lamp ballasts, particularly the designs DOE considered,
those it screened out, and those that are the basis for the standards
considered in this rulemaking. For further details on the screening
analysis for this rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the final determination
technical support document (``TSD'').
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
When DOE considers amended standards for a type or class of covered
product, it must determine the maximum improvement in energy efficiency
or maximum reduction in energy use that is technologically feasible for
such product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1)) Accordingly, in the engineering
analysis, DOE determined the maximum technologically feasible (``max-
tech'') improvements in energy efficiency for fluorescent lamp
ballasts, using the design parameters for the most efficient products
available on the market or in working prototypes. The max-tech levels
that DOE determined for this rulemaking are described in section IV.D
of this final determination and in chapter 5 of the final determination
TSD.
D. Energy Savings
1. Determination of Savings
For each efficiency level (``EL''), DOE projected energy savings
from the application of the EL to fluorescent lamp ballasts purchased
in the 30-year period that begins in the year of compliance with the
potential standards
[[Page 81562]]
(2023-2052).\4\ The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of
fluorescent lamp ballasts purchased in the 30-year analysis period. DOE
quantified the energy savings attributable to each EL as the difference
in energy consumption between each standards case and the no-new-
standards case. The no-new-standards case represents a projection of
energy consumption that reflects how the market for a product would
likely evolve in the absence of amended energy conservation standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ DOE also presents a sensitivity analysis that considers
impacts for products shipped in a 9-year period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE used its NIA spreadsheet models to estimate national energy
savings (``NES'') from potential amended standards for fluorescent lamp
ballasts. The NIA spreadsheet model (described in section IV.I of this
document) calculates energy savings in terms of site energy, which is
the energy directly consumed by products at the locations where they
are used. For electricity, DOE reports NES in terms of primary energy
savings, which is the savings in the energy that is used to generate
and transmit the site electricity. For natural gas, the primary energy
savings are considered to be equal to the site energy savings. DOE also
calculates NES in terms of full fuel cycle (``FFC'') energy savings.
The FFC metric includes the energy consumed in extracting, processing,
and transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum
fuels), and thus presents a more complete picture of the impacts of
energy conservation standards.\5\ DOE's approach is based on the
calculation of an FFC multiplier for each of the energy types used by
covered products or equipment. For more information on FFC energy
savings, see section V.A.2.a of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The FFC metric is discussed in DOE's statement of policy and
notice of policy amendment. 76 FR 51282 (Aug. 18, 2011), as amended
at 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Significance of Savings
In determining whether amended standards are needed, DOE must
consider whether such standards will result in significant conservation
of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A); 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)) The term
``significant'' is not defined in EPCA. DOE has established a
significance threshold for energy savings. (See Section 6(b) of the
Process Rule.) In evaluating the significance of energy savings, DOE
conducts a two-step approach that considers both an absolute site
energy savings threshold and a threshold that is the percent reduction
in the covered energy use. Id. DOE first evaluates the projected energy
savings from a potential max-tech standard over a 30-year period
against a 0.3 quads of site energy threshold. (See Section 6(b)(2) of
the Process Rule.) If the 0.3 quad-threshold is not met, DOE then
compares the max-tech savings to the total energy usage of the covered
equipment to calculate a percentage reduction in energy usage. (See
Section 6(b)(3) of the Process Rule.) If this comparison does not yield
a reduction in site energy use of at least 10 percent over a 30-year
period, DOE proposes that no significant energy savings would likely
result from setting new or amended standards. (See Section 6(b)(4) of
the Process Rule.) The two-step approach allows DOE to ascertain
whether a potential standard satisfies EPCA's significant energy
savings requirements in 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.''
EPCA defines ``energy efficiency'' as the ratio of the useful
output of services from a consumer product to the energy use of such
product, measured according to the Federal test procedures. (42 U.S.C.
6291(5), emphasis added) EPCA defines ``energy use'' as the quantity of
energy directly consumed by a consumer product at point of use, as
measured by the Federal test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6291(4)) Further,
EPCA uses a household energy consumption metric as a threshold for
setting standards for new covered products. (42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(1)(A-B))
Given this context, DOE relies on site energy as the appropriate metric
for evaluating the significance of energy savings.
At the time of the October 2019 NOPD analysis, the two-step
approach to determining significant energy savings had not been
finalized. In the October 2019 NOPD, DOE reported the projected site
energy savings over a 30-year analysis period for each EL evaluated.
DOE tentatively determined in the October 2019 NOPD that amended
standards at the evaluated ELs would not be cost effective. 84 FR
56540, 56583.
E. Cost Effectiveness
Under EPCA's six-year-lookback review provision for existing energy
conservation standards at 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1), cost-effectiveness of
potential amended standards is a relevant consideration both where DOE
proposes to adopt such standards, as well as where it does not. In
considering cost-effectiveness when making a determination of whether
existing energy conservation standards do not need to be amended, DOE
considers the savings in operating costs throughout the estimated
average life of the covered product compared to any increase in the
price of, or in the initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of,
the covered product that is likely to result from a standard. (42
U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A)(referencing 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2))) Additionally,
any new or amended energy conservation standard prescribed by the
Secretary for any type (or class) of covered product shall be designed
to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency which the
Secretary determines is technologically feasible and economically
justified. 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) Cost-effectiveness is one of the
factors that DOE must ultimately consider under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)
to support a finding of economic justification, if it is determined
that amended standards are appropriate under the applicable statutory
criteria. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II))
F. Other Analyses
In addition to the analyses conducted in consideration of the
statutory criteria under EPCA's periodic review requirement at 42
U.S.C. 6295(m)(1), DOE also conducted an MIA that determines the
potential economic impact of amended standards on FLB manufacturers.
The analyses employed by DOE in its consideration of each of the
criteria applied are discussed in the following sections.
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments
This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this
final determination with regards to fluorescent lamp ballasts. Separate
subsections address each component of DOE's analyses and respond to
comments received.
A. Analysis Approach and Determination
DOE conducted several analyses (described in the following
subsections) to estimate the impact of the standards considered in this
document. Several of these analyses utilized spreadsheets as tools to
generate quantitative results. The first spreadsheet calculates the LCC
savings and PBP of potential amended or new energy conservation
standards. The NIA uses a second spreadsheet set that provides
shipments projections and calculates NES and net NPV of total consumer
costs and savings expected to result from potential energy conservation
standards. DOE uses the third spreadsheet, the Government
[[Page 81563]]
Regulatory Impact Model (``GRIM''), to assess manufacturer impacts of
potential standards. These three spreadsheet tools are available on the
DOE website for this rulemaking: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2015-BT-STD-0006.
DOE received several comments on its analytical approach. IPI
stated that by not including an analysis of potential emissions
reductions from setting higher efficiency standards for fluorescent
lamp ballasts DOE violated the statutory requirements. (IPI, No. 26 at
p. 1) First, IPI discussed the significance of energy conservation
criteria and asserted that even if significance of the energy
conservation, technological feasibility, and cost effectiveness are the
criteria for a determination, emissions reductions are directly
relevant to the ``significance'' of the energy savings. Further, IPI
stated that ``significance'' can be evaluated by comparing whether the
``value'' of energy savings ``outweighed'' the ``cost'' (citing NRDC v.
Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 1374 n.19 (D.C. Cir. 1985)) and under that
interpretation, environmental benefits should be a central factor in
weighing the significance of energy savings. (IPI, No. 26 at p. 2) IPI
further asserted EPCA provides analogous factors to the ``significance
of energy'' criteria, such as consideration of the ``need for national
energy . . . conservation'' in evaluating the economic justification
for standards, which include consideration of environmental effects,
and that DOE must consider these additional factors. (IPI, No. 26 at
pp. 2, 3; referencing Zero Zone Inc. v. Dept. of Energy, 832 F.3d 654,
677 (7th Cir. 2016)) IPI also relied on court interpretations of
statutory authority other than that governing the Appliance Standards
Program. (IPI, No. 26 at p. 3)
Second, IPI discussed DOE's reliance on cost effectiveness rather
than economic justification for the determination. IPI stated that DOE
summarizes it review of standards as fulfilling the requirements ``to
periodically determine whether more stringent, amended standards would
be technologically feasible and economically justified'', but failed to
explain why it ignored the factors for determining if a standard is
economically justified. IPI asserted that there are two possible
outcomes outlined in 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1) of a single review process
and that criteria for developing an amended standard should be relevant
in determination if amended standards are appropriate or not, which
includes ``the need for nation energy . . . conservation''. (IPI, No.
26 at pp. 2-3)
Additionally, IPI stated that by not including an analysis of the
potential emissions reductions and the monetized values of such
reductions, DOE violated the 2015 Framework Document, which described
emissions analysis as part of the methodology DOE would employ.
Additionally, IPI stated DOE contravened past DOE practices of
routinely analyzing emissions and considering the social cost of
greenhouse gasses in its analysis. (IPI, No. 26 at p. 1)
DOE disagrees with IPI's characterization of the statutory
requirements applicable in the present case. In the Process Rule, DOE
defined how to determine significance of energy savings under EPCA and
developed a two-step process to make that determination. (See 85 FR
8703, 8655-8676.) In this rulemaking DOE applied the two-step approach
which considers both an absolute site energy savings threshold and a
threshold that is the percent reduction in the covered energy use. (See
Section 6(b) of the Process Rule.)
Further, as stated in section II.A of this document, DOE is issuing
this final determination pursuant to periodic review required under 42
U.S.C. 6295(m). Section 6295(m) provides that not later than 6 years
after issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard,
the Secretary of Energy (``Secretary'') shall publish (A) a notice of
the determination of the Secretary that standards for the product do
not need to be amended, based on the criteria established under
subsection (n)(2); or (B) a notice of proposed rulemaking including new
proposed standards based on the criteria established under subsection
(o) and the procedures established under subsection (p). (42 U.S.C.
6295(m)(1)(A) and (B)) The statute plainly provides two separate sets
of criteria--one set for a determination that standards do not need to
be amended, and one set for proposed standards. The criteria that are
the basis for proposed standards include the requirements that any new
or amended standard for a 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(m)(1)(B) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 42 U.S.C.
6295(3)(B)) A determination of ``economically justified'' requires
consideration of seven factors,\6\ including the ``need for national
energy conservation'' factor cited by IPI. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ In deciding whether a proposed standard is economically
justified, DOE must determine whether the benefits of the standard
exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make this
determination after receiving comments on the proposed standard, and
by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the following
seven statutory factors: (1) The economic impact of the standard on
manufacturers and consumers of the products subject to the standard;
(2) the savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average
life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared to any
increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for
the covered products that are likely to result from the standard;
(3) the total projected amount of energy (or as applicable, water)
savings likely to result directly from the standard; (4) any
lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered products
likely to result from the standard; (5) the impact of any lessening
of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General,
that is likely to result from the standard; (6) the need for
national energy and water conservation; and (7) other factors the
Secretary considers relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, DOE did not propose amended or new standards for
fluorescent lamp ballasts, and is not adopting any such amendments. DOE
proposed to determine that energy conservation standards for
fluorescent lamp ballasts do not need to be amended. EPCA explicitly
provides a more limited set of criteria on which a determination that
standards do not need to be amended must be based. Such a determination
must be based on consideration of whether amended standards will result
in significant conservation of energy, are technologically feasible,
and are cost effective. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C.
6295(n)(2); emphasis added) The ``cost effective'' consideration is a
more limited consideration than the ``economically justified''
consideration required for proposing and adopting amended energy
conservation standards.
EPCA specifies that consideration of cost effectiveness requires
DOE consider, only one of the seven factors for economic justification,
savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the
covered products in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the
price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the covered
products that are likely to result from the standard. (42 U.S.C.
6295(n)(2) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) The cost effectiveness
evaluation required by the plain language of EPCA requires DOE to
evaluate impacts to consumers (i.e., operating costs and increase in
initial price). DOE has historically addressed the ``cost
effectiveness'' criterion
[[Page 81564]]
through LCC, PBP, and NPV analyses,\7\ and has continued to do so in
the present case. IPI's reliance on the ``need for national energy
conservation'' and related interpretations are misplaced. EPCA does not
direct DOE to consider the ``need for national energy conservation'' as
part of a determination that energy conservation standards do not need
to be amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See e.g., 76 FR 70548, 70595 (``Consumers affected by new or
amended standards usually experience higher purchase prices and
lower operating costs. Generally, these effects on individual
consumers are best summarized by changes in LCCs and by the payback
period.'') and 76 FR 70548, 70562 (``For consumers in the aggregate,
DOE calculates the NPV from a national perspective of the economic
impacts on consumers over the forecast period used in a particular
rulemaking.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In advance of the October 2019 NOPD, DOE prepared the Framework
Document, which describes the procedural and analytical approaches DOE
anticipated using to evaluate FLB standards. As stated in that
document, the Framework Document provided a starting point for
developing standards used to facilitate input and was not definitive
with respect to any issue to be determined in the rulemaking.
(Framework Document, No. 1 at p. 1) Discussion of an emissions analysis
in the Framework Document was presented in the context of the analyses
DOE would expect to conduct for a NOPR, i.e., analyses that would be
conducted in support of proposed standards. (Framework Document, No. 1
at pp. 5-6) As stated, DOE is not proposing new or amended standards
for fluorescent lamp ballasts.
DOE received general comments agreeing with its tentative
conclusion in the October 2019 NOPD that amended FLB standards are not
warranted. NEMA, Signify, Lutron, and CA IOUs agreed with DOE's
proposed determination to not amend FLB standards. (NEMA, No. 24 at p.
2; Signify, No. 27 at p. 2; Signify, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 21
at p. 50; Lutron, No. 23 at p. 2; CA IOUs, No. 25 at p. 1) CA IOUs
stated that because of the steady decline of ballast shipments due to
advances in light-emitting diode (``LED'') luminaires, the changes in
ballast technology to achieve what would be minimal energy savings are
not warranted and would also likely not be cost effective. (CA IOUs,
No. 25 at p. 2) Lutron also cited the small potential for energy
savings and conclusions of DOE's NPV analysis as reasons not to amend
standards. (Lutron, No. 23 at p. 2) NEMA stated that manufacturers are
focusing on LED lighting systems and are not investing now or in the
future in fluorescent ballast technology. NEMA stated that any changes
to existing standards would result in manufacturers discontinuing
products, thereby limiting product availability. NEMA stated that the
burdens and negative impacts of such actions would not be outweighed by
the minor energy savings that may remain at the max tech efficiency
level. (NEMA, No. 24 at pp. 1-3) Signify added that regulatory action
was not necessary to accelerate the transition from fluorescent
lighting to LED lighting. (Signify, No. 27 at p. 2) Lutron agreed that
amended standards would result in discontinuing products that in turn
could require end users to replace entire systems when doing only minor
retrofits or replacing failed components. (Lutron, No. 23 at p. 2)
NEMA asserted that there is naturally-occurring market adoption of
LED technology by users of fluorescent technology. NEMA stated that the
switch to LED fixtures can be triggered by (1) newer lamp/older ballast
compatibility problems in lamp replacements, (2) ballast failure, (3)
reducing electricity operating costs, or (4) building renovation. NEMA
added that lower cost and longer life are driving forces for migration
away from FLB technology, and this consumer and technology driven shift
is a good example of ``other than regulatory action'' accomplishing an
intended outcome without government regulation. NEMA concluded that
regulations that impacted cost or availability of products to hasten
migration to other technology are unnecessary. (NEMA, No. 24 at pp. 5-
6)
Lutron requested that if DOE changed the conclusion of the proposed
determination based on stakeholder comments, a supplementary NOPR or
similar document with an updated analysis be published for comment.
(Lutron, No. 23 at p. 2)
In this final determination, DOE is finalizing its initial
conclusion that changes to FLB standards are not warranted (see section
V.B for further details). The following sections describe the analyses
DOE conducted in support of this final determination.
B. Market and Technology Assessment
DOE develops information in the market and technology assessment
that provides an overall picture of the market for the products
concerned, including the purpose of the products, the industry
structure, manufacturers, market characteristics, and technologies used
in the products. This activity includes both quantitative and
qualitative assessments, based primarily on publicly-available
information. The subjects addressed in the market and technology
assessment for this rulemaking include: (1) A determination of the
scope of the rulemaking and product classes, (2) manufacturers and
industry structure, (3) existing efficiency programs, (4) shipments
information, (5) market and industry trends, and (6) technologies or
design options that could improve the energy efficiency of fluorescent
lamp ballasts. The key findings of DOE's market assessment are
summarized in the following sections. See chapter 3 of the Final
Determination TSD for further discussion of the market and technology
assessment.
1. Scope of Coverage
Fluorescent lamp ballast means a device that is used to start and
operate fluorescent lamps by providing a starting voltage and current
and limiting the current during normal operation. 10 CFR 430.2. In this
analysis, DOE relied on the definition of ``fluorescent lamp'' in 10
CFR 430.2, which provides the specific lamp lengths, bases, and
wattages included by the term. Any product meeting the definition of
fluorescent lamp ballast is included in DOE's scope of coverage, though
all products within the scope of coverage may not be subject to
standards.
As part of its review of energy conservation standards for
fluorescent lamp ballasts, DOE evaluated whether current standards
should be extended to additional fluorescent lamp ballasts.
Fluorescent lamp ballasts manufactured on or after November 14,
2014, that are designed and marketed to operate at an input voltage at
or between 120 volts (V) and 277 V, to operate with an input current
frequency of 60 hertz, and for use with fluorescent lamps as defined in
10 CFR 430.2 are currently required to comply with the energy
conservation standards at 10 CFR 430.32(m)(1).
Fluorescent lamp ballasts manufactured on or after November 14,
2014, that are designed and marketed to operate at an input voltage at
or between 120 and 277 V; to operate with an input current frequency of
60 hertz for dimming to 50 percent or less of the maximum output of the
ballast; and to operate one or two F34T12 lamps, two F96T12 Energy
Saver (``ES'') lamps, or two F96T12 high output (``HO'') ES lamps are
required to comply with the energy conservation standards at 10 CFR
430.32(m)(2).
The following fluorescent lamp ballasts are exempt from standards:
(1) A dimming ballast designed and marketed to operate exclusively lamp
types other than one F34T12, two
[[Page 81565]]
F34T12, two F96T12/ES, or two F96T12HO/ES lamps; (2) a low-frequency
ballast that is designed and marketed to operate T8 diameter lamps, is
designed and marketed for use in electromagnetic interference-
sensitive-environments only, and is shipped by the manufacturer in
packages containing 10 or fewer ballasts; and (3) a programmed start
ballast that operates 4-foot medium bipin T8 lamps and delivers on
average less than 140 mA to each lamp. 10 CFR 430.32(m)(3).
Of these exemptions, in the October 2019 NOPD, DOE included in the
analysis all fluorescent lamp ballasts that are dimmable and PS
ballasts operating 4-foot MBP T8 lamps and using less than 140 mA
(i.e., low-current PS ballasts). 84 FR 56540, 56545-56548.
In the October 2019 NOPD, DOE determined that alternative options
such as using PS ballasts with operating current at 140 mA or higher,
paired with reduced-wattage lamps or decreasing the number of lamps in
the system could provide low light output levels comparable to those
attained using low-current PS ballasts. DOE identified lamp-and-ballast
replacements that maintained system light output within 10 percent of a
lamp-and-ballast system using a low-current PS ballast and saved
energy. Because reasonable alternatives to providing low light output
utility offered by low-current PS ballasts were available, DOE found no
reason to continue the exemption of low-current PS ballasts. DOE did
not receive any comments on this assessment. 84 FR 56540, 56547. In
this final determination, DOE continued to include low-current PS
ballasts in the analysis.
In the October 2019 NOPD, DOE determined that standards for dimming
ballasts could potentially result in energy savings. Since the 2011 FL
Ballast Rule, DOE has observed an increase in dimming products. DOE's
review of manufacturer catalogs indicates a wide range of dimming
ballast products available for use with several lamp types.\8\ Further,
DOE has observed a range of efficiencies for dimming ballasts,
indicating that less efficient products can be improved. Additionally,
state and local regulations and building codes with increased dimming
and/or lighting control requirements (e.g., CA Title 24 and ANSI/
ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2016 \9\) will continue to support
installation of dimming ballasts in the near future. 84 FR 56540,
56545-56546. DOE did not receive any comments on this assessment. In
this final determination, DOE continued to include dimming ballasts in
the analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Specifically, 4-foot MBP lamps, 2-foot U-shaped lamps, 4-
foot MiniBP SO lamps, and 4-foot MiniBP HO lamps.
\9\ American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-
Conditioning Engineers. ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2016--Energy
Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings.
Atlanta, GA: ASHRAE, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, in addition to fluorescent lamp ballasts subject to
current energy conservation standards, in this analysis DOE evaluated
all fluorescent lamp ballasts that are dimmable and PS fluorescent lamp
ballasts that operate 4-foot T8 MBP lamps and deliver on average less
than 140 mA to each lamp.
2. Metric
DOE's current energy conservation standards for fluorescent lamp
ballasts are expressed in terms of BLE. It is calculated using the
following equation where A, B, and C are predefined constants and power
is the total lamp arc power operated by a ballast (see section IV.D.4
for further details):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE20.000
NEMA stated that the constants used to determine BLE would need to
be adjusted for dimming ballasts as these ballasts have greater fixed
losses due to the additional functionality. (NEMA, No. 24 at p. 3)
In this final determination, as in the October 2019 NOPD, DOE
evaluated dimming ballasts as a separate product class in order to
account for the added circuitry in dimming ballasts that make them less
efficient than comparable standard ballasts. (See section IV.B.3 and 84
FR 56540, 56555-6). Because dimming ballasts have a separate set of
efficiency levels, a separate equation to account for their lower
efficiency compared to standards ballasts is not required.
NEMA stated that due to complications in evaluating cathode heat
losses, effective and repeatable BLE measurements of dimming ballasts
could only be taken at full light output. (NEMA, No. 24 at p. 3)
Signify agreed stating that at full light output when the filament
(i.e., cathode) heating circuit is disconnected. (Signify, No. 27 at p.
1) NEMA also commented that as ballasts enter dimming mode, the
operational frequency increases, as well introducing instrument
uncertainty. Additionally, NEMA stated that while no change is required
to the current DOE test procedure for measuring dimming ballasts at 100
percent light output, at any other light output, a new test circuit and
multiport power analyzer equipment would be required. (NEMA, No. 24 at
p. 3)
No comments were received suggesting that dimming ballasts be
tested at an output other than 100 percent.
This analysis is based on measuring the BLE at full light output
for all ballasts, including dimming ballasts.
3. 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)(1))
In the October 2019 NOPD, DOE assessed the product classes shown in
the following list in its analysis. 84 FR 56540, 56556. In describing
product classes, DOE includes the types of lamps each class of ballast
operates. In the October 2019 NOPD, DOE updated the lamp types for
existing product classes based on a review of the latest product
offerings on the market and added 4-foot miniature bipin (MiniBP)
standard output (``SO'') and 4-foot MiniBP HO lamp types to the instant
start (``IS'')/rapid start (``RS'') (not classified as residential),
IS/RS residential, and PS residential product classes. Id.
Additionally, DOE evaluated dimming ballasts as a separate product
class. Id. at 84 FR 56555. The product classes assessed are as follows:
(1) IS and RS ballasts (not classified as residential) that operate
(a) 4-foot MBP lamps
(b) 2-foot U-shaped lamps
(c) 4-foot MiniBP SO lamps
(d) 4-foot MiniBP HO lamps
(e) 8-foot single pin (``SP'') slimline lamps
(2) PS ballasts (not classified as residential) that operate
(a) 4-foot MBP lamps
(b) 2-foot U-shaped lamps
(c) 4-foot MiniBP SO lamps
(d) 4-foot MiniBP HO lamps
(3) IS and RS ballasts (not classified as sign ballasts) that operate
(a) 8-foot HO lamps
(4) PS ballasts (not classified as sign ballasts) that operate
(a) 8-foot HO lamps
(5) Sign ballasts that operate
(a) 8-foot HO lamps
(6) IS and RS residential ballasts that operate
[[Page 81566]]
(a) 4-foot MBP lamps
(b) 2-foot U-shaped lamps
(c) 4-foot MiniBP SO lamps
(d) 4-foot MiniBP HO lamps
(e) 8-foot SP slimline lamps
(7) PS residential ballasts that operate
(a) 4-foot MBP lamps
(b) 2-foot U-shaped lamps
(c) 4-foot MiniBP SO lamps
(d) 4-foot MiniBP HO lamps
(8) Dimming ballasts that operate
(a) 4-foot MBP lamps
(b) 2-foot U-shaped lamps
(c) 4-foot MiniBP SO lamps
(d) 4-foot MiniBP HO lamps
Id. at 84 FR 56556.
DOE did not receive comments on product classes presented in the
October 2019 NOPD. In this final determination DOE continues to
separate fluorescent lamp ballasts into the same product classes as in
the October 2019 NOPD. See chapter 3 of the final determination TSD for
further discussion.
4. Technology Options
In the October 2019 NOPD market and technology assessment, DOE
identified the technology options listed in Table IV.1 to improve the
efficiency of fluorescent lamp ballasts, as measured by the DOE test
procedure.
Table IV.1--Fluorescent Lamp Ballast Technology Options
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology option Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use an electronic ballast
Electronic ballast design
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improved Components:
Transformers/Inductors............. Use litz wire to reduce winding
losses.
Use wire with multiple smaller
coils instead of one larger
coil to increase the number of
turns of wire.
Use optimized-gauge copper to
increase the conductor cross
section to reduce winding
losses.
Use shape-optimized winding to
reduce the proximity effect.
Use low-loss ferrite materials
to create the core of the
inductor.
Diodes............................. Use diodes with a lower voltage
drop.
Capacitors......................... Use capacitors with a lower
effective series resistance.
Transistors........................ Use transistors with low drain-
to-source resistance.
Improved Circuit Design:
Cathode Cutout or Cutback.......... Remove or reduce cathode/
filament heating after lamp
has started.
Integrated Circuits................ Substitute discrete components
with an integrated circuit.
Starting Method.................... Use the IS starting method
instead of a rapid start RS
starting method.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
84 FR 56540, 56552.
CA IOUs stated that the use of smaller coils or increasing steel
laminations would cause larger ballast sizes and that shape-optimized
windings are not cost effective for the small savings potential. (CA
IOUs, No. 25 at p. 1)
As an initial matter, DOE does not consider cost when identifying
technology options; a cost assessment of each efficiency level is
assessed in the LCC and PBP analysis and NIA. Using multiple smaller
coils instead of one larger coil will increase the number of turns of
wire, which can increase the induced voltage, and thereby minimize
losses from the transformer.\10\ The total number of windings needed is
divided into several coils, which allows for greater flexibility in
utilizing the space of the assembly and not changing the size of the
ballast.\11\ Regarding increasing steel laminations, this technology
option was not proposed in the October 2019 NOPD as DOE determined that
it may not minimize losses in ballasts that operate at high frequencies
(i.e., electronic ballasts), which are the ballasts analyzed in this
determination. 84 FR 56540, 56551.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ US20110018666A1, Multiple coils fluorescent lamp ballast.
April 1, 2008. Available at https://patents.google.com/patent/US20110018666.
\11\ US20110018666A1, Multiple coils fluorescent lamp ballast.
April 1, 2008. Available at https://patents.google.com/patent/US20110018666.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEMA asserted that there had been no technological changes in FLB
technology since the last DOE energy conservation standards rule on
fluorescent lamp ballasts became effective in 2014. (NEMA, No. 24 at p.
2)
Based on DOE's review of the product offerings and their
efficiencies in manufacturer catalogs and DOE's Compliance
Certification Database (``CCD''), there are ballasts on the market at
multiple levels of efficiencies. DOE finds that the technology options
identified, individually and/or in combination, are being utilized to
improve the efficiency of products.
DOE continues to consider the technology options identified in the
October 2019 NOPD (see Table IV.1) in this final determination. See
chapter 3 of the final determination TSD for further discussion.
C. Screening Analysis
DOE uses the following five screening criteria to determine which
technology options are suitable for further consideration in an energy
conservation standards rulemaking:
(1) Technological feasibility. Technologies that are not
incorporated in commercial products or in commercially-viable, existing
prototypes will not be considered further.
(2) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If it is
determined that mass production of a technology in commercical products
and reliable installation and servicing of the technology could not be
achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the
time of the projected compliance date of the standard, then that
technology will not be considered further.
(3) Impacts on product utility or product availability. If a
technology is determined that a technology would have significant
adverse impact on the utility of the product to subgroups of consumers,
or would result in the unavailability of any covered product type with
performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes,
capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as products
generally available in the United States at the time, it will not be
considered further.
(4) Adverse impacts on health or safety. If it is determined that a
technology would have significant adverse impacts on health or safety,
it will not be considered further.
(5) Unique-Pathway Proprietary Technologies. If a technology has
proporiety protection and represents a unique pathway to achieving a
given
[[Page 81567]]
efficiency level, it will not be considered further.
Sections 6(c)(3) and 7(b) of the Process Rule.
In summary, if DOE determines that a technology, or a combination
of technologies, fails to meet one or more of the listed five criteria,
it will be excluded from further consideration in the engineering
analysis.
1. Screened-Out Technologies
In the October 2019 NOPD, DOE did not screen out any technology
options identified. DOE did not receive any comments on technology
options that should be screened out. 84 FR 56540, 56554. In this final
determination, DOE did not screen out any technology options
identified.
2. Remaining Technologies
Through a review of each technology, DOE concludes that all of the
identified technologies listed in section IV.B.4 meet all five
screening criteria and are examined further as design options. In
summary, DOE did not screen out the following technology options:
(1) Electronic Ballasts
(2) Improved Components
(a) Use litz wire to reduce winding losses.
(b) Use wire with multiple smaller coils instead of one larger coil to
increase the number of turns of wire.
(c) Use optimized-gauge copper or increase the conductor cross section
to reduce winding losses.
(d) Use shape-optimized winding to reduce the proximity effect losses.
(e) Use diodes with lower voltage drop to lower losses.
(f) Use capacitors with a lower effective series resistance.
(g) Use transistors with low drain-to-source resistance.
(h) Use low-loss ferrite to create the core of the inductor.
(3) Improved Circuit Design
(a) Remove filament heating after the lamp has started.
(b) Substitute discrete components with an integrated circuit.
DOE determined that these technology options are technologically
feasible because they are being used or have previously been used in
commercially-available products or working prototypes. DOE also finds
that these technology options meet the other screening criteria (i.e.,
practicable to manufacture, install, and service; do not result in
adverse impacts on product utility, product availability, health, or
safety; and are not proprietary).
John Danison, an individual commentator, stated researchers should
make fluorescent lamp ballasts safer, more cost effective, and last
longer. He stated the current expectancy of a ballast is 6 months after
which it will start leaking and/or sparking, and if a bad ballast
burns, it could release toxins resulting in serious health issues.
(Danison, No. 22 at p. 1)
As noted, DOE has determined that the design options used to
achieve the efficiency of fluorescent lamp ballasts do not have an
adverse impact on product utility or safety. Danison provided
references regarding pre-1979 ballast technology and general
information on fluorescent ballasts but did not provide any support for
his stated safety concern, and DOE was unable to verify it through
other resources. DOE did not receive any comments during any phase of
this rulemaking or the previous 2011 FL Ballast Rule to indicate that a
ballast's life expectancy is only 6 months or that its mode of failure
could present health and safety concerns. DOE also did not find any
similar concerns cited in relevant product or industry literature.
Therefore, DOE continues to consider the design options identified in
the October 2019 NOPD in this final determination. For additional
details, see chapter 4 of the final determination TSD.
D. Engineering Analysis
As in the October 2019 NOPD, for this final determination, DOE
selected more efficient substitutes in the engineering analysis and
determined the end-user consumer prices of those substitutes in the
product price determination. DOE estimated the consumer price of
ballasts directly because reverse engineering ballasts is impractical
due to the use of potting, which is a black pitch added to the ballast
enclosure to reduce vibration damage and act as a heat sink for the
circuit board. Potting does not allow for the visual observation and
identification of individual components of the ballast making it
infeasible to apply a reverse-engineering approach. 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.E discusses the product price determination (see
chapter 6 of the final determination TSD for further detail).
The methodology for the engineering analysis consists of the
following steps:
(1) selecting representative product classes,
(2) selecting baseline ballasts,
(3) identifying more efficient substitutes,
(4) developing efficiency levels, and
(5) scaling efficiency levels to non-representative product
classes.
DOE used the BLE values from the compliance certification database
to identify ballasts for all product classes except dimming. Because
most dimming ballasts are not currently subject to standards and
therefore do not have data in the compliance certification database,
DOE determined BLE values by using catalog input power and the
associated total lamp arc power. As fluorescent lamp ballasts are
designed to operate fluorescent lamps, DOE considered properties of the
entire lamp-and-ballast system in the engineering analysis. DOE paired
baseline and more-efficient ballasts with full-wattage and/or reduced
wattage lamps, where appropriate, to reflect the most common
configurations of lamp-and-ballast systems.
The results of these steps are summarized in the following
sections. The details of the engineering analysis are discussed in
chapter 5 of the final determination TSD.
1. Representative Product Classes
In the case where a covered product has multiple product classes,
DOE may identify and select certain product classes as
``representative'' and concentrates its analytical effort on those
classes. For fluorescent lamp ballasts, DOE chose product classes as
representative primarily because of their high market volumes. Within
certain representative product classes, DOE also selected multiple
representative ballast types to account for multiple high-volume units
within the same product class.
Table IV.2 shows the FLB product classes, and shaded in grey are
the representative product classes and representative ballast types
selected for analysis in the October 2019 NOPD.
Table IV.2--Representative Product Classes and Representative Ballast
Types
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product class description * Representative ballast type(s)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IS/RS Commercial
IS/RS Commercial ballasts that operate: 2L 4-foot MBP; 4L 4-foot MBP,
2L 8-foot SP slimline.
[[Page 81568]]
4-foot MBP.
2-foot U-shaped.
4-foot MiniBP SO.
4-foot MiniBP HO.
8-foot SP slimline lamps.
PS Commercial
PS Commercial ballasts that operate: 2L 4-foot MBP, 4L 4-foot MBP,
4-foot MBP 2L 4-foot MiniBP SO, 2L 4-foot
2-foot U-shaped MiniBP HO.
4-foot T5 SO
4-foot T5 HO lamps
IS/RS 8-foot HO
IS/RS ballasts that operate 8-foot HO 2L 8-foot recessed double
lamps contact (RDC) HO.
PS 8-foot HO
PS ballasts that operate 8-foot HO N/A.
lamps.
Sign
Sign ballasts that operate 8-foot HO 4L 8-foot RDC HO.
lamps.
IS/RS Residential
IS/RS Residential ballasts that 2L 4-foot MBP.
operate:
4-foot MBP.
2-foot U-shaped.
4-foot MiniBP SO.
4-foot MiniBP HO.
8-foot SP slimline lamps.
PS Residential
PS Residential ballasts that operate: N/A.
4-foot MBP.
4-foot MiniBP SO.
4-foot MiniBP HO.
2-foot U-shaped.
Dimming
Dimming ballasts that operate: 2L 4-foot MBP 0-10V, 2L 4-foot
4-foot MBP. MiniBP SO 0-10 V, 2L 4-foot
4-foot MiniBP SO. MiniBP HO 0-10 V.
4-foot MiniBP HO.
2-foot U-shaped.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Grey shading indicates a representative product class.
84 FR 56540, 56558.
DOE did not receive any comments on the representative product
classes presented in the October 2019 NOPD. DOE continues to analyze
the representative product classes analyzed in the October 2019 NOPD in
this final determination.
2. Baseline Ballasts
For each representative product class, DOE selected a baseline
ballast as a reference point against which to measure changes resulting
from energy conservation standards. Typically, the baseline ballast is
the most common, least efficient ballast that meets existing energy
conservation standards. In this analysis, DOE selected as baselines the
least efficient ballast meeting standards that operated the most common
lamp type (i.e., wattage and diameter) and where possible, has the most
common ballast factor, input voltage, and operating voltage type \12\
for the product class. In the October 2019 NOPD, DOE directly analyzed
the baseline ballasts shown in Table IV.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Operating voltage type denotes whether the ballast can
operate multiple voltages and is considered universal or can only
operate one voltage and is considered dedicated.
Table IV.3--Baseline Ballasts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Input voltage/
Product class Ballast type Lamp type Starting operating voltage Power Ballast Input power BLE
method * (V) factor factor (W)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IS/RS Commercial............. 2L 4-foot MBP....... 32 W T8........ IS 277, Universal.... 0.97 0.89 57.6 0.903
4L 4-foot MBP....... 32 W T8........ IS 277, Universal.... 0.98 0.88 112.2 0.916
2L 8-foot SP 59 W T8........ IS 277, Universal.... 0.98 0.88 109.2 0.920
slimline.
PS Commercial................ 2L 4-foot MBP....... 32 W T8........ PS 277, Universal.... 0.90 0.88 57.1 0.900
4L 4-foot MBP....... 32 W T8........ PS 277, Universal.... 0.90 0.87 110.5 0.920
2L 4-foot MiniBP SO. 28 W T5........ PS 277, Universal.... 0.98 1.00 62.4 0.891
2L 4-foot MiniBP HO. 54 W T5........ PS 277, Universal.... 0.98 0.99 116.8 0.912
IS/RS 8-foot HO.............. 2L 8-foot RDC HO.... 110 W T12...... RS 277, Universal.... 0.99 0.89 197.7 0.900
Sign......................... 4L 8-foot RDC HO.... 110 W T12...... RS 120, Dedicated.... 0.90 \**\ 0.61 271.6 0.898
IS/RS Residential............ 2L 4-foot MBP....... 32 W T8........ IS 120, Dedicated.... 0.50 0.88 58.9 0.872
Dimming...................... 2L 4-foot MBP 0-10V. 32 W T8........ PS 277, Universal.... 0.98 0.88 59.0 0.871
2L 4-foot MiniBP SO 28 W T5........ PS 277, Universal.... 0.98 1.00 64.0 0.869
0-10V.
[[Page 81569]]
2L 4-foot MiniBP HO 54 W T5........ PS 277, Universal.... 0.98 1.00 118.0 0.912
0-10V.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Universal indicates that the ballast can operate multiple voltages (i.e., 120 V or 277 V); dedicated indicates it can only operate the voltage
specified.
** DOE found limited information on ballast factors of ballasts in the Sign product class. Based on this information, DOE used the most common ballast
factor found in catalogs for the product class for representative units that did not specify ballast factor.
84 FR 56540, 56559.
DOE did not receive any comments on the baseline ballasts selected
in the October 2019 NOPD and maintained the selected baseline ballasts
for this final determination. See chapter 5 of the final determination
TSD for more detail.
3. More Efficient Ballasts
In the analysis for the October 2019 NOPD, DOE selected more-
efficient ballasts as replacements for each of the baseline ballasts by
considering technologies not eliminated in the screening analysis. 84
FR 56540, 56559. DOE considered these technologies in the engineering
analysis, either by modeling potential efficiency improvements due to
the design options or by analyzing commercially available ballasts in
which the design options are incorporated. Id.
DOE selected a more-efficient fluorescent lamp ballast with the
same or similar ballast factor as the baseline ballast, so that light
output would be maintained without needing to change the spacing of the
fixture. Id. Specifically, DOE ensured that potential substitutes
maintained the system light output within 10 percent of the baseline
lamp-and-ballast system light output. Id. Finally, DOE selected more-
efficient substitutes that showed an improvement in BLE and a reduction
in input power. Id.
DOE did not receive any comments on the more-efficient ballasts
selected in the October 2019 NOPD. DOE maintained the more-efficient
ballasts selected in the October 2019 NOPD for this final
determination. See section IV.D.4 and chapter 5 of the final
determination TSD for more detail.
4. Efficiency Levels
After identifying more-efficient substitutes for each of the
baseline ballasts, DOE developed ELs based on the consideration of
several factors, including: (1) The design options associated with the
specific ballasts being studied, (2) the ability of ballasts across
wattages to comply with the standard level of a given product class,
and (3) the max-tech level. In the October 2019 NOPD, DOE used the same
equation-based approach used in the 2011 FL Ballast Rule. 84 FR 56540,
56560. DOE determined that a power law equation best modeled the
observed trend between total lamp arc power and average BLE.
Specifically, DOE used the following equation to develop ELs that
relate the total lamp arc power operated by a ballast to BLE:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE20.001
The ELs and the characteristics of the representative units
identified in the October 2019 NOPD (84 FR 56540, 56564) are summarized
in Table IV.4 to Table IV.9. Product classes have up to two or three
levels of efficiencies. EL 1 represents an improved ballast with more-
efficient components (e.g., transformers, diodes, capacitors,
transistors) that minimize losses and improved circuit design (e.g.,
integrated circuitry). EL 2 represents an advanced ballast with
improved components and improved circuit design. EL 3 represents a
ballast with the most efficient combination of improved components and
circuit design.
CA IOUs stated that the last FLB standards rule set requirements
that drove the market to achieve the highest tier of efficiency
practically available and they were unaware of higher efficiency
ballasts on the market. CA IOUs stated that ballasts on the market are
at or close to achieving the highest operational efficiency that is
still cost effective, and there is no premium ballast that represents
EL 4. (CA IOUs, No. 25 at pp. 1-2) NEMA also commented that no changes
should be made to the ELs. (NEMA, No. 24 at p. 3)
Signify stated it was unsure of the validity of the data used to
project a BLE increase from 0.913 (EL 1) to 0.940 (max-tech) for the 2-
lamp 4-foot MBP ballasts in the IS/RS commercial product class and that
it had to conduct a more detailed review. Signify further stated that
regardless, the increase in BLE is too small to support amending
standards. (Signify, No. 27 at p. 1)
DOE used BLE values certified by manufacturers in the DOE
compliance certification database to develop efficiency levels. For
each representative ballast type, DOE examined the spread of BLE
values, including clusters of similar BLE values and distinctive
increases in BLE values to identify ELs. DOE also examined BLE values
for different product families for each of several manufacturers to
confirm tiers of efficiencies.
DOE maintained the ELs and associated representative units
presented in the October 2019 NOPD in this final determination. The ELs
and the representative units for each representative product class are
shown in Table IV.4 through Table IV.9. See chapter 5 of the final
determination TSD for more detail.
Table IV.4--IS/RS Commercial Representative Units
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Input voltage/
Product class EL Ballast type Lamp type Starting operating voltage, Power Ballast Input BLE
method (V) * factor factor power (W)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IS/RS Commercial........ EL 1..... 2L 4-foot MBP........ 32 W T8 IS 277, Universal..... 0.98 0.88 56.3 0.913
4L 4-foot MBP........ 32 W T8 IS 277, Universal..... 0.98 0.88 110.9 0.927
2L 8-foot SP slimline 59 W T8 IS 277, Universal..... 0.98 0.88 108.5 0.926
IS/RS Commercial........ EL 2..... 2L 4-foot MBP........ 32 W T8 IS 277, Universal..... 0.98 0.88 55.7 0.923
4L 4-foot MBP........ 32 W T8 IS 277, Universal..... 0.98 0.88 109.7 0.937
2L 8-foot SP slimline 59 W T8 IS 277, Universal..... 0.98 0.87 106.4 0.934
IS/RS................... EL 3..... 2L 4-foot MBP........ 32 W T8 IS 277, Universal..... 0.99 0.89 55.3 0.940
4L 4-foot MBP........ 32 W T8 IS 277, Universal..... 0.98 0.87 107.0 0.950
[[Page 81570]]
2L 8-foot SP slimline 59 W T8 IS 277, Universal..... 0.98 0.87 105.1 0.945
**.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Universal indicates that the ballast can operate multiple voltages (i.e., 120 V or 277 V).
** Grey shading indicates a modeled product.
Table IV.5--PS Commercial Representative Units
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Input voltage/
Product class EL Ballast type Lamp type Starting operating voltage Power Ballast Input BLE
method (V *) factor factor power (W)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PS Commercial........... EL 1... 2L 4-foot MBP......... 32 W T8 PS 277, Universal..... 0.97 0.88 56.3 0.913
4L 4-foot MBP......... 32 W T8 PS 277, Universal..... 0.98 0.87 109.5 0.928
2L 4-foot MiniBP SO... 28 W T5 PS 277, Universal..... 0.98 1.00 61.4 0.905
2L 4-foot MiniBP HO... 54 W T5 PS 277, Universal..... 0.97 1.00 115.9 0.928
EL 2... 2L 4-foot MBP......... 32 W T8 PS 277, Universal..... 0.98 0.88 53.9 0.953
4L 4-foot MBP......... 32 W T8 PS 277, Universal..... 0.99 0.87 107.6 0.944
2L 4-foot MiniBP SO... 28 W T5 PS 277, Universal..... 0.98 1.00 59.8 0.929
2L 4-foot MiniBP HO... 54 W T5 PS 277, Universal..... 0.98 1.00 113.6 0.947
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Universal indicates that the ballast can operate multiple voltages (i.e., 120 V or 277 V).
Table IV.6--IS/RS 8-foot HO Representative Units
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Input voltage/
Product class EL Ballast type Lamp type Starting operating voltage Power Ballast Input BLE
method (V *) factor factor power (W)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IS/RS 8-foot HO......... EL 1... 2L 8-foot RDC HO **... 110 W T12 RS 277, Dedicated..... 0.98 0.90 192.7 0.934
EL 2... 2L 8-foot RDC HO...... 110 W T12 RS 277, Universal..... 0.98 0.90 188.0 0.957
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Universal indicates that the ballast can operate multiple voltages (i.e., 120 V or 277 V).
Table IV.7--Sign Representative Units
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Input voltage/
Product class EL Ballast type Lamp type Starting operating voltage Power Ballast Input BLE
method (V *) factor factor ** power (W)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sign.................... EL 1... 4L 8-foot RDC HO...... 110 W T12 IS 120, Dedicated..... 0.99 0.61 265.1 0.920
EL 2... 4L 8-foot RDC HO...... 110 W T12 IS 120, Dedicated..... 0.90 0.61 258.4 0.944
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Dedicated indicates it can only operate the voltage specified.
** DOE found limited information for ballast factor, and therefore used the most common ballast factor found in product class for representative units
that did not specify ballast factor.
Table IV.8--IS/RS Residential Representative Units
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Input voltage/
Product class EL Ballast type Lamp type Starting operating voltage Power Ballast Input BLE
method (V) * factor factor power (W)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IS/RS Residential....... EL 1... 2L 4-foot MBP......... 32 W T8 IS 120, Dedicated..... 0.56 0.85 56.2 0.884
EL 2 2L 4-foot MBP......... 32 W T8 IS 120, Dedicated..... 0.56 0.85 55.2 0.899
EL 3 2L 4-foot MBP......... 32 W T8 IS 120, Dedicated..... 0.55 0.83 53.1 0.913
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Dedicated indicates it can only operate the voltage specified.
Table IV.9--Dimming Representative Units
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Input voltage/
Product class EL Ballast type Lamp type Starting operating voltage Power Ballast Input BLE
method (V) * factor factor power (W)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dimming................. EL 1... 2L 4-foot MBP 0-10V... 32 W T8 PS 277, Universal..... 0.98 0.87 57.0 0.891
2L 4-foot MiniBP SO 0- 28 W T5 PS 277, Universal..... 0.98 1.00 63.0 0.883
10V.
2L 4-foot MiniBP HO 0- 54 W T5 PS 277, Universal..... 0.98 1.00 118.0 0.912
10 V.
EL 2... 2L 4-foot MBP 0-10V ** .......... ............ ................... .......... .......... .......... ..........
2L 4-foot MiniBP SO 0- 28W T5 PS 277, Universal..... 0.98 1.00 62.0 0.897
10V.
2L 4-foot MiniBP HO 0- .......... ............ ................... .......... .......... .......... ..........
10 V **.
EL 3... 2L 4-foot MBP 0-10V... 32 W T8 PS 277, Universal..... 0.99 0.88 56.0 0.918
2L 4-foot MiniBP SO 0- 28 W T5 PS 277, Universal..... 0.99 1.00 61.0 0.911
10V.
2L 4-foot MiniBP HO 0- 54 W T5 PS 277, Universal..... 0.98 1.00 115.9 0.928
10V.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Universal indicates that the ballast can operate multiple voltages (i.e., 120 V or 277 V).
** Grey shading indicates levels at which products did not exist.
[[Page 81571]]
Table IV.10 summarizes the efficiency requirements at each EL for
the representative product classes.
Table IV.10--Summary of ELs for Representative Product Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLE = A / (1 + B * total lamp arc power-C)
where A, B, and C are as follows:
Representative product class Efficiency level -----------------------------------------------
A B C
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IS/RS Commercial.................... EL 1...................... 0.993 0.24 0.25
EL 2...................... .............. 0.21 ..............
EL 3...................... .............. 0.16 ..............
PS Commercial....................... EL 1...................... 0.993 0.43 0.37
EL 2...................... .............. 0.31 ..............
IS/RS Residential................... EL 1...................... 0.993 0.33 0.25
EL 2...................... .............. 0.28 ..............
EL 3...................... .............. 0.24 ..............
IS/RS 8-foot HO..................... EL 1...................... 0.993 0.24 0.25
EL 2...................... .............. 0.14 ..............
Sign................................ EL 1...................... 0.993 0.32 0.25
EL 2...................... .............. 0.24 ..............
Dimming............................. EL 1...................... 0.993 0.56 0.37
EL 2...................... .............. 0.48 ..............
EL 3...................... .............. 0.40 ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Scaling to Other Product Classes
DOE identified and selected certain product classes as
representative and analyzed these product classes directly. DOE chose
these representative product classes primarily due to their high market
volumes. The ELs for product classes that were not directly analyzed
(``non-representative product classes'') were then determined by
scaling the ELs of the representative product classes. Specifically,
DOE did not analyze PS 8-foot HO ballasts or PS residential ballasts
directly. In the October 2019 NOPD, DOE developed ELs for the PS 8-foot
HO product class by scaling the ELs of the IS/RS 8-foot HO product
class and developed ELs for PS residential product class by scaling the
ELs of the IS/RS residential product class. 84 FR 56540, 56564. The
primary difference between these sets of product classes is the
starting method. From its analysis of pairs of ballasts between the
product classes, DOE determined that the ballasts with a PS starting
method are 2 percent less efficient than those with IS starting method.
DOE then applied this reduction in BLE to develop the appropriate EL
equation curves for the PS 8-foot HO and PS residential product class.
See chapter 5 of the final determination TSD for more detail. Table
IV.11 summarizes the efficiency requirements at each EL for the non-
representative product classes.
DOE did not receive any comments on the scaling to non-
representative product classes presented in the October 2019 NOPD. In
this final determination, DOE maintained the scaling factors and
resulting efficiency levels from the October 2019 NOPD for the non-
representative product classes.
Table IV.11--Summary of ELs for Non-Representative Product Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLE = A / (1 + B * total lamp arc power-C)
where A, B, and C are as follows:
Non-representative product class Efficiency level -----------------------------------------------
A B C
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PS 8-foot HO........................ EL 1...................... 0.973 0.45 0.37
EL 2...................... .............. 0.26 ..............
PS Residential...................... EL 1...................... 0.973 0.54 0.37
EL 2...................... .............. 0.46 ..............
EL 3...................... .............. 0.39 ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Product Price Determination
Typically, DOE develops manufacturer selling prices (``MSPs'') for
covered products in the engineering analysis and applies markups to
create end-user prices to use as inputs to the LCC analysis and NIA.
Because fluorescent lamp ballasts are difficult to reverse-engineer
(i.e., not easily disassembled due to potting), DOE directly derives
end-user prices for the ballasts covered in this final determination.
In the October 2019 NOPD, DOE developed end-user consumer prices
for the representative units sold in each of the main distribution
channels identified for fluorescent lamp ballasts. DOE then calculated
an average weighted consumer price using estimated shipments that go
through each distribution channel. 84 FR 56540, 56565-56566.
DOE did not receive any comments on the pricing methodology or
results. For this final determination DOE maintained the methodology
and final average weighted end-user prices for representative units
from the October 2019 NOPD. See chapter 6 of the final determination
TSD for further details and pricing results.
F. Energy Use Analysis
The purpose of the energy use analysis is to determine the annual
energy consumption of fluorescent lamp ballasts at different BLE in
representative U.S. commercial and industrial buildings, outdoor
[[Page 81572]]
installations, and single-family homes and multi-family residences, and
to assess the energy savings potential of increased BLE for fluorescent
lamp ballasts. The energy use analysis estimates the range of energy
use of fluorescent lamp ballasts 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 standards.
The energy conservation standards for fluorescent lamps are not
within the scope of this analysis; however, the input power of the
complete lamp-and-ballast system is considered for the energy use
analysis because ballasts are not intended to operate without lamps.
The energy use characterization provides estimates of annual energy use
for representative lamp-and-ballast systems that DOE evaluates in the
LCC and PBP analyses and the NIA. To develop annual energy use
estimates, DOE multiplied annual usage (in hours per year) by the
system input power (in watts). In the October 2019 NOPD, DOE developed
an energy use analysis. 84 FR 56540, 56566-56568.
DOE analyzed the typical operating hours of the different sectors.
DOE then weighted the ballast operation by sector to develop average
operating hours. DOE selected the most common fluorescent lamps used
with each analyzed ballast to develop representative lamp-and-ballast
systems. DOE developed the system input power estimates in the
engineering analysis. To characterize the country's average use of
fluorescent lamp ballasts for a typical year, DOE developed annual
operating hours by sector, using the most recent data available from
the 2015 U.S. Lighting Market Characterization (``LMC''), which was
published in 2017.\13\ 84 FR 56540, 56566.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ U.S. Department of Energy-Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy. 2015 U.S. Lighting Market Characterization.
November 2017. https://energy.gov/eere/ssl/2015-us-lighting-market-characterization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fluorescent lamp ballasts can operate a variety of lamp types. The
October 2019 NOPD included a mixture of lamp types operated by the
fluorescent lamp ballast including full wattage fluorescent lamp (e.g.,
32 W 4-foot T8), reduced wattage fluorescent lamp (e.g., 30 W 4-foot
T8, 28 W 4-foot T8, and 25 W 4-foot T8), and tubular light-emitting
diode (``TLED'') lamps (e.g., UL Type A 13 W 4-foot T8). The mixture of
specific lamps operated by the fluorescent lamp directly relates to the
input power of the fluorescent ballast. DOE included a mixture of full
wattage fluorescent lamps, reduced wattage fluorescent lamps, and TLED
lamps in the energy use analysis. 84 FR 56540, 56566-56568.
Lighting controls can reduce the energy use of fluorescent lamp
ballasts. In the October 2019 NOPD, DOE assumed reduced energy from
lighting controls for programmed-start ballasts. Id. These ballasts are
intended for use with occupancy sensors.
In the October 2019 NOPD, DOE requested comment to improve DOE's
energy-use analysis, as well as any data supporting alternate operating
hour estimates or assumptions regarding dimming of fluorescent lamp
ballasts, operating hours, and operating hour reductions from lighting
controls in commercial, industrial, and residential sectors. 84 FR
56540, 56568. NEMA stated that DOE's methodology and estimating
assumptions were sufficient. (NEMA, No. 24 a pp. 3-4) Signify provided
some suggested papers regarding use of lighting controls that could be
found within the Illuminating Engineering Society (``IES'') technical
library. Signify also stated that the papers specifically cited in
their comments were illustrative. (Signify, No. 27 at p. 2)
DOE's analysis did utilize research papers within the IES technical
library. DOE included data from Lighting Controls in Commercial
Buildings, which was published in an IES journal, in the energy use
analysis (see chapter 7 of the final determination TSD).\14\ DOE
received no comments related to changing the mixture of lamp operated
by the fluorescent ballasts, operating hours of the fluorescent lamp
ballasts, nor the application of lighting controls. For the final
determination, DOE maintained the mixture of lamps operated by the
fluorescent ballasts, operating hours of the fluorescent lamp ballasts,
and the application of lighting controls as in the analysis for the
2019 October NOPD. Chapter 7 of the final determination TSD provides
details on DOE's energy use analysis for fluorescent lamp ballasts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Williams, AA, BA Atkinson, K Garbesi, E Page, FM
Rubinstein. Lighting Controls in Commercial Buildings. Leukos: The
Journal of the Illuminating Engineering Society. 2012. 8(3): pp.
161-180. https://eaei.lbl.gov/publications/lighting-controls-commercial.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
DOE conducted LCC and PBP analyses to evaluate the economic impacts
on individual consumers of potential energy conservation standards for
fluorescent lamp ballasts in the October 2019 NOPD. 84 FR 56540, 56568.
The effect of amended energy conservation standards on individual
consumers usually involves a reduction in operating cost and an
increase in purchase cost. DOE used the following two metrics to
measure consumer impacts:
The LCC is the total consumer expense of an appliance or
product over the life of that product, consisting of total installed
cost (MSP, distribution chain markups, sales tax, and installation
costs) plus operating costs (expenses for energy use, maintenance, and
repair). To compute the operating costs, DOE discounts future operating
costs to the time of purchase and sums them over the lifetime of the
product.
The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it
takes consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including
installation) of a more-efficient product through lower operating
costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost
at higher efficiency levels by the change in annual operating cost for
the year that amended standards are assumed to take effect.
For any given efficiency level, DOE measures the change in LCC
relative to the LCC in the no-new-standards case. DOE refers to the
change as ``LCC savings.'' LCC savings reflect the estimated efficiency
distribution of fluorescent lamp ballasts in the absence of amended
energy conservation standards. In contrast, the PBP for a given
efficiency level is measured relative to the baseline product.
For each considered efficiency level in each product class, DOE
calculated the LCC and PBP for a nationally representative set of
potential customers. Fluorescent lamp ballasts are used widely in
commercial, industrial, and residential settings. For each product
class, DOE identified the types of customers likely to use the
ballasts, the number of hours per year each customer type would likely
use the ballasts, and a probability of selection for each customer type
in the Monte Carlo analysis.
Inputs to the calculation of total installed cost include the cost
of the product--which includes MPCs, all manufacturer, retailer and
distributor markups, and sales taxes--and installation costs. Inputs to
the calculation of operating expenses include annual energy
consumption, energy prices and price projections, repair and
maintenance costs, product lifetimes, and discount rates. DOE created
distributions of values for product lifetime, discount rates, and
[[Page 81573]]
sales taxes, with probabilities attached to each value, to account for
their uncertainty and variability.
The computer model DOE uses to calculate the LCC and PBP 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 FLB user samples. For
this rulemaking, the Monte Carlo approach is implemented in MS Excel
together with the Crystal BallTM add-on.\15\ The model
calculated the LCC and PBP for products at each efficiency level for
10,000 FLB installations per simulation run. The analytical results
include a distribution of 10,000 data points showing the range of LCC
savings for a given efficiency level relative to the no-new-standards
case efficiency distribution. In performing an iteration of the Monte
Carlo simulation for a given consumer, product efficiency is chosen
based on its probability. If the chosen product efficiency is greater
than or equal to the efficiency of the standard level under
consideration, the LCC and PBP calculation reveals that a consumer is
not impacted by the standard level. By accounting for consumers who
already purchase more-efficient products, DOE avoids overstating the
potential benefits from increasing product efficiency. DOE calculated
the LCC and PBP for all consumers of fluorescent lamp ballasts as if
each were to purchase a new product in the first year of required
compliance with new or amended standards. Amended standards apply to
fluorescent lamp ballasts manufactured 3 years after the date on which
any new or amended standard is published. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(4)(A))
Therefore, DOE used 2023 as the first year of compliance with any
amended standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Crystal BallTM is a commercially available
software tool to facilitate the creation of these types of models by
generating probability distributions and summarizing results within
Excel, available at https://www.oracle.com/technetwork/middleware/crystalball/overview/ (last accessed June 18, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IV.12 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
and its appendices of the final determination TSD.
Table IV.12--Summary of Inputs and Methods for the LCC and PBP Analysis
*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inputs Source/method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product Cost...................... Derived by multiplying product costs
from the engineering analysis by
(one plus) sales tax rates.
Installation Costs................ Baseline installation cost
determined with data from RS Means.
Assumed no change with efficiency
level.
Annual Energy Use................. The total annual energy use
multiplied by the hours per year.
Average number of hours based 2015
LMC.
Energy Prices..................... Based on the Energy Information
Administration's (EIA's) Form 861
data for 2018.\**\ Average energy
prices determined for 50 states
plus the District of Columbia.
Energy Price Trends............... Based on Annual Energy Outlook 2020
(AEO2020) price projections.
Repair and Maintenance Costs...... Assumed no change with efficiency
level.
Product Lifetime.................. Average: 12.5 years for commercial
installations (approximately 38,000
hours), 12.5 years for outdoor
installations (approximately 41,000
hours), 11.4 years for industrial
installations (50,000 hours), and
15 years for residential
installations (approximately 10,800
hours).
Discount Rates.................... For the residential product class,
the calculations involve
identifying all possible debt or
asset classes that might be used to
purchase fluorescent lamp ballasts
or might be affected indirectly.
The primary data source was the
Federal Reserve Board's Survey of
Consumer Finances. For other
product classes, the calculations
involve estimating weighted average
cost of capital for large numbers
of companies and using the results
to develop discount rate
distributions. The primary data
were from the Damodaran Online web
site [dagger] and the Federal
Reserve Board. [Dagger]
Rebound Effect.................... Rebound is not assumed to be present
among FLB consumers. Most consumers
are commercial and industrial
consumers, and the FLB/light user
tends to not see the bills so there
would be no perceived change in the
cost of using the light.
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 final
determination TSD.
** DOE used Average Price by State by Provider (EIA-826), sorted for
Total Electric Industry, obtained from the EIA webpage https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/state/.
[dagger] See the data page on Damodaran Online, https://
pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar.
[Dagger] In addition to the previously referenced Survey of Consumer
Finances, DOE used interest rate data obtained from the Federal
Reserve Bank of St. Louis' FRED Economic Data tool found at https://fred.stlouisfed.org/.
1. Product Cost
As noted in section IV.E, DOE rulemaking engineering analyses
typically calculate MSPs. Typically, the MSPs are used to develop
consumer prices by applying wholesale and retail delivery chain markups
developed in a separate markup analysis, and by adding sales taxes. For
fluorescent lamp ballasts, the engineering analysis determined end-user
prices directly; therefore, for the LCC analysis, the only adjustment
was to add sales taxes.
In prior energy conservation standards rulemakings, DOE estimated
the total installed costs per unit for equipment and then assumed that
costs remain constant throughout the analysis period. For example,
prices were held constant throughout the analysis period for the 2009
final rule for commercial ice-cream freezers; self-contained commercial
refrigerators, commercial freezers, and commercial refrigerator-
freezers without doors; and remote condensing commercial refrigerators,
commercial freezers, and commercial refrigerators-freezers. 74 FR 1092
(Jan. 9, 2009) This assumption is conservative because equipment costs
tend to decrease over time. In 2011, DOE published a notice of data
availability (``NODA'') titled Equipment Price Forecasting in Energy
Conservation Standards Analysis. 76 FR 9696 (Feb. 22, 2011). In the
NODA, DOE proposed a methodology for determining whether equipment
prices have trended downward in real terms. The methodology examines
so-called price or experiential learning, wherein, with ever-increasing
experience with the production of a product, manufacturers are able to
reduce their production costs
[[Page 81574]]
through innovations in technology and process.
Consistent with the February 2011 NODA, DOE examined historical
price data specific to electronic ballasts for the October 2019 NOPD
and the analysis yielded learning coefficients indicating a 14.8
percent decrease in ballast prices for every doubling in cumulative
ballast shipments. However, the October 2019 NOPD analyses excluded the
price trends from the LCC consumer prices, noting that with shipments
falling from historical values, cumulative shipments do not double
relative to 2015 (the last year of historical ballast price data
compiled for evaluating price trends) in any shipments scenario. The
price trends assumptions were presented in the October 2019 NOPD along
with the request for comments on any aspect of the NOPD. 84 FR 56540,
56579-56580. DOE received no comments on the learning trends analysis.
Consistent with the October 2019 NOPD, for this final determination DOE
excluded price trends from the consumer costs of fluorescent lamp
ballasts used in the LCC and PBP analysis as well as downstream
analyses.
Lamp manufacturing is also subject to the learning process. The
focus of this final determination is the fluorescent lamp ballast.
However, fluorescent lamp ballasts are designed to operate fluorescent
lamps and therefore, the cost analysis accounts for the lamp-and-
ballast system. The analysis assumes a differing mixture of general
service fluorescent lamps (``GSFL'') and TLEDs operated by the
ballasts. TLED prices are expected to be affected by price learning and
are expected to decline significantly over the next 3 years. Therefore,
to better represent the total installed cost of the ballast and lamp
systems, price learning was applied to the lamps operated by the
fluorescent lamp ballasts.
Because this final determination is not analyzing lamps, lamp
shipments and price information were not collected for this rulemaking.
Rather, price trend information for lamps was developed from the final
rule for the GSFL standards rulemaking published in January 2015. 80 FR
4041 (Jan. 26, 2015). As discussed in chapter 8 and Appendix 8C of this
FLB final determination TSD, the GSFL price trends were incorporated
into the LCC analysis to account for learning in the lamp manufacturing
process. The distribution of lamps selected for use by consumers is not
expected to differ for ballasts at different efficiency levels.
The calculations of product cost are consistent with the October
2019 NOPD calculations. The October 2019 NOPD requested input on all
aspects of the analysis, and no comments were received on the
calculation of product cost. DOE updated the analysis to 2019 dollars
(2019$), updated the state sales tax rates, and otherwise retained the
product costs calculations used in the October 2019 NOPD for use in the
final determination.
2. Installation Cost
Installation cost includes labor, overhead, and any miscellaneous
materials and parts needed to install the product. DOE used data from
RSMeans to estimate the baseline installation cost for fluorescent lamp
ballasts. For the October 2019 NOPD, DOE used the same installation
costs for ballasts at each efficiency level. 84 FR 56540, 56569-56570.
The October 2019 NOPD requested input on all aspects of the analysis,
and no comments were received on the calculation of installation cost
used in the NOPD. Given a lack of comment or other new evidence, DOE
updated input data to use 2020 RSMeans values adjusted to 2019$ and
continued using the same installation costs for ballasts at each
efficiency level for the final determination.
3. Annual Energy Consumption
DOE determined the energy consumption for fluorescent lamp ballasts
at different efficiency levels using the approach described previously
in section IV.F of this document.
4. Energy Prices
DOE derived average annual electricity prices for 50 states plus
the District of Columbia using data from the EIA's Form EIA-861 annual
survey.\16\ EIA calculated average electric prices by dividing total
electric revenues by total kWh energy sales, using data aggregated by
customer class and by state. The final determination analysis used the
data for 2018, with prices adjusted to 2019$.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Available at https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/state/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To estimate energy prices in future years, DOE multiplied the
average state-level electricity prices by a projection of annual change
in regional electricity prices in the Annual Energy Outlook 2020
(``AEO2020''), which has an end year of 2050.\17\ AEO2020 includes
price projections by Census regions, which were used for the analyses
presented herein. To estimate future electricity prices, DOE uses the
price index for the Census region corresponding to each state. To
estimate price trends after 2050, DOE used the average annual rate of
change in prices from 2040 through 2050.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ U.S. Department of Energy--Energy Information
Administration. Annual Energy Outlook 2020 with Projections to 2050.
2020. Washington, DC. (#AEO2020). Available at https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE did not receive any comments on the energy prices used in the
October 2019 NOPD. The final determination methodology for developing
energy prices is the same as the October 2019 NOPD methodology. DOE
used the most current data available for the final determination
analyses. DOE updated base year electricity prices from 2017 to 2018,
future price trends from EIA AEO2019 to AEO2020 projections, and the
dollar year from 2018$ to 2019$.
5. Maintenance and Repair Costs
Repair costs are associated with repairing or replacing product
components that have failed in an appliance; maintenance costs are
associated with maintaining the operation of the product. Typically,
small incremental increases in product efficiency produce no, or only
minor, changes in repair and maintenance costs compared to baseline
efficiency products. In the October 2019 NOPD, DOE modeled ballasts as
not being repaired, and maintenance costs as lamp replacement costs
only. 84 FR 56540, 56570. DOE received no comments on maintenance and
repair costs. In this final determination, DOE treated ballasts as not
repaired and maintenance as limited to lamp replacement.
6. Product Lifetime
For the October 2019 NOPD, DOE used a 12.5-year average lifetime
for the commercial sector installations, 11.4-year average lifetime for
industrial sector installations, a 12.5-year average lifetime for
outdoor lighting, and a 15-year life for the residential sector. In the
October 2019 NOPD, DOE explained that combining DOE's estimate of
50,000 hours from the FLB Framework Document and the average operating
hours developed for the NOPD yielded average ballast lifetimes of 16.6
years and 11.4 years, for commercial and industrial installations,
respectively. However, 16.6 years is significantly longer than the
lifetime of commercial ballasts used in the 2011 Ballast Rule. 84 FR
56540, 56569-56570. For the 2011 Ballast Rule, DOE used 12.5 years.
While preparing the October 2019 NOPD, DOE found no literature
confirming a 16.6-year product lifetime and focused instead on
searching for evidence contradicting the lifetime of 12.5 years. No
such evidence was identified. For the October 2019 NOPD,
[[Page 81575]]
DOE assumed commercial ballasts would have a 12.5-year average lifetime
which, when multiplied by the average commercial sector operating hours
per year, yields a lifetime of approximately 38,000 hours. 84 FR 56540,
56570. DOE received no comments on product lifetime. In this final
determination, DOE has retained the product lifetimes expressed in
years from the October 2019 NOPD.
7. Discount Rates
In the calculation of LCC, DOE applies discount rates appropriate
to commercial, industrial, and residential consumers to estimate the
present value of future operating costs. DOE estimated a distribution
of discount rates for fluorescent lamp ballasts based on the cost of
capital of publicly traded firms in the sectors that purchase
fluorescent lamp ballasts.
As part of its analysis, DOE also applies weighted average discount
rates calculated from consumer debt and asset data, rather than
marginal or implicit discount rates.\18\ DOE notes that the LCC does
not analyze the product purchase decision, so the implicit discount
rate is not relevant in this model. The LCC estimates net present value
over the lifetime of the product, so the appropriate discount rate will
reflect the general opportunity cost of household or business funds,
taking this time scale into account. Given the long-time frame 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 effect of this rebalancing using the historical
distribution of debts and assets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ The implicit discount rate is inferred from a consumer
purchase decision between two otherwise identical goods with
different first cost and operating cost. It is the interest rate
that equates the increment of first cost to the difference in net
present value of lifetime operating cost, incorporating the
influence of several factors: Transaction costs, risk premiums and
response to uncertainty, time preferences, and interest rates at
which a consumer is able to borrow or lend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To establish residential discount rates for the LCC analysis, DOE
identified all relevant household debt or asset classes in order to
approximate a consumer's opportunity cost of funds related to appliance
energy cost savings. It estimated the average percentage shares of the
various types of debt and equity by household income group using data
from the Federal Reserve Board's Survey of Consumer Finances \19\
(``SCF'') for 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2010, 2013, and 2016. 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. In
the Crystal Ball\TM\ analyses, for each of the 10,000 simulations, the
model selects an income group and then selects a discount rate from the
distribution for that group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Survey of
Consumer Finances. Available at https://www.federalreserve.gov/PUBS/oss/oss2/scfindex.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For commercial and industrial 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. See chapter 8 of the final determination TSD for
details on the development of consumer discount rates.
DOE described the discount rate calculations in the October 2019
NOPD and the accompanying TSD chapter 8 and appendix 8D. 84 FR 56540,
56570-56571. DOE received no comments on the discount rate
calculations. For the final determination, DOE used the same
methodologies as used for the October 2019 NOPD. The residential
discount rate and commercial discount rate calculations were updated to
include more current input data from the Federal Reserve and Damodaran
Online. The commercial discount rate update includes use of Damodaran
Online data disaggregated by industry sector, and current as of the end
of 2019.
8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case
To accurately estimate the share of consumers that would be
affected by a potential energy conservation standard at a particular
efficiency level, DOE's LCC analysis considered the projected
distribution (market shares) of product efficiencies under the no-new-
standards case (i.e., the case without amended energy conservation
standards) in the compliance year.
To estimate the energy efficiency distribution of fluorescent lamp
ballasts for 2023, DOE analyzed the distribution of ballasts in the
databases used in the engineering analysis. For the non-dimming
ballasts, the main source of information is the DOE compliance
certification database.\20\ For non-dimming ballasts, DOE relied on
product offerings in manufacturer catalogs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ https://www.regulations.doe.gov/ccms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE described the energy efficiency distribution in the October
2019 NOPD TSD chapter 8. 84 FR 56540, 56571. DOE received no comments
on the NOPD energy efficiency distribution. DOE used the same
distribution in the final determination. See chapter 8 of the final
determination TSD for the estimated efficiency distributions.
9. 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. Payback periods are
expressed in years. Payback periods that exceed the life of the product
mean that the increased total installed cost is not recovered in
reduced operating expenses.
The inputs to the simple PBP calculation for each efficiency level
are the change in total installed cost of the product and the change in
the first-year annual operating expenditures relative to the baseline.
The PBP calculation uses the same inputs as the LCC analysis, except
that discount rates are not needed.
H. 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.\21\ The shipments
model takes an accounting approach in tracking market shares of each
product class and the vintage of units in the stock. Stock accounting
uses product shipments as inputs to estimate the age distribution of
in-service product stocks for all years. The age distribution of in-
service product stocks is a key input to calculations of both the NES
and NPV, because operating costs for any year depend on the age
distribution of the stock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the October 2019 NOPD, DOE modeled four declining shipment
scenarios. 84 FR 56540, 56572-56573. DOE received written comments
supporting the projection of declining
[[Page 81576]]
shipments. CA IOUs, Lutron, and NEMA all stated that there is an
ongoing and continual decline in shipments of fluorescent lamp
ballasts. (CA IOUs, No. 25 at p. 2; Lutron, No. 23 at p. 2; NEMA, No.
24 at p. 2)
Both Signify and NEMA also provided data in comments related to the
shipment volume. Signify stated that the current (2019) fluorescent
lamp ballast market may be only 15 percent of the total shipments in
2011. (Signify, No. 27 at p. 2) NEMA provided a figure indexed to 2015
indicating the 2019 volume was roughly 30 percent the volume of 2015
shipments. (NEMA, No. 24 at pp. 4, Fluorescent Driver Index graph)
In this final determination, DOE continued to rely on projections
of declining shipments but calibrated the volume of shipments by
reducing the volume of shipments per comments received. In the October
2019 NOPD, DOE modeled four shipment scenarios and DOE retained those
scenarios for this final.
(1) Scenario #1--declining shipments that all terminate in 2024.
(2) Scenario #2--declining shipments that all terminate in 2040.
(3) Scenario #3--declining shipments that approach zero near the
end of the analysis period (2052). This scenario is close to a year-
over-year linear reduction of shipments by 20 percent.
(4) Scenario #4--declining shipments that terminate near the end of
the analysis period. This scenario is based on a slower decline rate in
the initial part of the analysis period and is similar to a projected
decline in fluorescent lamps. See 84 FR 56540, 56572.
DOE presented in the October 2019 NOPD results under each of the
four scenarios but relied on scenario #3 as the reference case. 84 FR
56540, 56572. DOE requested comment in the October 2019 NOPD about
whether the shipment scenarios were reasonable and likely to occur. Id.
at 84 FR 56574. DOE also requested comment on which of the four
scenarios best characterize future shipments of fluorescent lamp
ballasts. Id.
NEMA stated that any shipment scenario that includes a near-20
percent rate of decline is useful for estimations/modeling. (NEMA, No.
24 at p. 5)
Dimming ballasts were included in the shipment scenarios. DOE
requested comment regarding the rate of decline for dimming ballast
shipments as compared to non-dimming ballasts. 84 FR 56540, 56574. NEMA
provided general information about the cost of dimming ballasts stating
they involve more complex circuitry and tend to sell at a higher price
than fixed output ballasts. NEMA stated that logically the higher price
would equate to a higher rate of decline based on competition with LED
technology. (NEMA, No. 24 at p. 4) NEMA stated that that the demand for
dimming ballasts is declining faster than the decline for fluorescent
lamps. (NEMA, No. 24 at p. 2) NEMA stated that the dimming ballast
shipment scenario appears accurate. (NEMA, No. 24 at p. 5) Therefore,
DOE utilized a similar declining shipment scenario for dimming ballasts
in the 2019 NOPD and this final determination.
I. National Impact Analysis
DOE conducted a NIA in the October 2019 NOPD. 84 FR 56540, 56574-
56576. The NIA assesses the NES and the NPV from a national perspective
of total consumer costs and savings that would be expected to result
from new or amended standards at specific efficiency levels.\22\
(``Consumer'' in this context refers to consumers of the product being
regulated.) DOE calculates the NES and NPV for the potential standard
levels considered based on projections of annual product shipments,
along with the annual energy consumption and total installed cost data
from the energy use and LCC analyses. For the present analysis, DOE
projected the energy savings, operating cost savings, product costs,
and NPV of consumer benefits over the lifetime of fluorescent lamp
ballasts sold from 2023 through 2052.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ The NIA accounts for impacts in the 50 states and U.S.
territories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE evaluates the effects of amended standards by comparing a case
without such standards with standards-case projections. The no-new-
standards case characterizes energy use and consumer costs for each
product class in the absence of amended energy conservation standards.
For this projection, DOE considers historical trends in efficiency and
various forces that are likely to affect the mix of efficiencies over
time. DOE compares the no-new-standards case with projections
characterizing the market for each product class if DOE adopted amended
standards at specific energy efficiency levels (i.e., the ELs or
standards cases) for that class. For the standards cases, DOE considers
how a given standard would likely affect the market shares of products
with efficiencies greater than the standard.
DOE uses a spreadsheet model to calculate the energy savings and
the national consumer costs and savings from each EL. Interested
parties can review DOE's analyses by changing various input quantities
within the spreadsheet.\23\ The NIA spreadsheet model uses typical
values (as opposed to probability distributions) as inputs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ The spreadsheet is in the docket and can be found at
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2015-BT-STD-0006-0017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IV.13 summarizes the inputs and methods DOE used for the NIA
analysis for the final determination. Discussion of these inputs and
methods follows the table. See chapter 10 of the final determination
TSD for further details.
Table IV.13--Summary of Inputs and Methods for the National Impact
Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inputs Method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shipments.............................. Annual shipments from shipments
model.
Compliance Date of Standard............ 2023.
Efficiency Trends...................... No-new-standards case, Standard
cases.
Annual Energy Consumption per Unit..... Annual weighted-average values
are a function of energy use
at each EL.
Total Installed Cost per Unit.......... Annual weighted-average values
are a function of cost at each
EL. Incorporates projection of
future product prices based on
historical data.
Annual Energy Cost per Unit............ Annual weighted-average values
as a function of the annual
energy consumption per unit
and energy prices.
Repair and Maintenance Cost per Unit... Annual values do not change
with efficiency level.
Energy Price Trends.................... AEO2020 projections (to 2050)
and extrapolation thereafter.
Energy Site-to-Primary and FFC A time-series conversion factor
Conversion. based on AEO2020.
Discount Rate.......................... Three and seven percent.
Present Year........................... 2020.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEMA stated that in the 2011 FL Ballast Rule the difference in
energy savings between the two TSLs with the highest efficiency levels
was negligible, the increase in net benefit to the country was trivial,
and the capital conversion costs for manufacturers were significant
indicating fluorescent lamp ballasts are already very efficient and
additional energy savings not needed.\24\ (NEMA,
[[Page 81577]]
No. 24 at p. 2) Similarly Lutron stated energy savings are small and
supported DOE's net present value conclusion. (Lutron, No. 23 at p. 2)
No stakeholder input was received related to different methods or
additional data sets. The final determination NIA methodology was
consistent with the October 2019 NOPD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ For context, in the 2011 FL Ballast Rule, DOE evaluated
trial standard levels (``TSLs'') 3A and 3B. TSL 3A represented
energy conservation standards at the maximum technologically
feasible level for all product classes except for residential and 8-
foot HO IS/RS product classes; and TSL 3B represented the maximum
technologically feasible level for all product classes. 76 FR 70547,
70596. The difference in NPV between 3Aand 3B rounded to 1 percent
at a 7 percent discount rate and rounded to 0 percent at a 3 percent
discount rate. The impact on industrial net present value was a
decrease of $33 million between 3A and 3B, or a decrease of 4.4
percent relative to the no-new-standards base. 76 FR 70547, 70620.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Product Efficiency Trends
A key component of the NIA is the trend in energy efficiency
projected for the no-new-standards case and each of the standards
cases. Section IV.G.8 of this document describes how DOE developed an
energy efficiency distribution for the no-new-standards case (which
yields a shipment-weighted average efficiency) for each of the
considered product classes for the year of anticipated compliance with
an amended or new standard.
For the standards cases, DOE used a ``roll-up'' scenario to
establish the shipment-weighted efficiency for the year that standards
are assumed to become effective (2023). In this scenario, the market
shares of products in the no-new-standards case that do not meet the
standard under consideration would ``roll up'' to meet the amended
standard level, and the market share of products above the standard
would remain unchanged.
DOE has included within the NIA model a standards-induced shift
scenario in which if EL 1 is selected, 25 percent of the consumers
would migrate to a new LED technology. If EL 2 is selected, 50 percent
of the consumers would migrate to a new LED technology, and if EL 3 is
selected, 75 percent of the consumers would migrate to a new LED
technology. Within the NIA model, the percentage of customers migrating
away is not fixed and can be changed by the user.
Within DOE's standard-induced shift away from a FLB scenario, DOE
modeled the shift to occur at different increments at each EL and not
at a specific PBP or specific increase in FLB price. The PBPs vary for
all of the product classes and ballasts. The potential cost
differential between the baseline ballast and a more efficient EL
ballast varies across the products classes as well.
In the October 2019 NOPD, DOE requested comment about the
following: (1) The percentage of customers that might migrate away from
FLB technology, (2) the specific incremental cost that could trigger a
standards-induced shift away from fluorescent lamp ballasts, (3) the
approach for input power and price for LED devices considered in a
standards-induced shift, (4) any potential impediments that would
prevent users of fluorescent lamp ballasts from switching to LED
lighting to garner additional energy savings, and (5) the expected
effect of potential standards on the rate at which FLB consumers
transition to non-FLB technology. 84 FR 56540, 56575. NEMA cited a lack
of firsthand knowledge on the subjects. NEMA postulated the shift could
be driven from amortization of current investments, LED conversion
initial cost, and the role of TLEDs in the industry. Specifically, NEMA
stated that TLEDs are compatible with most fixed-output fluorescent
ballasts, though less so with dimming ballasts. NEMA also stated that
low operating hours of an installation may decrease the incentive to
switch to LED lighting. NEMA was not knowledgeable about the percentage
of installations shifting to LED but noted the shift was occurring with
any light source. (NEMA, No. 24 at p. 6) With no comments providing any
additional data or suggestions for the modeling approach, for the final
determination, DOE calculated product efficiency trends consistently
with the October 2019 NOPD.
Chapter 10 of the final determination TSD provides details on DOE's
NIA for fluorescent lamp ballasts.
2. National Energy Savings
The NES analysis involves a comparison of national energy
consumption of the considered products between each potential standards
case (i.e., an EL) and the case with no amended energy conservation
standards. DOE calculated the national energy consumption by
multiplying the number of units (stock) of each product (by vintage or
age) by the unit energy consumption (also by vintage). DOE calculated
annual NES based on the difference in national energy consumption for
the no-new-standards case and for each higher efficiency standard case.
DOE estimated energy consumption and savings based on site energy and
converted the electricity consumption and savings to source energy
(i.e., the energy consumed by power plants to generate site
electricity) using annual conversion factors derived from AEO2020.
Cumulative energy savings are the sum of the NES for each year over the
timeframe of the analysis.
Use of higher-efficiency products is occasionally associated with a
direct rebound effect, which refers to an increase in utilization of
the product due to the increase in efficiency. As discussed in Table
IV.12, DOE did not find rebound present in the FLB market and therefore
was not included in the NIA.
In 2011, in response to the recommendations of a committee on
``Point-of-Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle Measurement Approaches to Energy
Efficiency Standards'' appointed by the National Academy of Sciences,
DOE announced its intention to use FFC measures of energy use and
greenhouse gas and other emissions in the national impact analyses and
emissions analyses included in future energy conservation standards
rulemakings. 76 FR 51281 (Aug. 18, 2011). After evaluating the
approaches discussed in the August 18, 2011 notice, DOE published a
statement of amended policy in which DOE explained its determination
that EIA's National Energy Modeling System (``NEMS'') is the most
appropriate tool for its FFC analysis and its intention to use NEMS for
that purpose. 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012). NEMS is a public domain,
multi-sector, partial equilibrium model of the U.S. energy sector \25\
that EIA uses to prepare its Annual Energy Outlook. The FFC factors
incorporate losses in production and delivery in the case of natural
gas (including fugitive emissions) and additional energy used to
produce and deliver the various fuels used by power plants. The
approach used generally for deriving FFC measures of energy use and
emissions is described in chapter 10 of the final determination TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ For more information on NEMS, refer to The National Energy
Modeling System: An Overview 2009, DOE/EIA-0581(2009), October 2009.
Available at https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/nems/overview/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The calculations of energy savings are consistent with the October
2019 NOPD calculations with updates to energy prices, costs, and
shipments described in IV.G and IV.H of this document.
3. Net Present Value Analysis
The inputs for determining the NPV of the total costs and benefits
experienced by consumers are (1) total annual installed cost, (2) total
annual operating costs (energy costs and repair and maintenance costs),
and (3) a discount factor to calculate the present value of costs and
savings. DOE calculates net savings each year as the difference between
the no-new-standards case and each standards case in terms of total
savings in operating costs versus total increases in installed costs.
DOE calculates operating cost
[[Page 81578]]
savings over the lifetime of each product shipped during the projection
period.
As discussed in section IV.G of this document, DOE developed FLB
price trends based on electronic ballasts. By 2052, which is the end
date of the projection period, the average FLB price is projected to
drop 4.5 percent relative to 2016. DOE's projection of product prices
is described in appendix 8C of the final determination TSD. Consistent
with the October 2019 NOPD, for this final determination, DOE excluded
price trends from the consumer costs of fluorescent lamp ballasts used
in the NIA.
The operating cost savings are energy cost savings, which are
calculated using the estimated energy savings in each year and the
projected price of the appropriate form of energy. To estimate energy
prices in future years, DOE multiplied the average regional energy
prices by the projection of annual national-average energy price
changes in the Reference case from AEO2020, which has an end year of
2050. To estimate price trends after 2050, DOE used the average annual
rate of change in prices from 2040 through 2050.
In calculating the NPV, DOE multiplies the net savings in future
years by a discount factor to determine their present value. For this
final determination, DOE estimated the NPV of consumer benefits using
both a 3-percent and a 7-percent real discount rate. DOE uses these
discount rates in accordance with guidance provided by the Office of
Management and Budget (``OMB'') to Federal agencies on the development
of regulatory analysis.\26\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ United States Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-
4: Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 2003. Section E. Available at
https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/m03-21.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
No stakeholder input was received that suggested either a different
methodology or additional data sets. In the final determination NIA
methodology was consistent with the October 2019 NOPD.
J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
1. Overview
DOE performed an MIA to estimate the financial impacts of potential
amended energy conservation standards on manufacturers of fluorescent
lamp ballasts. 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 industry net present value
(``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 the amended energy
conservation standard on manufacturers.
To capture the uncertainty relating to manufacturer pricing
strategies following amended standards, the GRIM estimates a range of
possible impacts under different 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.\27\ DOE then further calibrated these initial estimates
during manufacturer interviews to arrive at the final estimates used in
the GRIM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ 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 2020 (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 9.6 percent for FLB 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). DOE then
confirmed this initial estimate during manufacturer interviews.
Additional details about the GRIM, the discount rate, and other
financial parameters can be found in chapter 11 of the final
determination TSD.
2. Manufacturer Production Costs
Manufacturing more efficient fluorescent lamp ballasts is typically
more expensive because of the use of more complex components, which are
typically more costly than baseline components. The changes in the MPCs
of covered products can affect the revenues, gross margins, and cash
flow of the industry. Typically, DOE develops MPCs for the covered
products using reverse-engineering. These costs are used as an input to
the LCC analysis and NIA. However, because ballasts are difficult to
reverse-engineer, DOE directly derived end-user prices in the
engineering analysis and then used the end-user prices in conjunction
with markups to calculate the MPCs of fluorescent lamp ballasts. DOE
used the same end-user prices in this final determination that were
used in the proposed determination, however, DOE updated the prices to
2019$. See IV.E for a further explanation of product price
determination.
To determine MPCs of fluorescent lamp ballasts from the wholesale
prices calculated in the engineering analysis, DOE divided the
wholesale prices by the wholesaler markup to calculate the MSP. DOE
then divided the MSP by the manufacturer markup to get the MPCs. DOE
determined the wholesaler markup to be 1.23 and the manufacturer markup
to be 1.40 for all fluorescent lamp ballasts. DOE used the same markups
in this final determination that were used in the proposed
determination. Markups are further described in section IV.J.5 of this
document.
[[Page 81579]]
3. Shipments Projections
The GRIM estimates manufacturer revenues based on total unit
shipment projections and the distribution of those shipments by EL.
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 from shipments scenario #3 (reference
case, see section IV.H) starting in 2020 (the reference year) and
ending in 2052 (the end year of the analysis period). DOE updated the
shipment analysis for the final determination (see section IV.H). The
GRIM uses these updated shipments as part of the final determination
MIA. See chapter 9 of the final determination TSD for additional
shipment details.
4. Product and Capital Conversion Costs
Potential amended energy conservation standards could cause
manufacturers to incur conversion costs to bring their production
facilities and equipment designs into compliance. DOE evaluated the
level of conversion-related expenditures that would be needed to comply
with each considered EL in each product class. For the MIA, DOE
classified these conversion costs into two major groups: (1) Product
conversion costs; and (2) capital conversion costs. Product conversion
costs are investments in research, development, testing, marketing, and
other non-capitalized costs necessary to make product designs comply
with 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 from the 2011 FL Ballast Rule to estimate
costs to update manufacturer production lines by product class. 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 each analyzed EL using DOE's 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 for
each product class at each analyzed EL. To evaluate the level of
product conversion costs manufacturers would likely incur to comply
with the analyzed energy conservation standards, DOE used data from the
2011 FL Ballast Rule to estimate per model R&D and testing and
certification costs for each product class and EL. DOE then estimated
the number of models that would need to be redesigned for each product
class at each analyzed EL. DOE then multiplied these numbers together
to get the final estimated product conversion costs for each product
class at each analyzed EL. DOE used the same conversion cost estimates
in this final determination that were used in the proposed
determination; however, DOE updated the conversion cost estimates to
2019$.
In general, DOE assumes all conversion-related investments occur
between the announcement of a potential energy conservation standard
(i.e., the 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.6 and
Table V.7 of this document. For additional information on the estimated
capital and product conversion costs, see chapter 11 of the final
determination TSD.
DOE received comments related to manufacturers' willingness to make
investments related to fluorescent lamp ballasts. Lutron stated it is
not making investments to create new fluorescent lamp ballast products
or improving existing ones. (Lutron, No. 23 at p. 2) Similarly, NEMA
stated no NEMA manufacturer is investing in fluorescent lamp ballast
technology and changes to standards will lead discontinuation of
products rather than new investment to meet potential energy
conservation standards. NEMA added that product R&D in this area has
shifted to LED technology (i.e., LED drivers). (NEMA, No. 24 at p. 2)
DOE understands that fluorescent lamp ballasts are a declining
lighting technology and that most manufacturers are focused on products
that utilize LED technology. However, DOE estimated the conversion
costs necessary for manufacturers to produce the quantity of
fluorescent lamp ballasts projected in the shipment analysis. As stated
previously these industry conversion cost estimates are displayed in
Table V.6 and Table V.7 of this document.
5. Markup Scenarios
To calculate the MPCs used in the GRIM, DOE divided the wholesaler
prices calculated in the engineering analysis by the wholesaler markup
and the manufacturer markup. The wholesaler markup was calculated in
the 2011 FL Ballast Rule by reviewing SEC 10-K reports of electrical
wholesalers. DOE also coordinated with the National Association of
Electrical Distributors by contacting two representative electrical
wholesalers, who confirmed that DOE's calculated markups were
consistent with their actual ballast markups. DOE continued to use a
wholesaler markup of 1.23 in this final determination.
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
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 percentage markup scenario and (2) a
preservation of operating profit 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 percentage scenario, DOE
applied a single uniform ``gross margin percentage'' markup across all
ELs, which assumes that manufacturers would be able to maintain the
same amount of profit as a percentage of revenues at all ELs within a
product class. To calculate the preservation of gross margin markup,
DOE took the manufacturer markup used in the 2011 FL Ballast Rule and
compared it to the manufacturer markups calculated by examining the SEC
10-Ks of all publicly traded FLB manufacturers and confirmed this with
manufacturers during interviews. DOE determined that the manufacturer
markup used in the 2011 FL Ballast Rule was consistent with the current
SEC 10-Ks of the publicly traded FLB manufacturers and most
manufacturers agreed during manufacturer interviews. Therefore, DOE
used 1.40 as the manufacturer markup in the preservation of gross
margin markup scenario. DOE assumes that this markup scenario
represents the upper bound to industry profitability under analyzed
energy conservation standards.
Under the preservation of operating profit markup scenario, DOE
modeled a situation in which manufacturers are not able to increase
operating profit in proportion to increases in manufacturer production
costs. Under this scenario, as the cost of production increases,
manufacturers are generally required to
[[Page 81580]]
reduce the manufacturer markups to maintain cost competitive offerings
in the market. Therefore, gross margin (as a percentage) shrinks in the
standards cases in this markup scenario. This markup scenario
represents the lower bound to industry profitability under amended
energy conservation standards. DOE used the same manufacturer markups
in this final determination that were used in the proposed
determination.
DOE did not receive comment on the markup scenarios and continued
with the approach as presented in the October 2019 NOPD. A comparison
of industry financial impacts under the two manufacturer markup
scenarios is presented in section V.A.3.a of this document.
6. Manufacturer Interviews
Prior to the publication of the October 2019 NOPD, DOE interviewed
manufacturers of fluorescent lamp ballasts and asked them to describe
their major concerns regarding a potential rulemaking to amend the
standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts. Major areas of concerns
identified in manufacturer interviews were discussed in the October
2019 NOPD. 84 FR 56540, 56578. DOE considered the information received
during these interviews in the development of the NOPD and this final
determination as discussed in the October 2019 NOPD. See id.
V. Analytical Results and Conclusions
The following section addresses the results from DOE's analyses
with respect to the considered energy conservation standards for
fluorescent lamp ballasts. It addresses the ELs examined by DOE, and
the projected impacts of each of these levels. Additional details
regarding DOE's analyses are contained in the final determination TSD
supporting this document.
A. Economic Justification and Energy Savings
1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers
DOE analyzed the economic impacts on FLB consumers by looking at
the effects that potential amended standards at each EL would have on
the LCC and PBP. DOE usually evaluates the LCC impacts of potential
standards on identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be affected
disproportionately by a national standard. However, given the negative
NPV at each EL and the conclusion discussed in section V.B.2, DOE did
not conduct a consumer subgroup analysis for this final determination.
In general, higher-efficiency products affect consumers in two
ways: (1) Purchase price increases and (2) annual operating costs
decrease. Inputs used for calculating the LCC and PBP include total
installed costs (i.e., product price plus installation costs) and
operating costs (i.e., annual energy use, energy prices, energy price
trends, repair costs, and maintenance costs). The LCC calculation also
uses product lifetime and a discount rate. Table V.1 shows the LCC and
PBP results for the ELs considered for fluorescent lamp ballasts.
Table V.1--Average LCC and PBP Results for Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LCC savings Simple payback
Efficiency level * 2019$ period years
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL 1.................................... 0 12
EL 2.................................... 1 10
EL 3.................................... 1 10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Note: The results for each EL are calculated assuming that all
consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured
relative to the baseline product.
2. National Impact Analysis
This section presents DOE's estimates of the NES and the NPV of
consumer impacts that would result from each of the ELs considered as
potential amended standards.
a. Significance of Energy Savings
To estimate the energy savings attributable to potential amended
standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts, DOE compared their energy
consumption under the no-new-standards case to their anticipated energy
consumption under each EL. 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.2 presents DOE's projections of the NES for each EL considered
for fluorescent lamp ballasts for reference shipment scenario 3 (see
IV.H). Results of all shipment scenarios are provided in chapter 10 of
the final determination TSD. The savings were calculated using the
approach described in section IV.I.2 of this document.
Table V.2--Cumulative National Energy Savings for Fluorescent Lamp
Ballasts; 30 Years of Shipments (2023-2052)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency level
-----------------------
Quads
-----------------------
1 2 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site energy..................................... 0.009 0.026 0.032
Source energy................................... 0.023 0.069 0.086
FFC energy...................................... 0.024 0.072 0.090
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMB Circular A-4 \28\ requires agencies to present analytical
results, including separate schedules of the monetized benefits and
costs that show the type and timing of benefits and costs. Circular A-4
also directs agencies to consider the variability of key elements
underlying the estimates of benefits and costs. For this rulemaking,
DOE undertook a sensitivity analysis using 9 years, rather than 30
years, of product shipments. The choice of a 9-year period is a proxy
for the timeline in EPCA for the review of certain energy conservation
standards and potential revision of and compliance with such revised
standards.\29\ The review timeframe established in EPCA is generally
not synchronized with the product lifetime, product manufacturing
cycles, or other factors specific to fluorescent lamp ballasts. 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.3 for reference shipment scenario 3 (see section
IV.H). The impacts are counted over the lifetime of fluorescent lamp
ballasts urchased in 2023-2031.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-4:
Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 2003. https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4/.
\29\ 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. 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.
[[Page 81581]]
Table V.3--Cumulative National Energy Savings for Fluorescent Lamp
Ballasts; 9 Years of Shipments (2023-2031)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency level
--------------------------------------
Quads
--------------------------------------
1 2 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site energy...................... 0.006 0.017 0.022
Source energy.................... 0.015 0.045 0.058
FFC energy....................... 0.016 0.047 0.061
------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits
DOE estimated the cumulative NPV of the total costs and savings for
consumers that would result from the ELs considered for fluorescent
lamp ballasts. In accordance with OMB's guidelines on regulatory
analysis,\30\ DOE calculated NPV using both a 7-percent and a 3-percent
real discount rate. Table V.4 shows the consumer NPV results with
impacts counted over the lifetime of products purchased in 2023-2052
for reference shipment scenario 3 (see section IV.H). Results of all
shipment scenarios are provided in chapter 10 of the final
determination TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-4:
Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 2003. https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4/.
Table V.4--Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts; 30 Years of
Shipments (2023-2052)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency level
--------------------------------------------------------
billion 2019$
--------------------------------------------------------
1 2 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 percent.............................................. (0.077) (0.053) (0.098)
7 percent.............................................. (0.71) (0.084) (0.127)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NPV results based on the aforementioned 9-year analytical
period and reference shipment scenario (see section IV.H) are presented
in Table V.5. 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.5--Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts; 9 Years of Shipments
(2023-2031)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency level
--------------------------------------------------------
billion 2019$
--------------------------------------------------------
1 2 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 percent.............................................. (0.050) (0.023) (0.043)
7 percent.............................................. (0.053) (0.059) (0.087)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
In addition to the analysis conducted as required under 42 U.S.C.
6395(m)(1)(A), DOE performed an MIA to estimate the impact of analyzed
energy conservation standards on manufacturers of fluorescent lamp
ballasts. The following sections describe the expected impacts on
fluorescent lamp manufacturers at each EL. Chapter 11 of the final
determination TSD explains the analysis in further detail.
a. 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 fluorescent lamp ballasts,
as well as the conversion costs that DOE estimates manufacturers of
fluorescent lamp ballasts would incur at each EL.
To evaluate the range of cash-flow impacts on the FLB industry, DOE
modeled two markup scenarios that correspond to the range of
anticipated market responses to potential standards. Each scenario
results in a unique set of cash flows and corresponding industry values
at each EL. In the following discussion, the INPV results refer to the
difference in industry value between the no-new-standards case and the
standards cases that result from the sum of discounted cash flows from
the reference year (2020) through the end of the analysis period
(2052).
To assess the upper (less severe) end of the range of potential
impacts on FLB manufacturers, 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 efficient products to their
consumers. To assess the lower (more severe) end of the range of
potential impacts, DOE modeled a preservation of
[[Page 81582]]
operating profit markup scenario. The preservation of operating profit
markup scenario assumes that in the standards cases, manufacturers
would be able to earn the same operating margin in absolute dollars as
they would in the no-new-standards case.
Table V.6 and Table V.7 present the results of the industry cash
flow analysis for FLB manufacturers under the preservation of gross
margin and preservation of operating profit markup scenarios,
respectively. See chapter 11 of the final determination TSD for results
of the complete industry cash flow analysis by product class.
Table V.6--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for All Fluorescent Lamp Ballast--Preservation of Gross Margin Markup
Scenario
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No-new-
Units standards case EL 1 EL 2 EL 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV.......................... 2019$ millions.. 210.0 147.4 83.4 70.6
Change in INPV................ 2019$ millions.. .............. (62.6) (126.6) (139.5)
%............... .............. (29.8) (60.3) (66.4)
Product Conversion Costs...... 2019$ millions.. .............. 69.2 132.9 147.7
Capital Conversion Costs...... 2019$ millions.. .............. 17.5 33.2 35.9
Total Conversion Costs........ 2019$ millions.. .............. 86.7 166.2 183.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table V.7--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for All Fluorescent Lamp Ballast--Preservation of Operating Profit
Markup Scenario
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No-new-
Units standards case EL 1 EL 2 EL 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV.......................... 2019$ millions.. 210.0 144.3 76.4 61.0
Change in INPV................ 2019$ millions.. .............. (65.7) (133.7) (149.0)
%............... .............. (31.3) (63.6) (70.9)
Product Conversion Costs...... 2019$ millions.. .............. 69.2 132.9 147.7
Capital Conversion Costs...... 2019$ millions.. .............. 17.5 33.2 35.9
Total Conversion Costs........ 2019$ millions.. .............. 86.7 166.2 183.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. 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, for this final
determination, DOE determined that no manufacturers have domestic FLB
production. Therefore, this determination would not have a significant
impact on domestic employment in the FLB industry.
c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
DOE does not anticipate any significant capacity constraints at any
of the analyzed energy conservation standards. The more efficient
components are currently being used in existing FLB models and
worldwide supply would most likely be able to meet the increase in
demand given the 3-year compliance period for any potential energy
conservation standards.
d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers
Using average cost assumptions to develop an industry cash-flow
estimate may not be adequate for assessing differential impacts among
manufacturer subgroups. Small manufacturers, niche equipment
manufacturers, and manufacturers exhibiting cost structures
substantially different from the industry average could be affected
disproportionately. DOE only identified one manufacturer subgroup for
fluorescent lamp ballasts, small manufacturers. Given that DOE is
issuing this final determination pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1) and
given the conclusion discussed in section V.B, DOE did not conduct a
manufacturer subgroup analysis on small business manufacturers for this
final determination.
e. 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
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 proposing new
or amended energy conservation standards. However, given the conclusion
discussed in section V.A.3, DOE did not conduct a cumulative regulatory
burden analysis.
B. Final Determination
As required by EPCA, this final determination analyzes whether
amended standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts would result in
significant conservation of energy, be technologically feasible, and be
cost-effective. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)) Any
new or amended standards issued by the Secretary would be required to
comply with the economic justification and other requirements of 42
U.S.C. 6295(o). In addition to these criteria, DOE also estimated the
impact on manufacturers. The criteria considered under 42 U.S.C.
6295(m)(1)(A) and the additional analysis are discussed below. Because
an analysis of cost effectiveness and
[[Page 81583]]
energy savings first require an evaluation of the relevant technology,
DOE first discusses the technological feasibility of amended standards.
DOE then addresses the cost effectiveness and energy savings associated
with potential amended standards.
1. Technological Feasibility
EPCA mandates that DOE consider whether amended energy conservation
standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts would be technologically
feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)(B)) DOE has
determined that there are technology options that would improve the
efficiency of fluorescent lamp ballasts. These technology options are
being used in commercially available fluorescent lamp ballasts and
therefore are technologically feasible. (See section IV.C.2 for further
information.) Hence, DOE has determined that new and amended energy
conservation standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts are
technologically feasible.
2. Cost Effectiveness
EPCA requires DOE to consider whether energy conservation standards
for fluorescent lamp ballasts would be cost effective through an
evaluation of the savings in operating costs throughout the estimated
average life of the covered product compared to any increase in the
price of, or in the initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of,
the covered products which are likely to result from the imposition of
the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A), 42 U.S.C 6295(n)(2)(C), and 42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducted an LCC analysis to estimate
the net costs/benefits to users from increased efficiency in the
considered fluorescent lamp ballasts. (See results in Table V.1).
DOE then aggregated the results from the LCC analysis to estimate
the NPV of the total costs and benefits experienced by the Nation. (See
results in Table V.4.) As noted, the inputs for determining the NPV are
(1) total annual installed cost, (2) total annual operating costs
(energy costs and repair and maintenance costs), and (3) a discount
factor to calculate the present value of costs and savings. DOE first
considered the most efficient level, EL 3 (max-tech), which would
result in negative NPV at a 3-percent and 7-percent discount rate. On
the basis of negative NPV, DOE determined that EL 3 is not cost
effective.
DOE then considered the next most efficient level, EL 2, which
would result in negative NPV at a 3-percent and 7-percent discount
rate. On the basis of negative NPV, DOE determined that EL 2 is not
cost effective.
DOE then considered the next most efficient level, EL 1, which
would result in negative NPV at a 3-percent and 7-percent discount
rate. On the basis of negative NPV, DOE determined that EL 1 is not
cost effective.
3. Significant Conservation of Energy
EPCA also mandates that DOE consider whether amended energy
conservation standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts would result in
significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and 42
U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)(A)) As discussed, to determine whether energy savings
is significant, DOE conducts a two-step approach that considers both an
absolute site energy savings threshold and a threshold that is the
percent reduction in the covered energy use. (See Section 6(b) of the
Process Rule.) DOE first evaluates the projected energy savings from a
potential max-tech standard over a 30-year period against a 0.3 quads
of site energy threshold. (See Section 6(b)(2) of the Process Rule.) If
the 0.3 quad-threshold is not met, DOE then compares the max-tech
savings to the total energy usage of fluorescent lamp ballast to
calculate a percentage reduction in energy usage. (See Section 6(b)(3)
of the Process Rule.) If this comparison does not yield a reduction in
site energy use of at least 10 percent over a 30-year period, the
energy savings are deemed to not be significant. (See Section 6(b)(4)
of the Process Rule.)
DOE estimates that amended standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts
would result in site energy savings of 0.009 quads at EL 1, 0.026 quads
at EL 2, and 0.032 quads at EL 3 over a 30-year analysis period (2023-
2052). (See results in Table V.2.) Therefore, the projected energy
savings from potential standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts do not
meet the 0.3 quad of site energy threshold.
DOE then determined that over the 30-year analysis period the
percentage of reduction in energy use at the potential max-tech
standard level compared to the total energy usage of fluorescent lamp
ballasts was one percent. This does not yield a reduction in site
energy use of at least 10 percent over a 30-year period.
Because neither criterion for determining significant energy
savings specified in Section 6(b)(3) of the Process Rule are met by the
potential max-tech standard for fluorescent lamp ballasts, no
significant energy savings will result from setting new or amended
standards.
4. Other Analysis
In this analysis, DOE also conducted an MIA to estimate the impact
of potential energy conservation standards on manufacturers of
fluorescent lamp ballasts. (See results in Table V.6 and Table V.7.)
Each EL for all applicable product classes is estimated to result in
FLB manufacturers experiencing a loss in INPV.
5. Summary
In this final determination, based on the consideration of cost
effectiveness and significant energy savings, DOE is not amending
energy conservation standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts.
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
This final determination has been determined to be not significant
for purposes of Executive Order (``E.O.'') 12866, ``Regulatory Planning
and Review,'' 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993) and E.O. 13563, a supplement
to E.O. 12866, 76 FR 3281 (Jan. 21, 2011). As a result, OMB did not
review this final determination.
B. Review Under Executive Orders 13771 and 13777
On January 30, 2017, the President issued E.O. 13771, ``Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.'' 82 FR 9339 (Feb. 3,
2017). 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.'' 82 FR 12285 (Mar. 1,
2017). E.O. 13777 required the head of each agency 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
[[Page 81584]]
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 concludes that this final determination is consistent with the
directives set forth in these Executive orders.
As discussed in this document, DOE is not amending the energy
conservation standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts. Therefore, this
final determination is 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'')
and a final regulatory flexibility analysis (``FRFA'') for any rule
that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency
certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required
by E.O. 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency
Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and
policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the potential impacts of
its rules on small entities are properly considered during the
rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its procedures and
policies available on the Office of the General Counsel's website
(https://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel).
DOE reviewed this final determination under the provisions of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act and the policies and procedures published on
February 19, 2003. This final determination is not amending energy
conservation standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts. Therefore, DOE
certifies that this final determination has no significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, DOE has
not prepared a FRFA for this final 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 Paperwork Reduction Act
Manufacturers of fluorescent lamp ballasts must certify to DOE that
their products comply with any applicable energy conservation
standards. In certifying compliance, manufacturers must test their
products according to the DOE test procedures for fluorescent lamp
ballasts, including any amendments adopted for those test procedures.
DOE has established regulations for the certification and recordkeeping
requirements for all covered consumer products and commercial
equipment, including fluorescent lamp ballasts. 76 FR 12422 (Mar. 7,
2011); 80 FR 5099 (Jan. 30, 2015). The collection-of-information
requirement for the certification and recordkeeping is subject to
review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (``PRA'').
This requirement has been approved by OMB under OMB control number
1910-1400. Public reporting burden for the certification is estimated
to average 35 hours per response, including the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays
a currently valid OMB Control Number.
E. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(``NEPA''), DOE has analyzed this final determination in accordance
with NEPA and DOE's NEPA implementing regulations (10 CFR part 1021).
DOE has determined that this rule 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. Therefore, DOE has
determined that promulgation of this rule is not a major Federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within the
meaning of NEPA, and does not require an environmental assessment or an
environmental impact statement.
F. Review Under Executive Order 13132
E.O. 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), imposes
certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and implementing
policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism
implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the
constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would
limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess
the necessity for such actions. The Executive order also requires
agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE
published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental
consultation process it will follow in the development of such
regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has examined this rule and has determined
that it would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on
the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State
regulations as to energy conservation for the products that are the
subject of this final 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.
G. Review Under Executive Order 12988
With respect to the review of existing regulations and the
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 12988, ``Civil
Justice Reform,'' imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to
adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and
ambiguity, (2) write regulations to minimize litigation, (3) provide a
clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general
standard, and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. 61 FR
4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). Regarding the review required by section 3(a),
section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 specifically requires that Executive
agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation (1)
clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any, (2) clearly specifies
any effect on existing Federal law or regulation, (3) provides a clear
legal standard for affected conduct while promoting
[[Page 81585]]
simplification and burden reduction, (4) specifies the retroactive
effect, if any, (5) adequately defines key terms, and (6) addresses
other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship
under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of
E.O. 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light
of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine
whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them.
DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the
extent permitted by law, this final determination meets the relevant
standards of E.O. 12988.
H. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``UMRA'')
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531).
For a regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause the
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year
(adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy.
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a ``significant
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small
governments before establishing any requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE published
a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation
under UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE's policy statement is also available at
https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf.
This final determination does not contain a Federal
intergovernmental mandate, nor is it expected to require expenditures
of $100 million or more in any one year by the private sector. As a
result, the analytical requirements of UMRA do not apply.
I. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999, (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a
Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family
well-being. This final determination would not have any impact on the
autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE
has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking
Assessment.
J. Review Under Executive Order 12630
Pursuant to E.O. 12630, ``Governmental Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,'' 53 FR 8859 (March
18, 1988), DOE has determined that this final determination would not
result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
K. 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 final determination under
the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with
applicable policies in those guidelines.
L. Review Under Executive Order 13211
E.O. 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly
Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355 (May 22,
2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (``OIRA'') at OMB, a Statement of
Energy Effects for any significant energy action. A ``significant
energy action'' is defined as any action by an agency that promulgates
or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that (1) is
a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any
successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect
on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (3) is designated by
the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any
significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of
any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the
proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action
and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
Because this final determination does not amend energy conservation
standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts, 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
on this final determination.
M. 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.'' 70 FR 2664, 2667.
In response to OMB's Bulletin, DOE conducted formal peer reviews of
the energy conservation standards development process and the analyses
that are typically used and prepared a report describing that peer
review.\31\ 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 its determination in the case of the present rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ The 2007 ``Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Peer
Review Report'' is available at the following website: https://energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/energy-conservation-standards-rulemaking-peer-review-report-0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
N. Congressional Notification
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the
promulgation of this final determination prior to its
[[Page 81586]]
effective date. The report will state that it has been determined that
the final determination is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final
determination.
Signing Authority
This document of the U.S. Department of Energy was signed on
December 3, 2020, by Daniel R Simmons, Assistant Secretary for Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from
the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and
date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in
compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the
undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to
sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as
an official document of the U.S. Department of Energy. This
administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this
document upon publication in the Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on December 4, 2020.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2020-27045 Filed 12-15-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
