Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for General Service Lamps, 1638-1719 [2022-28072]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 7 (Wednesday, January 11, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1638-1719]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-28072]



[[Page 1637]]

Vol. 88

Wednesday,

No. 7

January 11, 2023

Part II





Department of Energy





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





10 CFR Part 430





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

Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 2023 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 1638]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 430

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


Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for 
General Service Lamps

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and announcement of public 
meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (EPCA), 
directs the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to initiate two rulemaking 
cycles for general service lamps (GSLs) that, among other requirements, 
determine whether standards in effect for GSLs should be amended. EPCA 
also requires DOE to periodically determine whether more-stringent, 
standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified, 
and would result in significant energy savings. In this notice of 
proposed rulemaking (NOPR), DOE proposes amended standards for GSLs 
pursuant to its statutory authority in EPCA, and also announces a 
webinar to receive comments on its proposal and associated analyses and 
results.

DATES: 
    Comments: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding 
this NOPR no later than March 27, 2023.
    Comments regarding the likely competitive impact of the proposed 
standard should be sent to the Department of Justice contact listed in 
the ADDRESSES section on or before February 10, 2023.
    Meeting: DOE will hold a public meeting via webinar on Wednesday, 
February 1, 2023, from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. See section IX, ``Public 
Participation,'' for webinar registration information, participant 
instructions, and information about the capabilities available to 
webinar participants.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using 
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov, under docket 
number EERE-2022-BT-STD-0022. Follow the instructions for submitting 
comments. Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments, 
identified by docket number EERE-2022-BT-STD-0022, by any of the 
following methods:
    Email: [email protected]. Include the docket number EERE-
2022-BT-STD-0022 in the subject line of the message.
    Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. 
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: 
(202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc 
(CD), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.
    Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, 
U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 L'Enfant 
Plaza SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 287-1445. 
If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not 
necessary to include printed copies.
    No telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted. For detailed 
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the 
rulemaking process, see section IX of this document.
    Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal 
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, 
is available for review at www.regulations.gov. All documents in the 
docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. However, not all 
documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as 
information that is exempt from public disclosure.
    The docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2022-BT-STD-0022. The docket web page contains instructions on how 
to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See 
section IX of this document for information on how to submit comments 
through www.regulations.gov.
    EPCA requires the Attorney General to provide DOE a written 
determination of whether the proposed standard is likely to lessen 
competition. The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division invites 
input from market participants and other interested persons with views 
on the likely competitive impact of the proposed standard. Interested 
persons may contact the Division at [email protected] on or 
before the date specified in the DATES section. Please indicate in the 
``Subject'' line of your email the title and Docket Number of this 
proposed rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
    Mr. Bryan Berringer, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: 
(202) 586-0371. Email: [email protected].
    Ms. Celia Sher, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General 
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. 
Telephone: (202) 287-6122. Email: [email protected].
    For further information on how to submit a comment, review other 
public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting, 
contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 
287-1445 or by email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the 
following industry test standard into 10 CFR part 430:
    Underwriters Laboratories (UL) 1598C, ``UL 1598C Standard for 
Safety Light-Emitting Diode (LED) Retrofit Luminaire Conversion Kits,'' 
approved January 12, 2017.
    Copies of UL 1598C can be obtained by going to https://www.shopulstandards.com/Default.aspx.
    For a further discussion of this standard, see section VIII.M of 
this document.

Table of Contents

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule
    A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers
    B. Impact on Manufacturers
    C. National Benefits and Costs
    D. Conclusion
II. Introduction
    A. Authority
    B. Background
    1. History of Standards Rulemaking for General Service Lamps
    2. Current Standards
III. General Discussion
    A. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage
    B. Test Procedure
    C. Technological Feasibility
    1. General
    2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
    D. Energy Savings
    1. Determination of Savings
    2. Significance of Savings
    E. Economic Justification
    1. Specific Criteria
    a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
    b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price (LCC 
and PBP)
    c. Energy Savings
    d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
    e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
    f. Need for National Energy Conservation
    g. Other Factors
    2. Rebuttable Presumption
IV. Scope of Coverage
    A. Definitions of General Service Lamp, Compact Fluorescent 
Lamp, General

[[Page 1639]]

Service LED Lamp, General Service OLED Lamp, General Service 
Incandescent Lamp
    B. Supporting Definitions
    C. GSLs Evaluated for Potential Standards in This NOPR
V. Scope of Metrics
    1. Lumens per Watt (Lamp Efficacy)
    2. Power Factor
    3. Lifetime
    4. Start Time
    5. CRI
    6. Summary of Metrics
VI. Methodology and Discussion
    A. Market and Technology Assessment
    1. Product Classes
    a. Lamp Component Location
    b. Standby Mode Operation
    c. Directionality
    d. Lamp Length
    e. Product Class Summary
    2. Technology Options
    B. Screening Analysis
    1. Screened-Out Technologies
    2. Remaining Technologies
    C. Engineering Analysis
    1. Efficiency Analysis
    2. Representative Product Classes
    3. Baseline Lamps
    a. Integrated Omnidirectional Short Product Class
    b. Integrated Omnidirectional Long Product Class
    c. Integrated Directional Product Class
    d. Non-Integrated Omnidirectional Short Product Class
    e. Non-Integrated Directional Product Class
    4. More Efficacious Substitutes
    a. Integrated Omnidirectional Short Product Class
    b. Integrated Omnidirectional Long Product Class
    c. Integrated Directional Product Class
    d. Non-Integrated Omnidirectional Short Product Class
    e. Non-Integrated Directional Product Class
    5. Efficacy Levels
    a. Equation Form
    b. Integrated Omnidirectional Short Product Classes
    c. Integrated Omnidirectional Long Product Class
    d. Integrated Directional Product Class
    e. Non-Integrated Omnidirectional Short Product Class
    f. Non-Integrated Directional Product Class
    6. Scaling to Other Product Classes
    a. Scaling of Integrated Standby Mode Product Classes
    b. Scaling of Non-Integrated Long Product Class
    7. Summary of All Efficacy Levels
    D. Cost Analysis
    E. Energy Use Analysis
    1. Operating Hours
    a. Residential Sector
    b. Commercial Sector
    2. Input Power
    3. Lighting Controls
    F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
    1. Product Cost
    2. Installation Cost
    3. Annual Energy Consumption
    4. Energy Prices
    5. Product Lifetime
    6. Residual Value
    7. Disposal Cost
    8. Discount Rates
    a. Residential
    b. Commercial
    9. Efficacy Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case
    10. LCC Savings Calculation
    11. Payback Period Analysis
    G. Shipments Analysis
    1. Shipments Model
    a. Lamp Demand Module
    b. Price-Learning Module
    c. Market-Share Module
    H. National Impact Analysis
    1. National Energy Savings
    a. Smart Lamps
    b. Unit Energy Consumption Adjustment To Account for GSL Lumen 
Distribution for the Integrated Omnidirectional Short Product Class
    c. Unit Energy Consumption Adjustment To Account for Type A 
Integrated Omnidirectional Long Lamps
    2. Net Present Value Analysis
    I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
    J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
    1. Overview
    2. Government Regulatory Impact Model and Key Inputs
    a. Manufacturer Production Costs
    b. Shipments Projections
    c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs
    d. Markup Scenarios
    K. Emissions Analysis
    1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated in DOE's Analysis
    L. Monetizing Emissions Impacts
    1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
    a. Social Cost of Carbon
    b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous Oxide
    2. Monetization of Other Air Pollutants
    M. Utility Impact Analysis
    N. Employment Impact Analysis
VII. Analytical Results and Conclusions
    A. Trial Standard Levels
    B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings
    1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers
    a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
    b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
    c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
    2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
    a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results
    b. Direct Impacts on Employment
    c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
    d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers
    e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
    3. National Impact Analysis
    a. Significance of Energy Savings
    b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits
    c. Indirect Impacts on Employment
    4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products
    5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
    6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy
    7. Other Factors
    8. Summary of Economic Impacts
    C. Conclusion
    1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for GSLs Standards
    2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Standards
    D. Reporting, Certification, and Sampling Plan
VIII. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
    B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    1. Description on Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
    2. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements Including 
Differences in Cost, if Any, for Different Groups of Small Entities
    3. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and 
Regulations
    4. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
    C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
    D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
    E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
    F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
    G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 1999
    I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
    J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 2001
    K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
    L. Information Quality
    M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
IX. Public Participation
    A. Participation in the Webinar
    B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for 
Distribution
    C. Conduct of the Webinar
    D. Submission of Comments
    E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
X. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule

    Title III, Part B \1\ of the EPCA,\2\ established the Energy 
Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. (42 
U.S.C. 6291-6309) These products include GSLs, the subject of this 
proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, 
part B was redesignated part A. All references to part B in this 
document refer to the redesignated part A.
    \2\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute 
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec. 
27, 2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact 
parts A and A-1 of EPCA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE is issuing this NOPR pursuant to multiple provisions in EPCA. 
First, EPCA requires that DOE must initiate a second rulemaking cycle 
by January 1, 2020, to determine whether standards in effect for 
general service incandescent lamps (GSILs) should be amended with more 
stringent energy conservation standards and if the exemptions for 
certain incandescent lamps should be maintained or discontinued. For 
this second review of energy conservation standards, the scope of 
rulemaking is not limited to incandescent technologies. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(i)(6)(B)(ii))

[[Page 1640]]

    Second, EPCA also provides that not later than 6 years after 
issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE 
must publish either a notice of determination that standards for the 
product do not need to be amended, or a notice of proposed rulemaking 
including new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a 
final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)) Third, pursuant to 
EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard must be designed 
to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that DOE 
determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the new or amended standard must 
result in a significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(3)(B)) Lastly, when DOE proposes to adopt an amended standard 
for a type or class of covered product, it must determine the maximum 
improvement in energy efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use 
that is technologically feasible for such product. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(p)(1))
    In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed 
in this document, DOE proposes energy conservation standards for GSLs. 
This is the second rulemaking cycle for GSLs. As a result of the first 
rulemaking cycle, there is currently a sales prohibition on the sale of 
any GSLs that do not meet a minimum efficacy standard of 45 lumens per 
watt. There are existing DOE energy conservation standards higher than 
45 lumens per watt for medium base compact fluorescent lamps (MBCFLs), 
which are types of GSLs. 70 FR 60407 (Oct. 18, 2005). The standards 
proposed in this rulemaking, which are expressed in minimum lumens (lm) 
output per watt (W) of a lamp or lamp efficacy (lm/W), are shown in 
Table I.1. These proposed standards, if adopted, would apply to all 
GSLs listed in Table I.1 manufactured in, or imported into, the United 
States beginning on the effective date for the standard.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11JA23.000

A. Impact on Manufacturers

    The industry net present value (INPV) is the sum of the discounted 
cash flows to the industry from the base year through the end of the 
analysis period (2022-2058). Using a real discount rate of 6.1 percent, 
DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of GSLs in the case 
without new and amended standards is $2,014 million in 2021$. Under the 
proposed new and amended standards, the change in INPV is estimated to 
range from -13.5 percent to -7.2 percent, which is approximately -$271 
million to -$145 million. In order to bring products into compliance 
with new and amended standards, it is estimated that the industry would 
incur total conversion costs of $407 million.
    DOE's analysis of the impacts of the proposed standards on 
manufacturers is described in section VI.J of this document. The 
analytic results of the manufacturer impact analysis (MIA) are 
presented in section VII.B.2 of this document.

B. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

    Table I.2 presents DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of the 
proposed standards on consumers of GSLs, as measured by the average 
life-cycle cost (LCC) savings and the simple payback period (PBP).\3\ 
The average LCC savings

[[Page 1641]]

are positive for all product classes, and the PBP is less than the 
average lifetime of GSLs, which varies by product class and efficiency 
level (see section VI.F.5 of this document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The average LCC savings refer to consumers that are affected 
by a standard and are measured relative to the efficiency 
distribution in the no-new-standards case, which depicts the market 
in the first full year of compliance in the absence of new or 
amended standards (see section VI.F.11 of this document). The simple 
PBP, which is designed to compare specific efficiency levels, is 
measured relative to the baseline product (see section VI.F.13 of 
this document).

     Table I.2--Impacts of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards on
                            Consumers of GSLs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Average LCC
              Product class                   savings     Simple payback
                                              (2021$)     period (years)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Residential:
    Integrated Omnidirectional Short....            0.59             0.8
    Integrated Omnidirectional Long.....            1.82             5.4
    Integrated Directional..............            3.01             0.0
    Non-integrated Omnidirectional *....  ..............  ..............
    Non-integrated Directional..........            0.28             4.2
Commercial:
    Integrated Omnidirectional Short....            1.11             0.5
    Integrated Omnidirectional Long.....            4.74             2.9
    Integrated Directional..............            3.86             0.0
    Non-integrated Omnidirectional......            6.62             2.1
    Non-integrated Directional..........            0.69             2.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Non-integrated Omnidirectional GSLs were only analyzed for the
  commercial sector.

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

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

    \4\ All monetary values in this document are expressed in 2021 
dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE's analyses indicate that the proposed energy conservation 
standards for GSLs would save a significant amount of energy. Relative 
to the case without new or amended standards, the lifetime energy 
savings for GSLs purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the 
anticipated first full year of compliance with the amended standards 
(2029-2058) amount to 4.0 quadrillion British thermal units (Btu), or 
quads.\5\ This represents a savings of 48 percent relative to the 
energy use of these products in the case without amended standards 
(referred to as the ``no-new-standards case'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The quantity refers to full-fuel-cycle (FFC) energy savings. 
FFC energy savings includes the energy consumed in extracting, 
processing, and transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, 
petroleum fuels), and, thus, presents a more complete picture of the 
impacts of energy efficiency standards. For more information on the 
FFC metric, see section VI.H.1 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The cumulative net present value (NPV) of total consumer benefits 
of the proposed standards for GSLs ranges from $7.29 billion (at a 7-
percent discount rate) to $20.37 billion (at a 3-percent discount 
rate). This NPV expresses the estimated total value of future 
operating-cost savings minus the estimated increased product costs for 
GSLs purchased in 2029-2058.
    In addition, the proposed standards for GSLs are projected to yield 
significant environmental benefits. DOE estimates that the proposed 
standards would result in cumulative emission reductions (over the same 
period as for energy savings) of 130.63 million metric tons (Mt) \6\ of 
carbon dioxide (CO2), 59.27 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide 
(SO2), 203.05 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides 
(NOX), 902.76 thousand tons of methane (CH4), 
1.36 thousand tons of nitrous oxide (N2O), and 0.39 tons of 
mercury (Hg).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for 
emissions other than CO2 are presented in short tons.
    \7\ DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to the no-new-
standards case, which reflects key assumptions in the Annual Energy 
Outlook 2022 (AEO2022). AEO2022 represents current federal and state 
legislation and final implementation of regulations as of the time 
of its preparation. See section VI.K of this document for further 
discussion of AEO2022 assumptions that effect air pollutant 
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE estimates the value of climate benefits from a reduction in 
greenhouse gases (GHG) using four different estimates of the social 
cost of CO2 (SC-CO2), the social cost of methane 
(SC-CH4), and the social cost of nitrous oxide (SC-
N2O). Together these represent the social cost of GHG (SC-
GHG). DOE used interim SC-GHG values developed by an Interagency 
Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (IWG).\8\ The 
derivation of these values is discussed in section VI.L of this 
document. For presentational purposes, the climate benefits associated 
with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are estimated to 
be $5.9 billion. DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point 
estimate and it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the 
benefits calculated using all four SC-GHG estimates.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse 
Gases, Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, 
and Nitrous Oxide. Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990, 
Washington, DC, February 2021. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf.
    \9\ On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 
22-30087) granted the federal government's emergency motion for stay 
pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction 
issued in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a 
result of the Fifth Circuit's order, the preliminary injunction is 
no longer in effect, pending resolution of the federal government's 
appeal of that injunction or a further court order. Among other 
things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that 
case from ``adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying 
upon'' the interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse 
gases--which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the 
Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021--to monetize 
the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As reflected in 
this proposed rule, DOE has reverted to its approach prior to the 
injunction and presents monetized greenhouse gas abatement benefits 
where appropriate and permissible under law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE estimated the monetary health benefits of SO2 and 
NOX emissions reductions, also discussed in section VI.L of 
this document. DOE estimated the present value of the health benefits 
would be $3.6 billion using a 7-percent discount rate, and $10.1 
billion using a 3-percent discount rate.\10\ DOE is currently only 
monetizing (for SO2 and NOX) particulate matter 
(PM)2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) 
ozone precursor health benefits, but will

[[Page 1642]]

continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health 
benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ DOE estimates the economic value of these emissions 
reductions resulting from the considered TSLs for the purpose of 
complying with the requirements of Executive Order 12866.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table I.3 summarizes the economic benefits and costs expected to 
result from the proposed standards for GSLs. There are other important 
unquantified effects, including certain unquantified climate benefits, 
unquantified public health benefits from the reduction of toxic air 
pollutants and other emissions, unquantified energy security benefits, 
and distributional effects, among others.

  Table I.3--Summary of Economic Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy
                 Conservation Standards for GSLs (TSL 6)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Billion 2021$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            3% discount rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings.........................            25.0
Climate Benefits *......................................             5.9
Health Benefits **......................................            10.1
                                                         ---------------
    Total Benefits [dagger].............................            41.0
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger].............             4.6
                                                         ---------------
    Net Benefits........................................            36.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            7% discount rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings.........................             9.7
Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)...................             5.9
Health Benefits **......................................             3.6
                                                         ---------------
    Total Benefits [dagger].............................            19.1
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger].............             2.4
                                                         ---------------
    Net Benefits........................................            16.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with GSLs
  shipped in 2029-2058. These results include benefits to consumers
  which accrue after 2058 from the products shipped in 2029-2058.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the
  social cost of carbon (SC-CO2), methane (SC-CH4), and nitrous oxide
  (SC-N2O) (model average at 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent
  discount rates; 95th percentile at 3 percent discount rate) (see
  section VI.L of this rulemaking). Together these represent the global
  SC-GHG. For presentational purposes of this table, the climate
  benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3 percent discount
  rate are shown, but DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point
  estimate. On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No.
  22-30087) granted the federal government's emergency motion for stay
  pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued
  in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a result
  of the Fifth Circuit's order, the preliminary injunction is no longer
  in effect, pending resolution of the federal government's appeal of
  that injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the
  preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that case from
  ``adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon'' the
  interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases--which were
  issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of
  Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021--to monetize the benefits of
  reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As reflected in this proposed rule,
  DOE has reverted to its approach prior to the injunction and presents
  monetized greenhouse gas abatement benefits where appropriate and
  permissible under law.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX
  and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing (for NOX and SO2) PM2.5
  precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health
  benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other
  effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5
  emissions. See section VI.L of this document for more details.
[dagger] Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are
  presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-percent discount rate, but
  the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate.
  DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits
  calculated using all four SC-GHG estimates. See Table VII.27 for net
  benefits using all four SC-GHG estimates.
[dagger] Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as
  installation costs.

    The benefits and costs of the proposed standards can also be 
expressed in terms of annualized values. The monetary values for the 
total annualized net benefits are (1) the reduced consumer operating 
costs, minus (2) the increase in product purchase prices and 
installation costs, plus (3) the value of climate and health benefits 
of emission reduction, all annualized.\11\ The national operating 
savings are domestic private U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur 
as a result of purchasing the covered products and are measured for the 
lifetime of GSLs shipped in 2029-2058. The benefits associated with 
reduced emissions achieved as a result of the proposed standards are 
also calculated based on the lifetime of GSLs shipped in 2029-2058. 
Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented 
using the average social costs with 3-percent discount rate. Estimates 
of SC-GHG values are presented for all four discount rates in section 
VII.B.8 of this document. Table I.4 presents the total estimated 
monetized benefits and costs associated with the proposed standard, 
expressed in terms of annualized values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ To convert the time-series of costs and benefits into 
annualized values, DOE calculated a present value in 2022, the year 
used for discounting the NPV of total consumer costs and savings. 
For the benefits, DOE calculated a present value associated with 
each year's shipments in the year in which the shipments occur 
(e.g.,2030), and then discounted the present value from each year to 
2022. Using the present value, DOE then calculated the fixed annual 
payment over a 30-year period, starting in the compliance year, that 
yields the same present value.

[[Page 1643]]



       Table I.4--Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for GSLs (TSL 6)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Million 2021$/year
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Low-net-benefits    High-net-benefits
                                                       Primary estimate        estimate            estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                3% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings.....................             1,521.4             1,469.8             1,586.0
Climate Benefits *..................................               358.1               357.7               358.5
Health Benefits **..................................               615.6               615.0               616.3
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
    Total Benefits [dagger].........................             2,495.1             2,442.5             2,560.8
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger].........               280.3               291.0               270.0
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
    Net Benefits....................................             2,214.8             2,151.6             2,290.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                7% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings.....................             1,171.5             1,135.9             1,215.2
Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)...............               358.1               357.7               358.5
Health Benefits **..................................               432.0               431.7               432.4
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
    Total Benefits [dagger].........................             1,961.6             1,925.3             2,006.1
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger].........               289.4               299.4               279.8
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
    Net Benefits....................................             1,672.2             1,625.9             1,726.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with GSLs shipped in 2029-2058. These results
  include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2058 from the products shipped in 2029-2058. The Primary, Low
  Net Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the AEO2022 Reference
  case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively. In addition, LED lamp prices
  reflect a higher price learning rate in the Low Net Benefits Estimate, and a lower price learning rate in the
  High Net Benefits Estimate. See section VII.B.3.b for discussion. The methods used to derive projected price
  trends are explained in section VI.G.1.b of this document. Note that the Benefits and Costs may not sum to the
  Net Benefits due to rounding.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC-GHG (see section VI.L of this
  rulemaking). For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-
  GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point
  estimate, and it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SC-
  GHG estimates. On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-30087) granted the federal
  government's emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued
  in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit's order, the
  preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the federal government's appeal of that
  injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in
  that case from ``adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon'' the interim estimates of the
  social cost of greenhouse gases--which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of
  Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021--to monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As
  reflected in this proposed rule, DOE has reverted to its approach prior to the injunction and presents
  monetized greenhouse gas abatement benefits where appropriate and permissible under law.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing
  (for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will
  continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct
  PM2.5 emissions. See section VI.L of this document for more details.
[dagger] Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-
  percent discount rate, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate.
[Dagger] Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs

    DOE's analysis of the national impacts of the proposed standards is 
described in sections VI.H of this document.

D. Conclusion

    DOE has tentatively concluded that the proposed standards represent 
the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically 
feasible and economically justified, and would result in the 
significant conservation of energy. With regards to technological 
feasibility, products achieving these standard levels are already 
commercially available for all product classes covered by this 
proposal. As for economic justification, DOE's analysis shows that the 
benefits of the proposed standard exceed, to a great extent, the 
burdens of the proposed standards. Using a 7-percent discount rate for 
consumer benefits and costs and NOX and SO2 
reduction benefits, and a 3-percent discount rate case for GHG social 
costs, the estimated cost of the proposed standards for GSLs is $289.4 
million per year in increased product costs, while the estimated annual 
benefits are $1.17 billion in reduced product operating costs, $358.1 
million in climate benefits, and $432.0 million in health benefits. The 
net benefit amounts to $1.67 billion per year.
    The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended 
energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of 
the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.\12\ For 
example, some covered products and equipment have most of their energy 
consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of 
these products on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than 
products with relatively constant demand. Accordingly, DOE evaluates 
the significance of energy savings on a case-by-case basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    As previously mentioned, the standards are projected to result in 
estimated national FFC energy savings of 4.0 quads, the equivalent of 
the primary annual energy use of 43.0 million homes. In addition, they 
are projected to reduce CO2 emissions by 130.63 Mt. Based on 
these findings, DOE has initially determined the energy savings from 
the proposed standard levels are ``significant'' within the meaning of 
42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B). A

[[Page 1644]]

more detailed discussion of the basis for these tentative conclusions 
is contained in the remainder of this document and the accompanying 
TSD.
    DOE also considered less-stringent energy efficiency levels as 
potential standards, and is still considering them in this rulemaking. 
However, DOE has tentatively concluded that TSL 6 achieves the maximum 
improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and 
economically justified.
    Based on consideration of the public comments DOE receives in 
response to this document and related information collected and 
analyzed during the course of this rulemaking effort, DOE may adopt 
energy efficiency levels presented in this document that are lower than 
the proposed standards, or some combination of level(s) that 
incorporate the proposed standards in part.

II. Introduction

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

A. Authority

    EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number 
of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part 
B of EPCA established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer 
Products Other Than Automobiles. These products include GSLs, the 
subject of this document. 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6))
    EPCA directs DOE to conduct two rulemaking cycles to evaluate 
energy conservation standards for GSLs. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)-(B)) 
For the first rulemaking cycle, EPCA directed DOE to initiate a 
rulemaking process prior to January 1, 2014, to determine whether: (1) 
to amend energy conservation standards for GSLs and (2) the exemptions 
for certain incandescent lamps should be maintained or discontinued. 
(42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)) The rulemaking was not to be limited to 
incandescent lamp technologies and was required to include a 
consideration of a minimum standard of 45 lm/W for GSLs. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(i)(6)(A)(ii)) EPCA provides that if the Secretary determined that 
the standards in effect for GSILs should be amended, a final rule must 
be published by January 1, 2017, with a compliance date at least 3 
years after the date on which the final rule is published. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(i)(6)(A)(iii)) The Secretary was also required to consider phased-
in effective dates after considering certain manufacturer and retailer 
impacts. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(iv)) If DOE failed to complete a 
rulemaking in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)-(iv), or if a 
final rule from the first rulemaking cycle did not produce savings 
greater than or equal to the savings from a minimum efficacy standard 
of 45 lm/W, the statute provides a ``backstop'' under which DOE was 
required to prohibit sales of GSLs that do not meet a minimum 45 lm/W 
standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(v)). As a result of DOE's failure to 
complete a rulemaking in accordance with the statutory criteria, DOE 
codified this backstop requirement in a rule issued on May 9, 2022. 87 
FR 27439 (May 2022 Backstop Final Rule)
    EPCA further directs DOE to initiate a second rulemaking cycle by 
January 1, 2020, to determine whether standards in effect for GSILs 
(which are a subset of GSLs)) should be amended with more stringent 
maximum wattage requirements than EPCA specifies, and whether the 
exemptions for certain incandescent lamps should be maintained or 
discontinued. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(B)(i)) As in the first rulemaking 
cycle, the scope of the second rulemaking is not limited to 
incandescent lamp technologies. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(B)(ii)) As 
previously stated in Section I of this document, DOE is publishing this 
NOPR pursuant to this second cycle of rulemaking, as well as section 
(m) of 42 U.S.C. 6295.
    The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of 
four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of Federal 
energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement 
procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA specifically include 
definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), 
labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation standards (42 
U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to require information and reports from 
manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).
    Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered products 
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations 
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 
U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c)) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal 
preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with 
the procedures and other provisions set forth under EPCA. (See 42 
U.S.C. 6297(d))
    Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to 
develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use, 
or estimated annual operating cost of each covered product. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(3)(A) and (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 GSLs appear at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 
part 430, subpart B, appendices R, W, BB, and DD.
    DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or 
amended standards for covered products, including GSLs. Any new or 
amended standard for a covered product must be designed to achieve the 
maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary of Energy 
determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) Furthermore, DOE may 
not adopt any standard that would not result in the significant 
conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3))
    Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard: (1) for certain 
products, including GSLs, if no test procedure has been established for 
the product, or (2) if DOE determines by rule that the standard is not 
technologically feasible or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(3)(A)-(B)) In deciding whether a proposed standard is 
economically justified, DOE must determine whether the benefits of the 
standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make 
this determination after receiving comments on the proposed standard, 
and by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the following 
seven statutory factors:

    (1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and 
consumers of the products subject to the standard;
    (2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated 
average life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared 
to any increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance 
expenses for the covered products that are likely to result from the 
standard;
    (3) The total projected amount of energy (or as applicable, 
water) savings likely to result directly from the standard;
    (4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the 
covered products likely to result from the standard;

[[Page 1645]]

    (5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in 
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the 
standard;
    (6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and
    (7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) considers 
relevant.

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))

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

B. Background

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

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

    On January 19, 2017, DOE published two final rules concerning the 
definitions of GSL, GSIL, and related terms (January 2017 Definition 
Final Rules). 82 FR 7276; 82 FR 7322. The January 2017 Definition Final 
Rules amended the definitions of GSIL and GSL by bringing certain 
categories of lamps that had been excluded by statute from the 
definition of GSIL within the definitions of GSIL and GSL. DOE 
determined to use two final rules in 2017 to amend the definitions of 
GSIL and GSLs in order to address the majority of the definition 
changes in one final rule and the exemption for IRLs in the second 
final rule. These two rules were issued simultaneously, with the first 
rule eschewing a determination regarding the existing exemption for 
IRLs in the definition of GSL and the second rulemaking discontinuing 
that exemption from the GSL definition. 82 FR 7276, 7312; 82 FR 7322, 
7323. As in the October 2016 NOPDDA, DOE stated that the January 2017 
Definition Final Rules related only to the second question that 
Congress directed DOE to consider, regarding whether to maintain or 
discontinue ``exemptions'' for certain incandescent lamps. 82 FR 7276, 
7277; 82 FR 7322, 7324 (See also 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)(II)). That 
is, neither of the two final rules issued on January 19, 2017, 
established energy conservation standards applicable to GSLs. DOE 
explained that the Appropriations Rider prevented it from establishing, 
or even analyzing, standards for GSILs. 82 FR 7276, 7278. Instead, DOE 
explained that it would either impose standards for GSLs in the future 
pursuant to its authority to develop GSL standards, or

[[Page 1646]]

apply the backstop standard prohibiting the sale of lamps not meeting a 
45 lm/W efficacy standard. 82 FR 7276, 7277-7278. The two final rules 
were to become effective as of January 1, 2020.
    On March 17, 2017, the National Electrical Manufacturer's 
Association (NEMA) filed a petition for review of the January 2017 
Definition Final Rules in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth 
Circuit. National Electrical Manufacturers Association v. United States 
Department of Energy, No. 17-1341. NEMA claimed that DOE ``amend[ed] 
the statutory definition of `general service lamp' to include lamps 
that Congress expressly stated were `not include[d]' in the 
definition'' and adopted an ``unreasonable and unlawful interpretation 
of the statutory definition.'' Pet. 2. Prior to merits briefing, the 
parties reached a settlement agreement under which DOE agreed, in part, 
to issue a notice of data availability requesting data for GSILs and 
other incandescent lamps to assist DOE in determining whether standards 
for GSILs should be amended (the first question of the rulemaking 
required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)).
    With the removal of the Appropriations Rider in the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, 2017, DOE was no longer restricted from undertaking 
the analysis and decision-making required to address the first question 
presented by Congress, i.e., whether to amend energy conservation 
standards for GSLs, including GSILs. Thus, on August 15, 2017, DOE 
published a notice of data availability and request for information 
(NODA) seeking data for GSILs and other incandescent lamps (August 2017 
NODA). 82 FR 38613.
    The purpose of the August 2017 NODA was to assist DOE in 
determining whether standards for GSILs should be amended. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(i)(6)(A)(i)(I)) Comments submitted in response to the August 2017 
NODA also led DOE to re-consider the decisions it had already made with 
respect to the second question presented to DOE--whether the exemptions 
for certain incandescent lamps should be maintained or discontinued. 84 
FR 3120, 3122 (See also 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)(II)) As a result of 
the comments received in response to the August 2017 NODA, DOE also re-
assessed the legal interpretations underlying certain decisions made in 
the January 2017 Definition Final Rules. Id.
    On February 11, 2019, DOE published a NOPR proposing to withdraw 
the revised definitions of GSL, GSIL, and the new and revised 
definitions of related terms that were to go into effect on January 1, 
2020 (February 2019 Definition NOPR). 84 FR 3120. In a final rule 
published September 5, 2019, DOE finalized the withdrawal of the 
definitions in the January 2017 Definition Final Rules and maintained 
the existing regulatory definitions of GSL and GSIL, which are the same 
as the statutory definitions of those terms (September 2019 Withdrawal 
Rule). 84 FR 46661. The September 2019 Withdrawal Rule revisited the 
same primary question addressed in the January 2017 Definition Final 
Rules, namely, the statutory requirement for DOE to determine whether 
``the exemptions for certain incandescent lamps should be maintained or 
discontinued.'' 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)(II) (See also 84 FR 46661, 
46667). In the rule, DOE also addressed its interpretation of the 
statutory backstop at 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(v) and concluded the 
backstop had not been triggered. 84 FR 46661, 46663-46664. DOE reasoned 
that 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(iii) ``does not establish an absolute 
obligation on the Secretary to publish a rule by a date certain.'' 84 
FR 46661, 46663. ``Rather, the obligation to issue a final rule 
prescribing standards by a date certain applies if, and only if, the 
Secretary makes a determination that standards in effect for GSILs need 
to be amended.'' Id. DOE further stated that, since it had not yet made 
the predicate determination on whether to amend standards for GSILs, 
the obligation to issue a final rule by a date certain did not yet 
exist and, as a result, the condition precedent to the potential 
imposition of the backstop requirement did not yet exist and no 
backstop requirement had yet been triggered. Id. at 84 FR 46664.
    Similar to the January 2017 Definition Final Rules, the September 
2019 Withdrawal Rule clarified that DOE was not determining whether 
standards for GSLs, including GSILs, should be amended. DOE stated it 
would make that determination in a separate rulemaking. Id. at 84 FR 
46662. DOE initiated that separate rulemaking by publishing a notice of 
proposed determination (NOPD) on September 5, 2019, regarding whether 
standards for GSILs should be amended (September 2019 NOPD). 84 FR 
46830. In conducting its analysis for that notice, DOE used the data 
and comments received in response to the August 2017 NODA and relevant 
data and comments received in response to the February 2019 Definition 
NOPR, and DOE tentatively determined that the current standards for 
GSILS do not need to be amended because more stringent standards are 
not economically justified. Id. at 84 FR 46831. DOE finalized that 
tentative determination on December 27, 2019 (December 2019 Final 
Determination). 84 FR 71626. DOE also concluded in the December 2019 
Final Determination that, because it had made the predicate 
determination not to amend standards for GSILs, there was no obligation 
to issue a final rule by January 1, 2017, and, as a result, the 
backstop requirement had not been triggered. Id. at 84 FR 71636.
    Two petitions for review were filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals 
for the Second Circuit challenging the September 2019 Withdrawal Rule. 
The first petition was filed by 15 States,\14\ New York City, and the 
District of Columbia. See New York v. U.S. Department of Energy, No. 
19-3652 (2d Cir., filed Nov. 4, 2019). The second petition was filed by 
six organizations \15\ that included environmental, consumer, and 
public housing tenant groups. See Natural Resources Defense Council v. 
U.S. Department of Energy, No. 19-3658 (2d Cir., filed Nov. 4, 2019). 
The petitions were subsequently consolidated. Merits briefing has been 
concluded, but the case has not been argued or submitted to the Circuit 
panel for decision. The case has been in abeyance since March 2021, 
pending further rulemaking by DOE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Additionally, in two separate petitions also filed in the Second 
Circuit, groups of petitioners that were essentially identical to those 
that filed the lawsuit challenging the September 2019 Withdrawal Rule 
challenged the December 2019 Final Determination. See Natural Resources 
Defense Council v. U.S. Department of Energy, No. 20-699 (2d Cir., 
filed Feb, 25, 2020); New York v. U.S. Department of Energy, No. 20-743 
(2d Cir., filed Feb. 28, 2020). On April 2, 2020, those cases were put 
into abeyance pending the outcome of the September 2019 Withdrawal Rule 
petitions.
    On January 20, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order (E.O.) 
13990, ``Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring 
Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis.'' 86 FR 7037 (Jan. 25, 2021). 
Section 1 of that Order lists a number of policies related to the

[[Page 1647]]

protection of public health and the environment, including reducing 
greenhouse gas emissions and bolstering the Nation's resilience to 
climate change. Id. at 86 FR 7041. Section 2 of the Order instructs all 
agencies to review ``existing regulations, orders, guidance documents, 
policies, and any other similar agency actions promulgated, issued, or 
adopted between January 20, 2017, and January 20, 2021, that are or may 
be inconsistent with, or present obstacles to, [these policies].'' Id. 
Agencies are then directed, as appropriate and consistent with 
applicable law, to consider suspending, revising, or rescinding these 
agency actions and to immediately commence work to confront the climate 
crisis. Id.
    In accordance with E.O. 13990, on May 25, 2021, DOE published a 
request for information (RFI) initiating a re-evaluation of its prior 
determination that the Secretary was not required to implement the 
statutory backstop requirement for GSLs. 86 FR 28001 (May 2021 Backstop 
RFI). DOE solicited information regarding the availability of lamps 
that would satisfy a minimum efficacy standard of 45 lm/W, as well as 
other information that may be relevant to a possible implementation of 
the statutory backstop. Id. On December 13, 2021, DOE published a NOPR 
proposing to codify in the CFR the 45 lm/W backstop requirement for 
GSLs. 86 FR 70755 (December 2021 Backstop NOPR). On May 9, 2022, DOE 
published the May 2022 Backstop Final Rule codifying the 45 lm/W 
backstop requirement. 87 FR 27439. In the May 2022 Backstop Final Rule, 
DOE determined the backstop requirement applies because DOE failed to 
complete a rulemaking for GSLs in accordance with certain statutory 
criteria in 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A).
    On August 19, 2021, DOE published a NOPR to amend the current 
definitions of GSL and GSIL and adopt associated supplemental 
definitions to be defined as previously set forth in the January 2017 
Definition Final Rules. 86 FR 46611. (August 2021 Definition NOPR). On 
May 9, 2022, DOE published a final rule adopting definitions of GSL and 
GSIL and associated supplemental definitions as set forth in the August 
2021 Definition NOPR. 87 FR 27461 (May 2022 Definition Final Rule).
    Upon issuance of the May 2022 Backstop Final Rule and the May 2022 
Definition Final Rule, DOE concluded the first cycle of GSL rulemaking 
required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A). This NOPR initiates the second 
cycle of GSL rulemaking under 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(B). As detailed 
above, EPCA directs DOE to initiate this rulemaking procedure no later 
than January 1, 2020. However, DOE is delayed in initiating this second 
cycle because of the Appropriations Rider, DOE's evolving position 
under the first rulemaking cycle, and the associated delays that 
resulted in DOE certifying the backstop requirement for GSLs two years 
after the January 1, 2020, date specified in the statute.
2. Current Standards
    This is the second cycle of energy conservation standards 
rulemakings for GSLs. As noted in section II.B of this document, in the 
May 2022 Backstop Final Rule, DOE codified the statutory backstop 
requirement prohibiting sales of GSLs that do not meet a 45 lm/W 
requirement. Because incandescent and halogen GSLs would not be able to 
meet the 45 lm/W requirement, they are not being considered in this 
analysis. The analysis does take into consideration existing standards 
for MBCFLs by ensuring that proposed levels do not decrease the 
existing minimum required energy efficiency of MBCFLs in violation of 
EPCA's anti-backsliding provision, which precludes DOE from amending an 
existing energy conservation standard to permit greater energy use or a 
lesser amount of energy efficiency (see 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)). The 
current standards for MBCFLs are summarized in Table II.1. 10 CFR 
430.32(u).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The MBCFL energy conservation standards at 10 CFR 
430.42(u)(1) are subject to the sales prohibition in paragraph (dd) 
of this same section.

                Table II.1--Existing Standards for MBCFLs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Minimum efficacy
       Lamp configuration           Lamp power (W)          (lm/W)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bare lamp.......................  Lamp power <15....                45.0
                                  Lamp power >=15...                60.0
Covered lamp, no reflector......  Lamp power <15....           \16\ 45.0
                                  15>= amp power <19                48.0
                                  19>= amp power <25                50.0
                                  Lamp power >=25...                55.0
Lumen Maintenance at 1,000 Hours  The average of at least 5 lamps must
                                   be a minimum 90% of initial (100-
                                   hour) lumen output at 1,000 hours of
                                   rated life.
Lumen Maintenance at 40% of       80% of initial (100-hour) rating (per
 Rated Lifetime.                   ANSI C78.5 Clause 4.10).
Rapid Cycle Stress Test.........  Per ANSI C78.5 and IESNA LM65 (clauses
                                   2,3,5, and 6) exception: cycle times
                                   must be 5 minutes on, 5 minutes off.
                                   Lamp will be cycled once for every
                                   two hours of rated life. At least 5
                                   lamps must meet or exceed the minimum
                                   number of cycles.
Lamp Life.......................  >=6,000 hours as declared by the
                                   manufacturer on packaging. <=50% of
                                   the tested lamps failed at rated
                                   lifetime. At 80% of rated life,
                                   statistical methods may be used to
                                   confirm lifetime claims based on
                                   sample performance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MBCFLs fall within the Integrated Omnidirectional Short product 
class (see section VI.A.1 for further details on product classes). 
Because DOE determined that lamp cover (i.e., bare or covered) is not a 
class-setting factor in the product class structure established in this 
analysis, the baseline efficacy requirements are determined by lamp

[[Page 1648]]

wattage. Therefore, for products with wattages less than 15 W, which 
fall into the Integrated Omnidirectional Short product class, DOE set 
the baseline efficacy at 45 lm/W (the highest of the existing standards 
for that wattage range) to prevent increased energy usage in violation 
of EPCA's anti-backsliding provision. For products with wattages 
greater than or equal to 15 W, which fall into the Integrated 
Omnidirectional Short product class, DOE set the baseline efficacy at 
60 lm/W to prevent increased energy usage in violation of EPCA's anti-
backsliding provision. Table II.2 shows the baseline efficacy 
requirements for the Integrated Omnidirectional Short product class.

 Table II.2--Integrated Omnidirectional Short Current Standard Efficacy
                              Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Minimum
              Product class               Lamp power (W)   efficacy (lm/
                                                                W)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated GSLs.........................             <15            45.0
                                                    >=15            60.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Deviation From Appendix A

    In accordance with section 3(a) of 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, 
appendix A (appendix A), DOE notes that it is deviating from the 
provisions in appendix A regarding the pre-NOPR stages for an energy 
conservation standards rulemaking. Section 6(a)(1) specifies that as 
the first step in any proceeding to consider establishing or amending 
any energy conservation standard, DOE will publish a document in the 
Federal Register announcing that DOE is considering initiating a 
rulemaking proceeding. Section 6(a)(1) states that as part of that 
document, DOE will solicit submission of related comments, including 
data and information on whether DOE should proceed with the rulemaking, 
including whether any new or amended rule would be cost effective, 
economically justified, technologically feasible, or would result in a 
significant savings of energy. Section 6(a)(2) of appendix A states 
that if the Department determines it is appropriate to proceed with a 
rulemaking, the preliminary stages of a rulemaking to issue or amend an 
energy conservation standard that DOE will undertake will be a 
framework document and preliminary analysis, or an advance notice of 
proposed rulemaking (ANOPR). DOE finds it necessary and appropriate to 
deviate from this step in Appendix A and to publish this NOPR without 
conducting these preliminary stages. Completion of the second cycle of 
GSL rulemaking is overdue under the January 1, 2020 statutory deadline 
in 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(B), so DOE seeks to complete its statutory 
obligations as expeditiously as possible. Under the requirements of 42 
U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(B)(i), DOE is to initiate a second rulemaking 
procedure by January 1, 2020, to determine whether standards in effect 
for GSILs should be amended. The scope of this rule is not limited to 
incandescent lamp technologies and thus includes GSLs. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(i)(6)(B)(ii)) Further, as discussed in section II.B.1 of this 
document, in settling the lawsuit filed by NEMA following the January 
2017 Definition Final Rules (Petition for Review, Nat'l Elec. Mfrs. 
Ass'n v. U.S. Dep't of Energy, No. 17-1341 (4th Cir.)), DOE agreed to 
use its best efforts to issue a supplemental notice of proposed 
rulemaking regarding whether to amend or adopt standards for general 
service light-emitting diode (LED) lamps, that may also address whether 
to adopt standards for compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs), by May 2018. 
Given this context, DOE has determined that proceeding with this 
rulemaking as expeditiously as is reasonably practical is the 
appropriate approach. Additionally, while DOE is not publishing pre-
NOPR documents, DOE has tentatively found that the methodologies used 
for the March 2016 NOPR continue to apply to the current market for 
GSLs. DOE has updated analytical inputs in its analysis from the March 
2016 NOPR where appropriate and welcomes submission of additional data, 
information, and comments.

III. General Discussion

    DOE developed this proposal after considering 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)) For further details 
on product classes, see section VI.A.1 of this document and chapter 3 
of the NOPR technical support document (TSD).

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 will 
finalize a test procedure establishing methodologies used to evaluate 
proposed energy conservation standards prior to publication of a NOPR 
proposing new or amended energy conservation standards. Section 8(d)(1) 
of appendix A.
    DOE's test procedures for GSILs and IRLs are set forth at 10 CFR 
part 430, subpart B, appendix R. DOE's test procedure for CFLs is set 
forth at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix W. DOE's test procedure 
for LED lamps is set forth at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix BB. 
DOE's test procedure for GSLs that are not GSILs, IRLs, CFLs, or 
integrated LED lamps is set forth at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, 
appendix DD.

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. DOE then 
determines which of those means for improving efficiency are 
technologically feasible. DOE considers technologies incorporated in 
commercially-available products or in working prototypes to be 
technologically feasible. Sections 6(b)(3)(i) and 7(b)(1) of appendix 
A.

[[Page 1649]]

    After DOE has determined that particular technology options are 
technologically feasible, it further evaluates each technology option 
in light of the following additional screening criteria: (1) 
practicability to manufacture, install, and service; (2) adverse 
impacts on product utility or availability; (3) adverse impacts on 
health or safety, and (4) unique-pathway proprietary technologies. 
Sections 6(b)(3)(ii) through (v) and 7(b)(2) through (5) of appendix A. 
Section VI.B of this document discusses the results of the screening 
analysis for GSLs, particularly the designs DOE considered, those it 
screened out, and those that are the basis for the standards considered 
in this rulemaking. For further details on the screening analysis for 
this rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD.
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
    When DOE proposes to adopt an amended standard for a type or class 
of covered product, it must determine the maximum improvement in energy 
efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is technologically 
feasible for such product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1)) Accordingly, in the 
engineering analysis, DOE determined the maximum technologically 
feasible (max-tech) improvements in energy efficiency for GSLs, using 
the design parameters for the most efficient products available on the 
market or in working prototypes. The max-tech levels that DOE 
determined for this rulemaking are described in section VI.C.4.e of 
this proposed rule and in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.

D. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings
    For each trial standard level (TSL), DOE projected energy savings 
from application of the TSL to GSLs purchased in the 30-year period 
that begins in the first full year of compliance with the proposed 
standards (2029-2058).\17\ The savings are measured over the entire 
lifetime of GSLs purchased in the previous 30-year period. DOE 
quantified the energy savings attributable to each TSL as the 
difference in energy consumption between each standards case and the 
no-new-standards case. The no-new-standards case represents a 
projection of energy consumption that reflects how the market for a 
product would likely evolve in the absence of amended energy 
conservation standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Each TSL is composed of specific efficiency levels for each 
product class. The TSLs considered for this NOPR are described in 
section VII.A of this document. DOE conducted a sensitivity analysis 
that considers impacts for products shipped in a 9-year period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE used its national impact analysis (NIA) spreadsheet model to 
estimate national energy savings (NES) from potential amended or new 
standards for GSLs. The NIA spreadsheet model (described in section 
VI.H of this document) calculates energy savings in terms of site 
energy, which is the energy directly consumed by products at the 
locations where they are used. For electricity, DOE reports national 
energy savings in terms of primary energy savings, which is the savings 
in the energy that is used to generate and transmit the site 
electricity. DOE also calculates NES in terms of FFC energy savings. 
The FFC metric includes the energy consumed in extracting, processing, 
and transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum 
fuels), and thus presents a more complete picture of the impacts of 
energy conservation standards.\18\ 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 VI.H.1 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The FFC metric is discussed in DOE's statement of policy 
and notice of policy amendment. 76 FR 51282 (Aug. 18, 2011), as 
amended at 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Significance of Savings
    To adopt any new or amended standards for a covered product, DOE 
must determine that such action would result in significant energy 
savings. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
    The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended 
energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of 
the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking. For example, 
some covered products and equipment have most of their energy 
consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of 
these products on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than 
products with relatively constant demand. In evaluating the 
significance of energy savings, DOE considers differences in primary 
energy and FFC effects for different covered products and equipment 
when determining whether energy savings are significant. Primary energy 
and FFC effects include the energy consumed in electricity production 
(depending on load shape), in distribution and transmission, and in 
extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal, 
natural gas, petroleum fuels), and thus present a more complete picture 
of the impacts of energy conservation standards.
    Accordingly, DOE evaluates the significance of energy savings on a 
case-by-case basis. As mentioned previously, the proposed standards are 
projected to result in estimated national FFC energy savings of 4.0 
quads, the equivalent of the electricity use of 43 million homes in one 
year. DOE has initially determined the energy savings from the proposed 
standard levels are ``significant'' within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(3)(B).

E. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria
    As noted previously, EPCA provides seven factors to be evaluated in 
determining whether a potential energy conservation standard is 
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII)) The 
following sections discuss how DOE has addressed each of those seven 
factors in this proposed rulemaking.
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
    In determining the impacts of a potential amended standard on 
manufacturers, DOE conducts an MIA, as discussed in section VI.J of 
this document. DOE first uses an annual cash-flow approach to determine 
the quantitative impacts. This step includes both a short-term 
assessment--based on the cost and capital requirements during the 
period between when a regulation is issued and when entities must 
comply with the regulation--and a long-term assessment over a 30-year 
period. The industry-wide impacts analyzed include (1) INPV, which 
values the industry on the basis of expected future cash flows, (2) 
cash flows by year, (3) changes in revenue and income, and (4) other 
measures of impact, as appropriate. Second, DOE analyzes and reports 
the impacts on different types of manufacturers, including impacts on 
small manufacturers. Third, DOE considers the impact of standards on 
domestic manufacturer employment and manufacturing capacity, as well as 
the potential for standards to result in plant closures and loss of 
capital investment. Finally, DOE takes into account cumulative impacts 
of various DOE regulations and other regulatory requirements on 
manufacturers.
    For individual consumers, measures of economic impact include the 
changes in LCC and PBP associated with new or amended standards. These 
measures are discussed further in the following

[[Page 1650]]

section. For consumers in the aggregate, DOE also calculates the 
national net present value of the consumer costs and benefits expected 
to result from particular standards. DOE also evaluates the impacts of 
potential standards on identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be 
affected disproportionately by a standard.
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price (LCC and 
PBP)
    EPCA requires DOE to consider the savings in operating costs 
throughout the estimated average life of the covered product in the 
type (or class) compared to any increase in the price of, or in the 
initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered product 
that are likely to result from a standard. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducts this comparison in its LCC and PBP 
analysis.
    The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of a product (including 
its installation) and the operating expense (including energy, 
maintenance, and repair expenditures) discounted over the lifetime of 
the product. The LCC analysis requires a variety of inputs, such as 
product prices, product energy consumption, energy prices, maintenance 
and repair costs, product lifetime, and discount rates appropriate for 
consumers. To account for uncertainty and variability in specific 
inputs, such as product lifetime and discount rate, DOE uses a 
distribution of values, with probabilities attached to each value.
    The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it takes 
consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including 
installation) of a more-efficient product through lower operating 
costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost 
due to a more-stringent standard by the change in annual operating cost 
for the year that standards are assumed to take effect.
    For its LCC and PBP analysis, DOE assumes that consumers will 
purchase the covered products in the first full year of compliance with 
new or amended standards. The LCC savings for the considered efficiency 
levels are calculated relative to the case that reflects projected 
market trends in the absence of new or amended standards. DOE's LCC and 
PBP analysis is discussed in further detail in section VI.F of this 
document.
c. Energy Savings
    Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory 
requirement for adopting an energy conservation standard, EPCA requires 
DOE, in determining the economic justification of a standard, to 
consider the total projected energy savings that are expected to result 
directly from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) As 
discussed in section VI.H of this document, DOE uses the NIA 
spreadsheet model to project national energy savings.
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
    In establishing product classes and in evaluating design options 
and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE evaluates potential 
standards that would not lessen the utility or performance of the 
considered products. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) Based on data 
available to DOE, the standards proposed in this document would not 
reduce the utility or performance of the products under consideration 
in this rulemaking.
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
    EPCA directs DOE to consider the impact of any lessening of 
competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is 
likely to result from a proposed standard. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) It also directs the Attorney General to determine 
the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result 
from a proposed standard and to transmit such determination to the 
Secretary within 60 days of the publication of a proposed rule, 
together with an analysis of the nature and extent of the impact. (42 
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) DOE will transmit a copy of this proposed 
rule to the Attorney General with a request that the Department of 
Justice (DOJ) provide its determination on this issue. DOE will publish 
and respond to the Attorney General's determination in the final rule. 
DOE invites comment from the public regarding the competitive impacts 
that are likely to result from this proposed rule. In addition, 
stakeholders may also provide comments separately to DOJ regarding 
these potential impacts. See the ADDRESSES section for information to 
send comments to DOJ.
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
    DOE also considers the need for national energy and water 
conservation in determining whether a new or amended standard is 
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)) The energy 
savings from the proposed standards are likely to provide improvements 
to the security and reliability of the Nation's energy system. 
Reductions in the demand for electricity also may result in reduced 
costs for maintaining the reliability of the Nation's electricity 
system. DOE conducts a utility impact analysis to estimate how 
standards may affect the Nation's needed power generation capacity, as 
discussed in section VI.M of this document.
    DOE maintains that environmental and public health benefits 
associated with the more efficient use of energy are important to take 
into account when considering the need for national energy 
conservation. The proposed standards are likely to result in 
environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air 
pollutants and greenhouse gases (GHGs) associated with energy 
production and use. DOE conducts an emissions analysis to estimate how 
potential standards may affect these emissions, as discussed in section 
VI.K; the estimated emissions impacts are reported in section VII.B.6 
of this document. DOE also estimates the economic value of emissions 
reductions resulting from the considered TSLs, as discussed in section 
VI.L of this document.
g. Other Factors
    In determining whether an energy conservation standard is 
economically justified, DOE may consider any other factors that the 
Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) To 
the extent DOE identifies any relevant information regarding economic 
justification that does not fit into the other categories described 
previously, DOE could consider such information under ``other 
factors.''
2. Rebuttable Presumption
    As set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii), EPCA creates a 
rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is 
economically justified if the additional cost to the consumer of a 
product that meets the standard is less than three times the value of 
the first year's energy savings resulting from the standard, as 
calculated under the applicable DOE test procedure. DOE's LCC and PBP 
analyses generate values used to calculate the effects that proposed 
energy conservation standards would have on the payback period for 
consumers. These analyses include, but are not limited to, the 3-year 
payback period contemplated under the rebuttable-presumption test. In 
addition, DOE routinely conducts an economic analysis that considers 
the full range of impacts to consumers, manufacturers, the Nation, and 
the environment, as required under 42 U.S.C.

[[Page 1651]]

6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results of this analysis serve as the basis for 
DOE's evaluation of the economic justification for a potential standard 
level (thereby supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary 
determination of economic justification). The rebuttable presumption 
payback calculation is discussed in section VI.F.11 of this proposed 
rule.

IV. Scope of Coverage

    This section addresses the scope of coverage of this rulemaking. 42 
U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(B)(ii) of EPCA provides that this rulemaking scope 
shall not be limited to incandescent technologies. In accordance with 
this provision, the scope of this rulemaking encompasses other GSLs in 
addition to GSILs. Additionally, 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(B)(i)(II) of EPCA 
directs DOE to consider whether the exemptions for certain incandescent 
lamps should be maintained or discontinued. In this NOPR, DOE reviews 
the regulatory definitions of GSL, GSIL and supporting definitions 
adopted in the May 2022 Definition Final Rule and tentatively 
determines that no amendments are needed with regards to maintenance or 
discontinuation of exemptions. DOE is proposing minor updates to 
clarify certain supplemental definitions adopted in the May 2022 
Definition Final Rule.

A. Definitions of General Service Lamp, Compact Fluorescent Lamp, 
General Service LED Lamp, General Service OLED Lamp, General Service 
Incandescent Lamp

    In the September 2019 Definition Final Rule, DOE withdrew the 
definitions adopted in the January 2017 Definition Final Rules and 
maintained the existing regulatory definitions of GSL and GSIL, which 
are the same as the statutory definitions of those terms. 84 FR 46661, 
46662. As noted in section II.B.1 of this document, in the August 2021 
Definition NOPR, DOE revisited its conclusions in the September 2019 
Definition Final Rule and proposed to amend the definitions of GSL and 
GSIL and associated supplemental definitions to be defined as 
previously set forth in the January 2017 Definition Final Rules. In the 
May 2022 Definition Final Rule, DOE discussed comments received 
regarding the August 2021 Definition NOPR and adopted the GSL and GSIL 
definitions and associated supplemental definitions as proposed in the 
August 2021 Definition NOPR. 87 FR 27461. The current regulatory 
definitions for GSL, CFL, general service LED lamp, general service 
OLED lamp, and GSIL are described in the following paragraphs.
    A general service lamp has the following characteristics: (1) an 
ANSI base; (2) able to operate at a voltage of 12 volts or 24 volts, at 
or between 100 to 130 volts, at or between 220 to 240 volts, or of 277 
volts for integrated lamps or is able to operate at any voltage for 
non-integrated lamps; (3) has an initial lumen output of greater than 
or equal to 310 lumens (or 232 lumens for modified spectrum general 
service incandescent lamps) and less than or equal to 3,300 lumens; (4) 
is not a light fixture; (5) is not an LED downlight retrofit kit; and 
(6) is used in general lighting applications. General service lamps 
include, but are not limited to, general service incandescent lamps, 
compact fluorescent lamps, general service light-emitting diode lamps, 
and general service organic light emitting diode lamps. General service 
lamps do not include: (1) Appliance lamps; (2) Black light lamps; (3) 
Bug lamps; (4) Colored lamps; (5) G shape lamps with a diameter of 5 
inches or more as defined in ANSI C79.1-2002 (incorporated by 
reference; see Sec.  430.3); (6) General service fluorescent lamps; (7) 
High intensity discharge lamps; (8) Infrared lamps; (9) J, JC, JCD, 
JCS, JCV, JCX, JD, JS, and JT shape lamps that do not have Edison screw 
bases; (10) Lamps that have a wedge base or prefocus base; (11) Left-
hand thread lamps; (12) Marine lamps; (13) Marine signal service lamps; 
(14) Mine service lamps; (15) MR shape lamps that have a first number 
symbol equal to 16 (diameter equal to 2 inches) as defined in ANSI 
C79.1-2002 (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3), operate at 12 
volts, and have a lumen output greater than or equal to 800; (16) Other 
fluorescent lamps; (17) Plant light lamps; (18) R20 short lamps; (19) 
Reflector lamps (as defined in this section) that have a first number 
symbol less than 16 (diameter less than 2 inches) as defined in ANSI 
C79.1-2002 (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3) and that do not 
have E26/E24, E26d, E26/50x39, E26/53x39, E29/28, E29/53x39, E39, E39d, 
EP39, or EX39 bases; (20) S shape or G shape lamps that have a first 
number symbol less than or equal to 12.5 (diameter less than or equal 
to 1.5625 inches) as defined in ANSI C79.1-2002 (incorporated by 
reference; see Sec.  430.3); (21) Sign service lamps; (22) Silver bowl 
lamps; (23) Showcase lamps; (24) Specialty MR lamps; (25) T-shape lamps 
that have a first number symbol less than or equal to 8 (diameter less 
than or equal to 1 inch) as defined in ANSI C79.1-2002 (incorporated by 
reference; see Sec.  430.3), nominal overall length less than 12 
inches, and that are not compact fluorescent lamps (as defined in this 
section); (26) Traffic signal lamps. 87 FR 27461, 27480-27481.
    A compact fluorescent lamp is an integrated or non-integrated 
single-base, low-pressure mercury, electric-discharge source. In this 
lamp a fluorescing coating transforms some of the ultraviolet energy 
generated by the mercury discharge into light. The term does not 
include circline or U-shaped lamps. 10 CFR 430.2.
    A general service light-emitting diode (LED) lamp is an integrated 
or non-integrated LED lamp designed for use in general lighting 
applications. It uses light-emitting diodes as the primary source of 
light. 87 FR 27461, 27481.
    A general service organic light-emitting diode (OLED) lamp is an 
integrated or non-integrated OLED lamp designed for use in general 
lighting applications. It uses organic light-emitting diodes as the 
primary source of light. 87 FR 27461, 27481.
    A general service incandescent lamp is a standard incandescent or 
halogen type lamp that is intended for general service applications. It 
has the following characteristics: (1) medium screw base; (2) lumen 
range of not less than 310 lumens and not more than 2,600 lumens or, in 
the case of a modified spectrum lamp, not less than 232 lumens and not 
more than 1,950 lumens; and (3) capable of being operated at a voltage 
range at least partially within 110 and 130 volts. This definition does 
not apply to the following incandescent lamps--(1) An appliance lamp; 
(2) A black light lamp; (3) A bug lamp; (4) A colored lamp; (5) A G 
shape lamp with a diameter of 5 inches or more as defined in ANSI 
C79.1-2002 (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3); (6) An 
infrared lamp; (7) A left-hand thread lamp; (8) A marine lamp; (9) A 
marine signal service lamp; (10) A mine service lamp; (11) A plant 
light lamp; (12) An R20 short lamp; (13) A sign service lamp; (14) A 
silver bowl lamp; (15) A showcase lamp; and (16) A traffic signal lamp. 
87 FR 27461, 27480.
    As stated, this rulemaking is being conducted in accordance with 42 
U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(B). Under this provision, DOE must determine whether 
exemptions for certain incandescent lamps should be maintained or 
discontinued based, in part, on exempted lamp sales data collected by 
the Secretary from manufacturers.
    As part of the first rulemaking cycle for GSLs, in the January 2017 
Definition Final Rules and May 2022 Definition Final Rule, DOE also 
determined whether exemptions for certain

[[Page 1652]]

incandescent lamps should be maintained or discontinued based, in part, 
on exempted lamp sales data collected by the Secretary from 
manufacturers under 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)(II). DOE conducted this 
analysis with the understanding that the purpose was to ensure that a 
given exemption would not impair the effectiveness of GSL standards by 
leaving available a convenient substitute that was not regulated as a 
GSL. Therefore, DOE based its decision for each exemption on an 
assessment of whether the exemption encompassed lamps that could 
provide general illumination and could functionally be a ready 
substitute for lamps already covered as GSLs. The technical 
characteristics of lamps in a given exemption and the volume of sales 
of those lamps were also considered. 82 FR 7276, 7288; 87 FR 27461, 
27465-27467. Subsequently, in the May 2022 Definition Final Rule, DOE 
reaffirmed its conclusions in the January 2017 Definition Final Rules 
and discontinued the exemptions from the GSIL definition for rough 
service lamps; shatter-resistant lamps; three-way incandescent lamps; 
vibration service lamps; reflector lamps; T-shape lamps of 40 W or less 
or length of 10 inches or more; and B, BA, CA, F, G16-1/2, G25, G30, S, 
M-14 lamps of 40 W or less. 87 FR 27461, 27480-27481.
    DOE has reviewed the remaining exemptions from the GSIL and GSL 
definitions. DOE's review of lamp specifications indicates that the 
exempted lamps continue to have features that do not make them suitable 
as substitutes for GSLs. Further review of the market indicates that 
they remain niche products. Hence, DOE finds that the lamps exempted in 
the May 2022 Definition Final Rule have not acquired technical 
characteristics that make them ready substitutes for GSLs or have not 
increased in sales. Therefore, DOE has tentatively determined that no 
amendments are needed to the definitions of GSIL and GSL as determined 
in the May 2022 Definition Final Rule.

B. Supporting Definitions

    In the May 2022 Definition Final Rule, DOE adopted supporting 
definitions for GSLs and GSILs as proposed in the August 2021 
Definition NOPR and set forth in the January 2017 Definition Final 
Rules. 87 FR 27461. These included definitions for ``black light 
lamp,'' ``bug lamp,'' ``colored lamp,'' ``infrared lamp,'' ``left-hand 
thread lamp,'' ``light fixture,'' ``marine lamp,'' ``marine signal 
service lamp,'' ``mine service lamp,'' ``non-integrated lamp,'' ``pin 
base lamp, ``plant light lamp,'' ``reflector lamp,'' ``showcase lamp,'' 
``sign service lamp,'' ``silver bowl lamp,'' ``specialty MR lamp,'' and 
``traffic signal lamp.''
    In this NOPR, DOE is proposing minor updates to certain 
supplemental definitions adopted in the May 2022 Definition Final Rule. 
Specifically, DOE is proposing to add an industry reference to the 
definition of LED downlight retrofit kit by specifying that it must be 
a retrofit kit classified or certified to UL 1598C-2014.\19\ 
Additionally, DOE is proposing to update the industry standards 
referenced in the definitions of ``Reflector lamp'' and ``Showcase 
lamp.'' The current definitions for ``Showcase lamp'' and ``Reflector 
lamp'' reference ANSI C78.20-2003 \20\ and ANSI C79.1-2002.\21\ In this 
NOPR, DOE is proposing to remove the reference to ANSI C78.20-2003 from 
the definitions of ``Showcase lamp'' and ``Reflector lamp.'' ANSI 
C78.20-2003 is an industry standard for A, G, PS, and similar shapes 
with E26 bases and therefore is not relevant to these lamp types. 
Further, ANSI has replaced ANSI C79.1-2002 with ANSI C78.79-2014 
(R2020).\22\ ANSI 79.1-2002 is referenced in the: (1) ``Specialty MR 
lamp'' definition; (2) ``Reflector lamp'' definition; (3) ``General 
service incandescent lamp'' definition with respect to a G shape lamp 
with a diameter of 5 inches or more; and (4) ``General service lamp'' 
definition with respect to G shape lamps with a diameter of 5 inches or 
more; MR shape lamps that have a first number symbol equal to 16; 
Reflector lamps that have a first number symbol less than 16; S shape 
or G shape lamps that have a first number symbol less than or equal to 
12.5; T shape lamps that have a first number symbol less than or equal 
to 8. Accordingly, DOE proposes to revise the references to ANSI C79.1-
2002 to ANSI C78.79-2014 (R2020) in all the aforementioned definitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ UL, UL1598C Standard for Safety Light-Emitting Diode (LED) 
Retrofit Luminaire Conversion Kits. Approved January 12, 2017.
    \20\ American National Standards Institute, ANSI C78.20-2003 
American National Standard for Electric Lamps--A, G, PS, and Similar 
Shapes with E26 Medium Screw Bases. Approved October 30, 2003.
    \21\ American National Standards Institute, ANSI C79.1-2002 
American National Standard For Electric Lamps--Nomenclature for 
Glass Bulbs Intended for Use with Electric Lamps. Approved September 
16, 2002.
    \22\ American National Standards Institute, ANSI C 78.79-2014 
(R2020) American National Standard for Electric Lamps--Nomenclature 
for Envelope Shapes Intended for Use with Electric Lamps. Approved 
January 17, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE requests comments on the proposed updates to industry 
references in the definitions of ``General service incandescent lamp,'' 
``General service lamp,'' ``LED downlight retrofit kit'', ``Reflector 
lamp,'' ``Showcase lamp,'' and ``Specialty MR lamp.'' See section IX.E 
for a list of issues on which DOE seeks comment.
    In this NOPR, DOE is proposing a new supporting term, ``Circadian-
friendly integrated LED lamp'' and its definition. This lamp type will 
be excluded from the GSL definition. DOE has identified commercially 
available integrated LED lamps that are marketed as aiding in the human 
sleep-wake (i.e., circadian) cycle by changing the light spectrum. For 
example, the Soraa HEALTHYTM lamp and the NorbSLEEP lamp 
specify decrease or removal of blue light from the light spectrum 
emitted by the lamp to ensure proper melatonin production for better 
sleep.\23\ DOE observed that these were integrated LED lamps with 
efficacies ranging from 47.8 lm/W to 85.7 lm/W. Because these lamps 
offer a utility to consumers and do not have high efficacies, DOE is 
proposing to exempt them from standards. Hence, DOE is proposing to 
define the exempt lamp type, circadian-friendly integrated LED lamp, as 
an integrated LED lamp that
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Soraa HEALTHYTM, available at https://www.soraa.com/products/52-Soraa-Healthy-A19-A60.php#; NorbSLEEP, 
available at https://norblighting.com/sleep/; accessed June 29, 
2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Is designed and marketed for use in the human sleep-wake 
(circadian) cycle;
    (2) Is designed and marketed as an equivalent replacement for a 40 
W or 60 W incandescent lamp;
    (3) Has at least one setting that decreases or removes standard 
spectrum radiation emission in the 440 nm to 490 nm wavelength range; 
and
    (4) Is sold in packages of two lamps or less.
    The first criterion specifies the application of the lamp. For the 
second criterion, because these lamps are mainly available in the 500 
to 800 lumen range, DOE is specifying the equivalent incandescent 
wattages. For the third criterion, because these lamps provide a better 
sleep-wake cycle by removing blue light, DOE has specified that the 
lamp must decrease or remove emission in the 440 to 490 nm wavelength 
range. In verifying a luminaire to have a certain amount of blue light 
content, the Underwriters Laboratories' verification method consisted 
of determining the amount of blue light radiation in the 440-490 nm 
wavelength range.\24\ The fourth criterion

[[Page 1653]]

limits how many lamps are sold per package to ensure that lamps are not 
sold in bulk. This type of lamp offers a specific feature to consumers. 
To prevent the use of the lamp in general applications for common use, 
and thereby create a loophole to GSL standards, DOE is proposing the 
fourth criterion, which is consistent with the vibration service lamp 
definition intended for a specialty lamp type.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Ian Ashdown, Melanopic Green The Other Side of Blue, 
available at https://www.ies.org/fires/melanopic-green-the-other-side-of-blue/. Accessed June 29, 2020; Circadian ZircLight, Inc. UL 
Verification Mark, available at https://verify.ul.com/verifications/117.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE requests comments on the proposed definition for ``Circadian-
friendly integrated LED lamp,'' including the packaging criterion. DOE 
also requests comments on the consumer utility and efficacy potential 
of lamps marketed to improve the sleep-wake cycle. See section IX.E for 
a list of issues on which DOE seeks comment.

C. GSLs Evaluated for Potential Standards in This NOPR

    DOE is not assessing standards for general service OLED lamps and 
incandescent lamps, types of GSLs, in this NOPR analysis. OLED means a 
thin-film light-emitting device that typically consists of a series of 
organic layers between 2 electrical contacts (electrodes). 10 CFR 
430.2. OLEDs can create diffuse light sources with direct emitters and 
are also thin and bendable, allowing for new form factors. DOE reviewed 
product offerings of manufacturers and retailers marketing OLED 
lighting technology and did not find any that offered integrated or 
non-integrated OLED lamps. Most OLED light sources are embedded within 
a light panel that can range from approximately 100 to 300 lumens.\25\ 
The panels are being used in light fixtures such as desk lamps, hanging 
ceiling light fixtures and troffers emitting lumens ranging from 75 to 
1,800 lumens (depending on the number of panels used per fixture). Due 
to the lack of commercially available GSLs that use OLED technology, it 
is unclear whether the efficacy of these products can be increased. 
Therefore, DOE is not evaluating standards for general service OLED 
lamps because DOE has tentatively determined that standards for these 
lamps would not be technologically feasible at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ U.S. Department of Energy, 2019 Lighting R&D Opportunities, 
January 2020. Available at https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2020/01/f70/ssl-rd-opportunities2-jan2020.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted in section II.B.1 of this document, in the May 2022 
Backstop Final Rule, DOE codified the 45 lm/W requirement for GSLs, 
which cannot be met by incandescent and halogen lamps. Therefore, DOE 
is also not analyzing standards for incandescent and halogen lamps in 
this proposal.
    DOE is analyzing CFLs and general service LED lamps that have a 
lumen output within the range of 310-3,300 lumens; an input voltage of 
12 volts or 24 volts, at or between 100 to 130 volts, at or between 220 
to 240 volts, or of 277 volts for integrated lamps, or are able to 
operate at any voltage for non-integrated lamps; and do not fall into 
any exclusion from the GSL definition at 10 CFR 430.2 (see section IV.A 
of this document).

V. Scope of Metrics

    In this section DOE discusses its proposal to use minimum lumens 
per watt as the metric for measuring lamp efficiency. DOE also 
discusses proposed updates to existing metrics and proposed addition of 
new metrics for GSLs.
    Because CFLs are included in the definition of GSL, this proposed 
rulemaking satisfies the requirements under 42 U.S.C 6295(m)(1) to 
review existing standards for MBCFLs. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 
(EPAct 2005) amended EPCA by establishing energy conservation standards 
for MBCFLs, which were codified by DOE in an October 2005 final rule. 
70 FR 60413. Performance requirements were specified for five metrics: 
(1) minimum initial efficacy; (2) lumen maintenance at 1,000 hours; (3) 
lumen maintenance at 40 percent of lifetime; (4) rapid cycle stress; 
and (5) lamp life. (42 U.S.C. 6295(bb)(1)) In addition to revising the 
existing requirements for MBCFLs, DOE has the authority to establish 
requirements for additional metrics including color rendering index 
(CRI), power factor, operating frequency, and maximum allowable start 
time based on the requirements prescribed by the August 9, 2001 ENERGY 
STAR[supreg] Program Requirements for CFLs Version 2.0, or establish 
other requirements after considering energy savings, cost 
effectiveness, and consumer satisfaction. (42 U.S.C. 6295(bb)(2)-(3))
    For MBCFLs, in this NOPR, DOE is proposing to update the existing 
requirements for rapid cycle stress test and lifetime and add minimum 
requirements for power factor, CRI, and start time. For integrated LED 
lamps, DOE is also proposing to add a minimum requirement for power 
factor and for medium screw base GSLs a minimum requirement for CRI. 
These proposals are discussed in the following sections.
1. Lumens per Watt (Lamp Efficacy)
    As stated in section II.A, this proposed rulemaking is being 
conducted under 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(B). Under 42 U.S.C. 
6295(i)(6)(B)(i)(I), DOE is required to determine whether standards in 
effect for GSILs should be amended to reflect lumen ranges with more 
stringent maximum wattage than the standards specified in paragraph 
(1)(A) [i.e., standards enacted by section 321(a)(3)(A)(ii) of EISA 
\26\]. The scope of this analysis is not limited to incandescent lamp 
technologies and thus encompasses GSLs. The May 2022 Backstop Final 
Rule codified the statutory backstop requirement in 42 U.S.C. 
6295(i)(6)(A)(v) prohibiting sales of GSLs that do not meet a 45 lm/W 
efficacy standard. Because incandescent and halogen GSLs would not be 
able to meet the 45 lm/W requirement, they are not being considered in 
this analysis. Regarding the efficiency metric, DOE is assessing the 
efficiency of GSLs based on minimum lumens per watt (i.e., lamp 
efficacy) rather than maximum wattage of a lamp. Because the lamps 
covered by the scope of this rulemaking span different lighting 
technologies, GSLs designed to satisfy the same applications are 
available in a variety of wattages. The primary utility provided by a 
lamp is lumen output, which can be achieved through a wide range of 
wattages depending on the lamp technology. DOE has tentatively 
determined that lamps providing equivalent lumen output, and therefore 
intended for the same applications, should be subject to the same 
minimum efficacy requirements. Thus, DOE is proposing to use lumens per 
watt as a metric to evaluate standards in this NOPR. DOE is also 
proposing an equation-based approach to establish ELs so that lamps 
that provide the same utility (i.e., lumen output) are subject to the 
same standard. To ensure there would be no backsliding in violation of 
EPCA with this approach, DOE

[[Page 1654]]

converted the maximum wattage standards for GSILs in paragraph (1)(A) 
[i.e., the EISA enacted standards for GSILs] and 10 CFR 430.32(x)(1) to 
be expressed in terms of lumens per watt. For each lumen output, DOE 
used the corresponding maximum wattage to calculate the equivalent 
lumens-per-watt requirement and determined that the 45 lm/W sales 
prohibition for GSLs exceeds all maximum wattage requirements specified 
in paragraph (1)(A) and 10 CFR 430.32(x)(1). Thus, standards considered 
in this proposal that are in terms of lumens per watt would not 
decrease the existing minimum required energy efficiency of GSLs and do 
not result in backsliding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

2. Power Factor
    In this NOPR DOE is proposing minimum power factor requirements for 
MBCFLs (see 42 U.S.C. 6295(bb)(2)-(3)) and integrated LED lamps. DOE 
considered ENERGY STAR Lamps Specification V2.1 \27\ requirements, 
industry standards, and characteristics of lamps in the current market 
when selecting power factor requirements for MBCFL and integrated LED 
lamps. DOE found the vast majority of the U.S. market reports power 
factors in the range of 0.5 to 0.6 for CFLs, which is consistent with 
ENERGY STAR Lamps Specification V2.1 (latest ENERGY STAR lamp 
specification) and ANSI C82.77-10-2020 \28\ requirement of a minimum 
power factor of 0.5 for integrated CFLs. Similarly, DOE found the vast 
majority of the U.S. market reports power factors greater than 0.7 for 
integrated LED lamps. DOE notes that ENERGY STAR Lamps Specification 
V2.1 requires a power factor of 0.6 for omnidirectional lamps with 
rated/reported input power of less than or equal to 10 watts and 0.7 
for all other solid-state lamps. ANSI C82.77-10-2020 requires a minimum 
power factor of 0.57 for input powers between 5 W and 25 W (inclusive); 
and 0.86 for input powers greater than 25 W. DOE reviewed the lamps 
database developed for this analysis and determined that of integrated 
LED lamps with power factor data, 99.9 percent (about 16,700 lamps) had 
a power factor of 0.7 or greater. Further, of integrated LED lamps with 
wattage less than or equal to 10 W and power factor data, 99.5 percent 
had a power factor 0.7 or greater. Therefore, because the vast majority 
of LED lamps have a power factor of 0.7 or greater, DOE is proposing a 
minimum 0.7 power factor for integrated LED lamps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ ENERGY STAR Lamps Specification V2.1, ENERGY STAR Program 
Requirements for Lamps (Light Bulbs), January 2, 2017. Available at 
https://www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/ENERGY%20STAR%20Lamps%20V2.1%20Final%20Specification.pdf.
    \28\ American National Standards Institute, ANSI C82.77-10-2020, 
``American National Standard for Lighting Equipment-Harmonic 
Emission Limits-Related Power Quality Requirements,'' approved 
January 9, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE also conducted testing of low-cost LED products that have been 
increasing in popularity on the market to determine if there was a 
relationship between cost and power factor. In an assessment conducted 
in 2016, DOE tested the power factor of 25 LED lamps with a per-lamp 
cost of $5 or less. Of the 25 lamp models tested, 14 lamps had a power 
factor of 0.7 or higher. Because greater than half of the lamp models 
complied with a power factor requirement of 0.7, DOE tentatively 
concluded that low power factor is not a requirement for a low-cost LED 
lamp. DOE also reviewed the DOE product database developed for this 
analysis and found 25 integrated LED lamps with a published power 
factor and price of $5 or less. Of these 25 lamps, 21 lamps had a power 
factor of 0.7 or higher. Thus, DOE has tentatively determined the 
proposed power factor requirements are achievable and would not result 
in higher costs, nor pose physical challenges. DOE is proposing a 
minimum power factor for integrated lamps being analyzed for potential 
standards in this NOPR of 0.7 for integrated LED lamps and 0.5 for 
MBCFLs.
3. Lifetime
    In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to update the minimum lifetime 
standard for MBCFLs pursuant to the authority under 42 U.S.C 6295(m)(1) 
to review existing MBCFL standards. Specifically, DOE is proposing to 
update the existing minimum 6,000-hour requirement to 10,000 hours. 
Based on a review of the market DOE has determined that the majority of 
MBCFLs on the market have lifetimes of at least 10,000 hours. Further, 
of the MBCFLs submitted to DOE in DOE's compliance certification 
database, about 94 percent have a lifetime of at least 10,000 hours.
4. Start Time
    In this NOPR, DOE is proposing a minimum start time requirement for 
MBCFLs (see 42 U.S.C. 6295(bb)(2)-(3)). Specifically, DOE is proposing 
that an MBCFL with standby mode power must meet a one second start time 
requirement and an MBCFL without standby mode power must meet a 750 
millisecond start time requirement.
    This requirement aligns with the ENERGY STAR Lamps Specification 
V2.1, the latest ENERGY STAR specifications regarding lamps. In ENERGY 
STAR Lamps Specification V2.1, the start time for connected MBCFLs is 
full illumination within one second of application of electrical power, 
and for non-connected MBCFLs it is within 750 milliseconds. ENERGY STAR 
defines a connected lamp as a lamp that ``includes elements (hardware 
and software or firmware) or instructions required to enable 
communication in response to consumer-authorized energy or performance 
related commands.'' Based on this description, a connected lamp would 
have standby mode power.
5. CRI
    Section 321(a) of EISA established CRI requirements for lamps that 
are intended for a general service or general illumination application 
(whether incandescent or not); have a medium screw base or any other 
screw base not defined in ANSI C81.61-2006; are capable of being 
operated at a voltage at least partially within the range of 110 to 130 
volts; and are manufactured or imported after December 31, 2011. For 
such lamps, section 321(a) of EISA specifies a minimum CRI of 80 for 
nonmodified spectrum lamps and 75 for modified spectrum lamps. Because 
MBCFLs meet these criteria, as they are GSLs and used in general 
service applications, have a medium screw base and a rated input 
voltage range of 115 to 130 volts (see definition of ``medium base 
compact fluorescent lamp'' at 10 CFR 430.2), they are subject to 
section 321(a) of EISA.
    In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to codify the CRI requirements in 
section 321(a) of EISA. Specifically, DOE is proposing to specify that 
lamps with a medium screw base or any other screw base not defined in 
ANSI C81.61-2006; intended for a general service or general 
illumination application (whether incandescent or not); and capable of 
being operated at a voltage at least partially within the range of 110 
to 130 volts, must have a minimum CRI of 80 (for non-modified spectrum 
lamps) and 75 (modified spectrum lamps). Because MBCFLs meet these 
specifications they would also be subject to the minimum CRI 
requirements in section 321(a) of EISA.
6. Summary of Metrics
    Table V.1 summarizes the non-efficacy metrics proposed in this 
rulemaking (efficacy metrics are discussed in the engineering analysis; 
see section VI.C of this document). DOE has determined that these 
proposed new metrics for MBCFLs, integrated LED lamps, and medium base 
GSLs will provide consumers with increased

[[Page 1655]]

energy savings and consumer satisfaction for those products capable of 
achieving the proposed standard level. DOE has existing test procedures 
for the metrics being proposed. (See section III.B for more information 
on test procedures for GSLs.) Further, DOE has tentatively concluded 
that the new proposed metrics will not result in substantial testing 
burden, as many manufacturers already test their products according to 
these metrics. DOE requests comments on the non-efficacy metrics 
proposed for GSLs. See section IX.E for a list of issues on which DOE 
seeks comment.

            Table V.1--Non-Efficacy Metrics for Certain GSLs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Minimum standard
            Lamp type                   Metric            considered
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MBCFLs..........................  Lumen maintenance   90 percent of
                                   at 1,000 hours.     initial lumen
                                                       output at 1,000
                                                       hours.
                                  Lumen maintenance   80 percent of
                                   at 40 percent of    initial lumen
                                   lifetime *.         output at 40
                                                       percent of
                                                       lifetime.
                                  Rapid cycle stress  MBCFL with start
                                                       time >100 ms:
                                                       survive one cycle
                                                       per hour of
                                                       lifetime * or a
                                                       maximum of 15,000
                                                       cycles. MBCFLs
                                                       with a start time
                                                       of <=100 ms:
                                                       survive one cycle
                                                       per every two
                                                       hours of
                                                       lifetime.*
                                  Lifetime *........  10,000 hours.
                                  Power factor......  0.5.
                                  CRI...............  80.
                                  Start time........  The time needed
                                                       for a MBCFL to
                                                       remain
                                                       continuously
                                                       illuminated must
                                                       be within: (1)
                                                       one second of
                                                       application of
                                                       electrical power
                                                       for lamp with
                                                       standby mode
                                                       power. (2) 750
                                                       milliseconds of
                                                       application of
                                                       electrical power
                                                       for lamp without
                                                       standby mode
                                                       power.
Integrated LED Lamps............  Power factor......  0.7.
Non-modified spectrum lamps with  CRI...............  80.
 a medium screw base or any
 other screw base not defined in
 ANSI C81.61-2006; intended for
 a general service or general
 illumination application
 (whether incandescent or not);
 capable of being operated at a
 voltage at least partially
 within the range of 110 to 130
 volts.
Modified spectrum lamps with a    CRI...............  75.
 medium screw base or any other
 screw base not defined in ANSI
 C81.61-2006; intended for a
 general service or general
 illumination application
 (whether incandescent or not);
 capable of being operated at a
 voltage at least partially
 within the range of 110 to 130
 volts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Lifetime refers to lifetime of a CFLs as defined in 10 CFR 430.2.

VI. Methodology and Discussion

    This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this 
rulemaking with regard to GSLs. Separate subsections address each 
component of DOE's analyses.
    DOE used several analytical tools to estimate the impact of the 
standards proposed in this document. The first tool is a spreadsheet 
that calculates the LCC savings and PBP of potential amended or new 
energy conservation standards. The NIA uses a second spreadsheet set 
that provides shipments projections and calculates NES and NPV of total 
consumer costs and savings expected to result from potential energy 
conservation standards. DOE uses the third spreadsheet tool, the 
Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM), to assess manufacturer 
impacts of potential standards. These three spreadsheet tools are 
available on the DOE website for this rulemaking: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=4. Additionally, DOE used output from the 
latest version of the Energy Information Administration's (EIA's) 
Annual Energy Outlook (AEO), a widely known energy projection for the 
United States, for the emissions and utility impact analyses.
    In this NOPR, DOE anticipates compliance in the second half of 2028 
and uses 2029 as the first full compliance year for purposes of 
conducting the analysis based on the requirement in 42 U.S.C. 
6295(m)(4)(B) that DOE shall not require new standards for a product 
within 6 years of the compliance date of the previous standard. Since 
compliance with the statutory backstop requirement for GSLs commenced 
on July 25, 2022 a July 25, 2028 compliance date for any GSL standard 
would provide a 6-year spread between GSL compliance dates consistent 
with 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(4)(B). A compliance date of July 25, 2028, is 
also consistent with the timespan described in 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(B), 
which contemplates at least a 5-year time period between any GSL rule 
arising out of the first cycle of rulemaking under 42 U.S.C. 
6295(i)(6)(A) and the effective date of a final rule for the second 
cycle of rulemaking under 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(B). However, per 42 
U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(B)(iv)(I)-(II), for this proposed rulemaking, the 
Secretary shall consider phased-in effective dates after considering 
the impact of any amendments on manufacturers (e.g., retiring, 
repurposing equipment, stranded investments, labor contracts, workers 
and raw materials) and the time needed to work with retailers/lighting 
designers to revise sales/marketing strategies. As is evident in this 
analysis, DOE is collecting information and evaluating the industry and 
market with respect to potential standards for GSLs.

[[Page 1656]]

DOE will be in a better position to determine whether phased-in 
effective dates are necessary once it receives comments from 
stakeholders on the potential standards for GSLs presented in this 
NOPR. DOE requests comments on whether or not phased-in effective dates 
are necessary for this rulemaking. See section IX.E for a list of 
issues on which DOE seeks comment.

A. Market and Technology Assessment

    DOE develops information in the market and technology assessment 
that provides an overall picture of the market for the products 
concerned, including the purpose of the products, the industry 
structure, manufacturers, market characteristics, and technologies used 
in the products. This activity includes both quantitative and 
qualitative assessments, based primarily on publicly-available 
information. The subjects addressed in the market and technology 
assessment for this rulemaking include (1) a determination of the scope 
of the rulemaking and product classes, (2) manufacturers and industry 
structure, (3) existing efficiency programs, (4) shipments information, 
(5) market and industry trends; and (6) technologies or design options 
that could improve the energy efficiency of GSLs. The key findings of 
DOE's market assessment are summarized in the following sections. See 
chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD for further discussion of the market and 
technology assessment.
1. Product Classes
    DOE divides covered products into classes by: (a) the type of 
energy used; (b) the capacity of the product; or (c) other performance-
related features that justify different standard levels, considering 
the consumer utility of the feature and other relevant factors. (42 
U.S.C. 6295(q)) In evaluating product class setting factors, DOE 
considers their impact on both efficacy and consumer utility. In this 
analysis, DOE reviewed several factors including lamp component 
location, standby mode operation, base type, bulb shape, CRI, 
correlated color temperature (CCT), lumens, and length. In this NOPR, 
DOE proposes product class divisions based on lamp component location 
(i.e., location of ballast/driver) and capability of operating in 
standby mode; directionality (i.e., omnidirectional versus directional) 
and lamp length (i.e., 45 inches or longer [``long''] or less than 45 
inches [``short''] as product class setting factors. In the section 
below, DOE discusses its proposed product class setting factors. In 
chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD, DOE discusses features it considered but 
determined to not be valid product class setting factors including lamp 
technology, lumen package, lamp cover, dimmability, base type, lamp 
spectrum, CRI and CCT. See chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD for further 
discussion.
a. Lamp Component Location
    Lamp component location refers to the position of the ballast or 
driver. Integrated lamps have these components enclosed within the 
lamp, whereas non-integrated lamps have them external to the lamp. Due 
to the additional components and circuity enclosed within it, an 
integrated lamp will have an inherent difference in efficacy compared 
to a lamp that utilizes external components. For consumers using an 
integrated lamp, there is also the utility of requiring replacement of 
one lamp unit rather than two separate components. In certain cases, 
integrated lamps are also generally more compact and thus can be used 
in applications with size constraints. For these reasons, DOE is 
proposing a product class based on lamp component location.
b. Standby Mode Operation
    DOE observed that some integrated lamps have standby mode 
functionality and conducted an analysis to determine its impact on lamp 
efficacy. Because this functionality seems to be increasingly 
incorporated in LED lamps compared to CFLs, DOE focused on LED lamps. 
DOE conducted active mode and standby mode testing per DOE's integrated 
LED lamp test procedure (see appendix BB). These lamps were designed 
with varying communication methods, including Zigbee, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, 
and radio frequency remote controls. Almost half of the lamps tested 
were operated using a central hub for communication between the end-
user and the lamp itself. DOE's test results, as presented in appendix 
5a of the NOPR TSD, indicate that the tested standby power generally 
varied between 0.2 W and 0.5 W. DOE finds that these results indicate 
that lamps with standby power have a non-negligible standby power 
consumption that will likely lower their efficacy, compared to lamps 
without standby power, all things being equal. Therefore, based on 
utility and impact on efficacy, DOE is proposing a product class 
division based on standby mode.
c. Directionality
    In this analysis, DOE assessed whether directionality should be a 
product class setting factor--that is, whether a lamp designed to 
direct light should be subject to separate standards from a lamp that 
is not. DOE compared pairs of integrated LED lamps from the same 
manufacturer with the same lumens, lifetime, range of CCT and CRI, 
except one was directional (e.g., parabolic aluminized reflector 
[``PAR'']) and the other omnidirectional (e.g., A-shape). DOE also 
ensured the pairs were of comparable size. For example, a PAR30 was 
compared with an A19--the numbers indicate the diameter in inches when 
divided by 8. DOE determined that in over 80 percent of cases, 
omnidirectional lamps had a higher efficacy. Additionally, by directing 
or not directing light, directional and omnidirectional each provide a 
unique consumer utility. DOE was unable to compare the efficacy impact 
from directionality for the non-integrated lamps due to difference in 
size. The non-integrated directional lamps are predominantly MR16 shape 
lamps and the non-integrated omnidirectional lamps are longer tube, pin 
base CFLs and their LED replacements, or linear LED lamps. However, 
based on the analysis of integrated lamps, DOE has tentatively 
concluded that lamps differing only in directionality, all other 
attributes held constant, will likely differ in lamp efficacy. Due to 
the impact of directionality on efficacy and consumer utility, DOE is 
proposing directionality as a product class setting factor in this 
analysis.
d. Lamp Length
    Efficacy tends to increase with length. GSLs span a range of 
lengths. A-shape or reflector shape lamps typically have a maximum 
overall length (MOL) of about 1.8-7 inches. Pin base CFLs and their LED 
replacements typically have a MOL of about 3.7-23 inches. Linear LED 
lamps are 2-, 3-, 4- and 8-foot lamps. In general, of these lamps, 
regardless of whether compared to integrated or non-integrated lamps, 
DOE found a considerable jump in efficacy for the 4-foot (about 45 
inches) linear T8 LED lamps. Further, because consumers must change a 
lamp fixture to substitute lamps of different geometries for one 
another, lamp length affects utility. Due to the impact of length on 
efficacy and utility, DOE is proposing lamp length as a product class 
setting factor--specifying the product class division between lamps of 
45 inches or longer length (long) and less than 45 inches (short).
    DOE did observe that 4-foot T5 and 8-foot T8 linear LED lamps were 
not reaching the same efficacies as 4-foot T8 linear LED lamps. DOE has 
tentatively concluded that this is not due to a technical constraint 
due to diameter but rather lack of product development of 4-

[[Page 1657]]

foot T5 and 8-foot T8 linear LED lamps. DOE requests comments and data 
on the impact of diameter on efficacy for linear LED lamps. Finally, 
DOE observed that pin base LED lamp replacements with 2G11 bases and 
lengths close to two feet are less efficacious than 2-foot linear LED 
lamps. DOE requests comments on all attributes the same, how the 
efficacy of pin base LED lamp replacements and linear LED lamps 
compare. See section IX.E for a list of issues on which DOE seeks 
comment.
e. Product Class Summary
    Table VI.1 shows the product classes DOE is proposing in this NOPR. 
DOE requests comments on the proposed product classes. See section IX.E 
for a list of issues on which DOE seeks comment.

                                    Table VI.1--Proposed GSL Product Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Lamp component                                               Standby mode
            Lamp type                  location         Directionality        Lamp length          operation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GSLs............................  Integrated........  Omnidirectional...  Short (<45 inches)  Standby.
                                                                                              Non-Standby.
                                                                          Long (>=45 inches)  Non-Standby.
                                                      Directional.......  All Lengths.......  Standby.
                                                                                              Non-Standby.
                                  Non-Integrated....  Omnidirectional...  Short (<45 inches)  N/A.
                                                                          Long (>=45
                                                                           inches)..
                                                      Directional.......  All Lengths.......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Technology Options
    In the technology assessment, DOE identifies technology options 
that are feasible means of improving lamp efficacy. This assessment 
provides the technical background and structure on which DOE bases its 
screening and engineering analyses. To develop a list of technology 
options, DOE reviewed manufacturer catalogs, recent trade publications 
and technical journals, and consulted with technical experts.
    In this NOPR, DOE identified 21 technology options that would be 
expected to improve GSL efficacy, as measured by the applicable DOE 
test procedure. The technology options are differentiated by those that 
improve the efficacy of CFLs versus those that improve the efficacy of 
LED lamps. Table VI.2 provides a list of technology options being 
proposed in this NOPR. For further information on all technology 
options considered in this NOPR, see chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD. DOE 
requests comments on the proposed technology options. See section IX.E 
for a list of issues on which DOE seeks comment.

                                       Table VI.2--GSL Technology Options
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Lamp type                  Name of technology option                  Description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFL.....................................  Highly Emissive Electrode    Improved electrode coatings allow
                                           Coatings.                    electrons to be more easily removed from
                                                                        electrodes, reducing lamp power and
                                                                        increasing overall efficacy.
                                          Higher Efficiency Lamp Fill  Fill gas compositions improve cathode
                                           Gas Composition.             thermionic emission or increase mobility
                                                                        of ions and electrons in the lamp
                                                                        plasma.
                                          Higher Efficiency Phosphors  Use of higher efficiency phosphors to
                                                                        increase the conversion of ultraviolet
                                                                        (UV) light into visible light.
                                          Glass Coatings.............  Coatings on inside of bulb reflect UV
                                                                        radiation passing through the phosphor
                                                                        back onto the phosphor, allowing a
                                                                        greater portion of UV to be absorbed,
                                                                        and thereby emit more visible light.
                                          Multi-Photon Phosphors.....  Emitting more than one visible photon for
                                                                        each incident UV photon absorbed.
                                          Cold Spot Optimization.....  Improve cold spot design to maintain
                                                                        optimal temperature and improve light
                                                                        output.
                                          Improved Ballast Components  Use of higher-grade components to improve
                                                                        efficiency of integrated ballasts.
                                          Improved Ballast Circuit     Better circuit design to improve
                                           Design.                      efficiency of integrated ballasts.
                                          Higher Efficiency Reflector  Alternative reflector coatings such as
                                           Coatings.                    silver, with higher reflectivity to
                                                                        increase the amount of directed light.
                                          Change to LEDs.............  Replace CFL with LED technology.
LED.....................................  Efficient Down Converters..  New wavelength conversion materials, such
                                                                        as novel phosphor composition and
                                                                        quantum dots, have the potential for
                                                                        creating warm-white LEDs with improved
                                                                        spectral efficiency, high color quality,
                                                                        and improved thermal stability.
                                          Improved Package             Arrangements of color mixing and phosphor
                                           Architectures.               coating LEDs on the LED array that
                                                                        improve package efficacy.
                                          Improved Emitter Materials.  The development of efficient red, green,
                                                                        or amber LED emitters that allow for
                                                                        optimization of spectral efficiency with
                                                                        high color quality over a range of CCT
                                                                        and which also exhibit color and
                                                                        efficiency stability with respect to
                                                                        operating temperature.
                                          Alternative Substrate        Emerging alternative substrates that
                                           Materials.                   enable high-quality epitaxy for improved
                                                                        device quality and efficacy.
                                          Improved Thermal Interface   TIMs enable high efficiency thermal
                                           Materials (TIMs).            transfer to reduce efficacy loss from
                                                                        rises in junction temperature and
                                                                        optimize for long-term reliability of
                                                                        the device.
                                          Improved LED Device          Novel architectures for integrating LED
                                           Architectures.               chip(s) into a lamp, such as surface
                                                                        mount device and chip-on-board that
                                                                        improve efficacy.
                                          Optimized Heat Sink Design.  Heat sink design to improve thermal
                                                                        conductivity and heat dissipation from
                                                                        the LED package, thus reducing efficacy
                                                                        loss from rises in junction temperature.
                                          Active Thermal Management    Devices such as internal fans and
                                           Systems.                     vibrating membranes to improve thermal
                                                                        dissipation from the LED chip.

[[Page 1658]]

 
                                          Improved Primary Optics....  Enhancements to the primary optics of the
                                                                        LED package, such as surface etching,
                                                                        novel encapsulant formulations, and flip
                                                                        chip design that improve light
                                                                        extraction from the LED package and
                                                                        reduce losses due to light absorption at
                                                                        interfaces.
                                          Improved Secondary Optics..  Reduce or eliminate optical losses from
                                                                        the lamp housing, diffusion, beam
                                                                        shaping, and other secondary optics to
                                                                        increase efficacy using mechanisms such
                                                                        as reflective coatings and improved
                                                                        diffusive coatings.
                                          Improved Driver Design.....  Novel and intelligent circuit design to
                                                                        increase driver efficiency.
                                          AC LEDs....................  LEDs that operate on AC voltage,
                                                                        eliminating the requirement for and
                                                                        efficiency losses from the driver.
                                          Reduced Current Density....  Driving LED chips at lower currents while
                                                                        maintaining light output, and thereby
                                                                        reducing the efficiency losses
                                                                        associated with efficacy droop.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. 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 working prototypes will not 
be considered further.
    (2) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If it is 
determined that mass production and reliable installation and servicing 
of a technology in commercial products could not be achieved on the 
scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the 
projected compliance date of the standard, then that technology will 
not be considered further.
    (3) Impacts on product utility or product availability. If it is 
determined that a technology would have a significant adverse impact on 
the utility of the product for significant subgroups of consumers or 
would result in the unavailability of any covered product type with 
performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, 
capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as products 
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 design option 
utilizes proprietary technology that represents a unique pathway to 
achieving a given efficiency level, that technology will not be 
considered further due to the potential for monopolistic concerns.

10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, sections 6(b)(3) and 7(b).
    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. The reasons for eliminating any technology are discussed in 
the following sections.
    The subsequent sections include comments from interested parties 
pertinent to the screening criteria, DOE's evaluation of each 
technology option against the screening analysis criteria, and whether 
DOE determined that a technology option should be excluded (screened 
out) based on the screening criteria.
1. Screened-Out Technologies
    In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to screen out multi-photon phosphors 
for CFLs, and quantum dots and improved emitter materials for LED lamps 
based on the first criterion on technological feasibility. In its 
review of technologies for this analysis, DOE did not find evidence 
that multi-photon phosphors, quantum dots, or improved emitter 
materials are being used in commercially available products or 
prototypes.
    In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to screen out AC LEDs based on the 
second and third criteria, respectively practicability to manufacture, 
install, and service and adverse impacts on product utility or product. 
The only commercially available AC LED lamps that DOE found were G-
shapes between 330 and 360 lumens or candle shapes between 220 and 400 
lumens. Therefore, it is unclear whether the technology could be made 
for a wide range of products on a commercial scale and in particular 
for those being considered in this document.
2. Remaining Technologies
    Through a review of each technology, DOE tentatively concludes that 
all of the other identified technologies listed in section VI.A.2 of 
this document met all five screening criteria and are examined further 
as design options in this analysis. In summary, DOE did not screen out 
the following technology options:

CFL Design Options
 Highly Emissive Electrode Coatings
 Higher Efficiency Lamp Fill Gas Composition
 Higher Efficiency Phosphors
 Glass Coatings
 Cold Spot Optimization
 Improved Ballast Components
 Improved Ballast Circuit Design
 Higher Efficiency Reflector Coatings
 Change to LEDs

LED Design Options
 Efficient Down Converters (with the exception of quantum dot 
technologies)
 Improved Package Architectures
 Alternative Substrate Materials
 Improved Thermal Interface Materials
 Improved LED Device Architectures
 Optimized Heat Sink Design
 Active Thermal Management Systems
 Improved Primary Optics
 Improved Secondary Optics
 Improved Driver Design
 Reduced Current Density

    DOE has initially determined that these technology options are 
technologically feasible because they are being used or have previously 
been used in commercially-available products or working prototypes. DOE 
also finds that all of the remaining technology options meet the other 
screening criteria (i.e., practicable to manufacture, install, and 
service and do not result in adverse impacts on consumer utility, 
product availability, health, or safety, unique-pathway proprietary 
technologies). For additional details, see chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD. 
DOE requests comments on the design options it has identified. See 
section IX.E for a list of issues on which DOE seeks comment.

C. Engineering Analysis

    The purpose of the engineering analysis is to establish the 
relationship between the efficiency and cost of GSLs. There are two 
elements to consider in the engineering analysis; the selection of

[[Page 1659]]

efficiency levels to analyze (i.e., the ``efficiency analysis'') and 
the determination of product cost at each efficiency level (i.e., the 
``cost analysis''). In determining the performance of higher-efficiency 
products, DOE considers technologies and design option combinations not 
eliminated by the screening analysis. For each product class, DOE 
estimates the baseline cost, as well as the incremental cost for the 
product at efficiency levels above the baseline. The output of the 
engineering analysis is a set of cost-efficiency ``curves'' that are 
used in downstream analyses (i.e., the LCC and PBP analyses and the 
NIA).
1. Efficiency Analysis
    DOE typically uses one of two approaches to develop energy 
efficiency levels for the engineering analysis: (1) relying on observed 
efficiency levels in the market (i.e., the efficiency-level approach), 
or (2) determining the incremental efficiency improvements associated 
with incorporating specific design options to a baseline model (i.e., 
the design-option approach). Using the efficiency-level approach, the 
efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined based on 
the market distribution of existing products (in other words, based on 
the range of efficiencies and efficiency level ``clusters'' that 
already exist on the market). Using the design option approach, the 
efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined through 
detailed engineering calculations and/or computer simulations of the 
efficiency improvements from implementing specific design options that 
have been identified in the technology assessment. DOE may also rely on 
a combination of these two approaches. For example, the efficiency-
level approach (based on actual products on the market) may be extended 
using the design option approach to ``gap fill'' levels (to bridge 
large gaps between other identified efficiency levels) and/or to 
extrapolate to the max-tech level (particularly in cases where the max-
tech level exceeds the maximum efficiency level currently available on 
the market).
    In this NOPR, DOE relies on an efficiency-level approach. For GSLs, 
efficiency levels (ELs) are determined as lumens per watt which is also 
referred to as the lamp's efficacy (see section V.1 of this document). 
DOE derives ELs in the engineering analysis and end-user prices in the 
cost analysis. DOE estimates the end-user price of GSLs directly 
because reverse-engineering a lamp is impractical as the lamps are not 
easily disassembled. By combining the results of the engineering 
analysis and the cost analysis, DOE derives typical inputs for use in 
the LCC and NIA. Section VI.D discusses the cost analysis (see chapter 
5 of the NOPR TSD for further details).
    The engineering analysis is generally based on commercially 
available lamps that incorporate the design options identified in the 
technology assessment and screening analysis. (See chapters 3 and 4 of 
the NOPR TSD for further information on technology and design options.) 
The methodology consists of the following steps: (1) selecting 
representative product classes, (2) selecting baseline lamps, (3) 
identifying more efficacious substitutes, and (4) developing ELs by 
directly analyzing representative product classes and then scaling 
those ELs to non-representative product classes. The details of the 
engineering analysis are discussed in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD. The 
following discussion summarizes the general steps of the engineering 
analysis:
    Representative product classes: DOE first reviews covered lamps and 
the associated product classes. When a product has multiple product 
classes, DOE selects certain classes as ``representative'' and 
concentrates its analytical effort on these classes. DOE selects 
representative product classes primarily because of their high market 
volumes and/or distinct characteristics.
    Baseline lamps: For each representative product class, DOE selects 
a baseline lamp as a reference point against which to measure changes 
resulting from energy conservation standards. The baseline model in 
each product class represents the characteristics of a product typical 
of that class (e.g., wattage, lumen output, CCT, CRI, shape, and 
lifetime). Generally, a baseline model is one that just meets current 
energy conservation standards, or, if no standards are in place, the 
baseline is typically the most common or least efficient unit on the 
market.
    More efficacious substitutes: DOE selects higher efficacy lamps as 
replacements for each of the baseline models considered. When selecting 
higher efficacy lamps, DOE considers only design options that meet the 
criteria outlined in the screening analysis (see section VI.B or 
chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD). DOE also seeks to maintain the baseline 
lamp's characteristics, such as base type, CCT, and CRI among other 
specifications, for substitute lamps. To calculate efficacy, DOE uses 
the ANSI rated wattage of the lamp, or nominal wattage if the ANSI 
rated wattage is not available. For the Non-integrated product classes, 
DOE pairs each lamp with an appropriate ballast because these lamps are 
a component of a system, and their performance is related to the 
ballast on which they operate.
    Efficiency levels (ELs): After identifying the more efficacious 
substitutes for each baseline lamp, DOE develops ELs. DOE bases its 
analysis on three factors: (1) the design options associated with the 
specific lamps studied; (2) the ability of lamps across lumen packages 
to comply with the standard level of a given product class; and (3) the 
max-tech EL. DOE then scales the ELs of representative product classes 
to any classes not directly analyzed. As part of DOE's analysis, the 
maximum available efficacy level is the most efficacious unit currently 
available on the market. DOE also defines a ``max-tech'' efficacy level 
to represent the maximum possible efficacy for a given product.
    For engineering analysis, DOE developed a lamps database using data 
from manufacturer catalogs, ENERGY STAR Certified Light Bulbs 
database,\29\ DOE's compliance certification database,\30\ and retailer 
websites. DOE used performance data of lamps from one of these sources 
in the following general order of priority: DOE's compliance 
certification database, manufacturer catalog, ENERGY STAR database, and 
retailer websites. In addition, DOE reviewed applicable lamps in the 
CEC's Appliance Efficiency Database.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ The most recent ENERGY STAR Certified Light Bulbs database 
can be found at https://www.energystar.gov/productfinder/product/certified-light-bulbs/results. Last accessed June 17, 2020.
    \30\ DOE's compliance certification database can be found at 
https://www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/#q=Product_Group_s%3A*. Last accessed by June 17, 2020.
    \31\ The most recent CEC Appliance Efficiency Database can be 
found at https://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/. Last accessed June 
17, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Representative Product Classes
    In the case where a covered product has multiple product classes, 
DOE identifies and selects certain product classes as 
``representative'' and concentrates its analytical effort on those 
classes. DOE chooses product classes as representative primarily 
because of their high market volumes and/or unique characteristics. DOE 
then scales its analytical findings for those representative product 
classes to other product classes that are not directly analyzed.
    In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to establish eight product classes: 
(1)

[[Page 1660]]

Integrated Omnidirectional Short Standby Mode, (2) Integrated 
Omnidirectional Short Non-standby Mode, (3) Integrated Directional 
Standby Mode, (4) Integrated Directional Non-standby Mode, (5) 
Integrated Omnidirectional Long, (6) Non-integrated Omnidirectional 
Short, (7) Non-integrated Omnidirectional Long, and (8) Non-integrated 
Directional. With the exception of the Non-integrated Omnidirectional 
Long product class and all the Standby Mode product classes, DOE 
directly analyzed all other proposed product classes.
    DOE directly analyzed Directional and Omnidirectional product 
classes. The Directional product classes consist of reflector lamps and 
lamps with MRX and AR shapes. Reflector lamp is defined by DOE as a 
lamp that has an R, PAR, BPAR, BR, ER, MR, or similar bulb shape and is 
used to provide directional light. (See proposed updates to industry 
references in the reflector lamp definition in section IV.B) The 
Omnidirectional product classes consist of shapes designed to output 
light in a non-directional manner such as the A, B, BA, CA, F, G, T 
shapes. Because of the distinctive difference in design, the 
Directional and Omnidirectional product classes cannot be scaled from 
each other and were directly analyzed.
    DOE also directly analyzed the Long (45 inches or longer) and Short 
(shorter than 45 inches) product classes. The lamps in the Short 
product classes are mainly the A, B, BA, CA, F, G, R, PAR, BPAR, BR, 
ER, MR shapes or configurations of short multiple tubes (e.g., pin base 
CFLs). The lamps in the Long product classes are linear single tubes 
(e.g., 4-foot T8 linear LED lamps). Because of the distinctive 
difference in shape and size, the Short and Long product classes cannot 
be scaled from each other and were directly analyzed.
    As noted in section VI.A.1.a of this document, integrated lamps 
contain all the components necessary for operation within the lamp, 
whereas non-integrated lamps have components such as a ballast or 
driver external to the lamp. Due to this distinction in design, DOE 
directly analyzed both the Integrated and Non-integrated product 
classes with the exception of the Non-integrated Omnidirectional Long 
product class.
    In this analysis, DOE scales the Non-integrated Omnidirectional 
Long product class from the Integrated Omnidirectional Long product 
class. There are three main types of linear LED lamps and LED lamps 
that are replacements for pin base CFLs: (1) Type A lamps have an 
internal driver and connect to the existing fluorescent lamp ballast; 
(2) Type B lamps have an internal driver and connect to the main line 
voltage; and (3) Type C lamps connect to an external, remote driver. In 
this analysis, DOE considers Type A and Type C lamps as non-integrated 
lamps because they require an external component to operate, whereas 
Type B lamps are integrated lamps as they can be directly connected to 
the main line voltage. There are also hybrid lamps that are both Type A 
and B. DOE classifies these lamps as integrated as they can be operated 
without an external component. Hence, the Non-integrated 
Omnidirectional Long product class consists of Type A and Type C linear 
LED lamps and the Integrated Omnidirectional Long product class 
consists of Type B and Type A/B linear LED lamps. DOE determined that 
lamps in both these product classes are the same in shape and size, and 
tentatively concluded the internal versus external components would not 
preclude them from being scaled from or to one another. Based on 
manufacturer feedback, Type B lamps are a more robust replacement 
solution, and the professional and consumer markets are moving away 
from the Type A and Type C replacements. Hence, DOE directly analyzed 
the Integrated Omnidirectional Long product class (containing Type B, 
A/B lamps) and scaled the resulting ELs to derive ELs for the Non-
integrated Omnidirectional Long product class (containing Type A and C 
lamps).
    Finally, DOE is also directly analyzing product classes without 
standby mode functionality and scaling to product classes that have 
this functionality. DOE observed only integrated lamps to have standby 
mode functionality. Because integrated lamps with standby functionality 
are fundamentally the same as lamps without standby functionality but 
with the addition of wireless communication components, DOE did not 
directly analyze the integrated product classes capable of operating in 
standby mode, but rather scaled from the integrated lamps without 
standby functionality. DOE chose to directly analyze lamps without 
standby mode as they remain representative of the majority of the 
market.
    In summary, DOE directly analyzed the product classes shown in grey 
shading in Table VI.3 as representative in this NOPR. See chapter 5 of 
the NOPR TSD for further discussion. DOE requests comments on the 
representative product classes (i.e., product classes directly 
analyzed) identified for this analysis. See section IX.E for a list of 
issues on which DOE seeks comment.

                        Table VI.3--General Service Lamps Representative Product Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 Standby mode
            Lamp type                Lumen package      Directionality        Lamp length          operation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GSLs............................  Integrated........  Omnidirectional...  Short (<45 inches)  Standby.
                                                                                              Non-Standby.
                                                                          Long (>=45 inches)  Non-Standby.
                                                      Directional         All Lengths.......  Standby.
                                                       (reflector lamps).                     Non-Standby.
                                  Non-Integrated....  Omnidirectional...  Short (<45 inches)  N/A.
                                                                          Long (>=45 inches)
                                                      Directional         All Lengths.......
                                                       (reflector lamps).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Baseline Lamps
    Once DOE identifies representative product classes for analysis, it 
selects baseline lamps to analyze in each class. Typically, a baseline 
lamp is the most common, least efficacious lamp that meets existing 
energy conservation standards. Specific lamp characteristics were used 
to characterize the most common lamps purchased by consumers (e.g., 
wattage, CCT, CRI, and lumen output). Because certain products within 
the scope of this rulemaking have existing standards, GSLs that fall 
within the same product class as these lamps must meet the existing 
standard in order to prevent backsliding of current standards in 
violation of EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Specifically, the 
Integrated Omnidirectional Short product class consists of MBCFLs for

[[Page 1661]]

which there are existing DOE standards. The other product classes do 
not have existing DOE standards but are subject to the statutory 
backstop requirement of 45 lm/W. DOE requests comments on the baseline 
lamps selected for each representative product class (i.e., Integrated 
Omnidirectional Short Non-standby Mode, Integrated Directional Non-
standby Mode, Integrated Omnidirectional Long, Non-integrated 
Omnidirectional Short, and Non-integrated Directional). See section 
IX.E for a list of issues on which DOE seeks comment.
a. Integrated Omnidirectional Short Product Class
    The Integrated Omnidirectional Short product class consists of the 
A, B, BA, CA, F, G, T shapes as well as linear and U-shape tubular LED 
lamps (Type B, A/B) that are less than 45 inches (e.g., 2-foot linear 
or U-shape, 3-foot linear LED lamps). Based on common characteristics 
of lamps in this product class, DOE identified the baseline lamp as a 
15 W, 900-lumen (i.e., 60 W equivalent) spiral CFL with lifetime of 
10,000 hours, CRI of 82, and CCT of 2,700 K. The baseline lamp for the 
Integrated Omnidirectional Short product class identified in this 
analysis is specified in Table VI.4.

                                      Table VI.4--Baseline Lamps for Integrated Omnidirectional Short Product Class
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Nominal     Initial      Rated
        Representative product class          Lamp shape   Base type   Lamp type    wattage     lumens     efficacy    Lifetime    CCT  (K)       CRI
                                                                                      (W)        (lm)       (lm/W)       (hr)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Omnidirectional Short............     Spiral         E26            CFL       15         900        60.0      10,000       2,700          82
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Integrated Omnidirectional Long Product Class
    The Integrated Omnidirectional Long product class consists of 
linear tubular LED lamps. These are Type B or Type A/B lamps that 
contain an internal driver and can be connected directly to the main 
line voltage. Based on common characteristics of lamps in this product 
class, DOE identified a 15 W 4-foot T8 Linear LED lamp with a medium 
bipin base, 1,800 lumens, lifetime of 50,000 hours, CRI of 80, and CCT 
of 4,000 K as the baseline lamp. The baseline lamp for the Integrated 
Omnidirectional Long product class identified in this analysis is 
specified in Table VI.5.

                                      Table VI.5--Baseline Lamps for Integrated Omnidirectional Long Product Class
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Nominal     Initial      Rated
  Representative product class    Lamp shape     Lamp      Base type   Lamp type    wattage     lumens     efficacy    Lifetime    CCT  (K)       CRI
                                                length                                (W)        (lm)       (lm/W)       (hr)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Omnidirectional Long.         T8      4-Foot      Medium         LED          15       1,800       120.0      50,000       4,000          80
                                                              Bipin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Integrated Directional Product Class
    The Integrated Directional product class consists of reflector 
shape lamps. Based on common characteristics of lamps in this product 
class, DOE identified a 23 W, PAR38 shape CFL with an E26 base, 1,100 
lumens, lifetime of 10,000 hours, CRI of 82, and CCT of 2,700 K as the 
baseline lamp. The baseline lamp for the Integrated Directional product 
class identified in this analysis is specified in Table VI.6.

                                           Table VI.6--Baseline Lamps for Integrated Directional Product Class
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Nominal     Initial      Rated
        Representative product class          Lamp shape   Base type   Lamp type    wattage     lumens     efficacy    Lifetime    CCT  (K)       CRI
                                                                                      (W)        (lm)       (lm/W)       (hr)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated directional......................      PAR38         E26            CFL       23       1,100        47.8      10,000       2,700          82
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Non-Integrated Omnidirectional Short Product Class
    The Non-integrated Omnidirectional Short product class mainly 
consists of pin base CFLs and their LED replacements as well as linear 
and U-shape tubular LED lamps (Type A, C) less than 45 inches (e.g., 2-
foot linear or U-shape, and 3-foot linear LED lamps). DOE determined 
that base types of non-integrated lamps typically correspond to certain 
wattages and lumen outputs, and thus DOE concentrated on a common 
wattage and its associated base type. Based on a review of lamps that 
had the most common characteristics, DOE identified the baseline lamp 
as a 26 W, 1,700-lumen double tube G24q-3 CFL with lifetime of 10,000 
hours, CRI of 82, and CCT of 4,100 K.
    The baseline lamp for the Non-integrated Omnidirectional Short 
product class identified in this analysis is specified in Table VI.7.

                                    Table VI.7--Baseline Lamps for Non-Integrated Omnidirectional Short Product Class
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Nominal     Initial      Rated
                Product class                  Base type  Lamp shape   Lamp type    wattage     lumens     efficacy    Lifetime    CCT  (K)       CRI
                                                                                      (W)        (lm)       (lm/W)       (hr)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Integrated Omnidirectional Short........     G24q-3      Double            CFL     26.0       1,700        65.4      10,000       4,100          82
                                                               Tube
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1662]]

e. Non-Integrated Directional Product Class
    The Non-integrated Directional product class consists of reflector 
shape lamps that mainly operate at 12 V. Based on common 
characteristics of lamps in this product class, DOE identified an 8 W 
MR16 shape LED with a GU5.3 base, 500 lumens, lifetime of 25,000 hours, 
CRI of 80, and CCT of 2,700 K as the baseline lamp. The baseline lamp 
for the Non-integrated Directional product class identified in this 
analysis is specified in Table VI.8.

                                         Table VI.8--Baseline Lamps for Non-integrated Directional Product Class
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Nominal     Initial      Rated
                Product class                  Base type  Lamp shape   Lamp type    wattage     lumens     efficacy    Lifetime    CCT  (K)       CRI
                                                                                      (W)        (lm)       (lm/W)       (hr)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Integrated Directional..................      GU5.3        MR16         LED         8.0         500        62.5      25,000       2,700          80
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. More Efficacious Substitutes
    DOE selects a series of more efficacious replacements for the 
baseline lamps considered within each representative product class. DOE 
considered only technologies that met all five criteria in the 
screening analysis. These selections were made such that the more 
efficacious substitute lamp saved energy and had light output within 10 
percent of the baseline lamp's light output, when possible. DOE also 
sought to keep characteristics of substitute lamps, such as CCT, CRI, 
and lifetime, as similar as possible to the baseline lamps. DOE 
selected more efficacious substitutes with the same base type as the 
baseline lamp since replacing an integrated lamp with a lamp of a 
different base type would potentially require a fixture or socket 
change and thus is considered an unlikely replacement. In identifying 
the more efficacious substitutes, DOE utilized the lamps database of 
commercially available GSLs it developed for this analysis (see section 
VI.C.1). Further details specific to the more efficacious substitutes 
of the representative product classes are discussed in the following 
sections. DOE requests comments on the more efficacious substitutes 
selected for each representative product class (i.e., Integrated 
Omnidirectional Short Non-standby Mode, Integrated Directional Non-
standby Mode, Integrated Omnidirectional Long, Non-integrated 
Omnidirectional Short, and Non-integrated Directional). See section 
IX.E for a list of issues on which DOE seeks comment.
a. Integrated Omnidirectional Short Product Class
    For the Integrated Omnidirectional Short product class, DOE's 
survey of the market showed the number of 15,000-hour LED lamps were 
comparable to 25,000-hour LED lamps. Additionally, ENERGY STAR Lamps 
Specification V2.1, effective January 2, 2017, requires LED lamps to 
have a lifetime of at least 15,000 hours. Hence, for the Integrated 
Omnidirectional Short product class, DOE analyzed more efficacious 
substitutes with 25,000-hour lifetimes and 15,000-hour lifetimes at ELs 
where lamps with both lifetimes were available (i.e., EL 3, EL 4). DOE 
analyzed lamps with each lifetime as more efficacious substitutes 
because they are both readily available alternatives that are part of a 
growing market and have unique life-cycle costs and payback periods 
associated with them. For the Integrated Omnidirectional Short product 
class, DOE also ensured that the more efficacious substitutes were 
marketed as omnidirectional, thus maintaining the even light 
distribution of the baseline lamp.
    As noted, the Integrated Omnidirectional Short product class 
consists of the A, B, BA, CA, F, G, T shapes as well as linear and U-
shape tubular LED lamps (Type B, A/B) that are less than 45 inches 
(e.g., 2-foot linear and U-shape, 3-foot linear LED lamps). The more 
efficacious substitutes analyzed in this NOPR for the representative 
Integrated Omnidirectional Short product class are summarized in Table 
VI.9.

                                                   Table VI.9--Representative Lamp Units in the Integrated Omnidirectional Short Product Class
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                 Nominal    Initial     Rated
          Product class                    EL           Lifetime       Lamp shape           Base type            Lamp type       wattage     lumens    efficacy  A-value *   CCT  (K)     CRI
                                                          (hr)                                                                     (W)        (lm)      (lm/W)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Omnidirectional Short  Baseline...........     10,000  Spiral.............  E26................  CFL...............       15.0        900       60.0      -40.0      2,700         82
                                  EL 1...............     10,000  Spiral.............  E26................  CFL...............       14.0        900       64.3      -35.7      2,700         82
                                  EL 2...............     10,000  Spiral.............  E26................  CFL...............       13.0        900       69.2      -30.8      2,700         83
                                  EL 3...............     15,000  A19................  E26................  LED...............       10.0        800       80.0      -18.5      2,700         80
                                                          25,000  A19................  E26................  LED...............       10.0        800       80.0      -18.5      2,700         84
                                  EL 4...............     15,000  A19................  E26................  LED...............        9.0        800       88.9       -9.6      2,700         80
                                                          25,000  A19................  E26................  LED...............        9.0        800       88.9       -9.6      2,700         80
                                  EL 5...............     15,000  A19................  E26................  LED...............        8.0        800      100.0        1.5      2,700         81
                                  EL 6...............     15,000  A19................  E26................  LED...............        7.0        800      114.3       15.8      2,700         82
                                  EL 7...............     15,000  A19................  E26................  LED...............        6.5        810      124.6       25.9      2,700         80
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The A-value is a variable in the equation form (a curve) being proposed to specify the minimum efficacy standard for GSLs. The A-value specifies the height of the equation form and thereby
  indicates the level of efficacy (see section VI.C.5.a).

b. Integrated Omnidirectional Long Product Class
    The Integrated Omnidirectional Long product class consists of 
linear tubular LED lamps 45 inches or longer that are Type B or Type A/
B. DOE identified more efficacious substitutes that save energy, have 
light output within 10 percent of baseline lamp, and have 
characteristics similar to the baseline lamp. The more efficacious 
substitutes analyzed in this analysis for the representative Integrated 
Omnidirectional Long product class are summarized in Table VI.10. DOE 
requests comments on whether any characteristics (e.g., diameter [T5, 
T8]) may prevent or allow a linear LED lamp to achieve high efficacies. 
See section IX.E for a list of issues on which DOE seeks comment.

[[Page 1663]]



                                                   Table VI.10--Representative Lamp Units in the Integrated Omnidirectional Long Product Class
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                 Nominal    Initial     Rated
          Product class                    El           Lifetime       Lamp shape           Base type            Lamp type       wattage     lumens    efficacy   A-value    CCT  (K)     CRI
                                                          (hr)                                                                     (W)        (lm)      (lm/W)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Omnidirectional Long.  Baseline...........     50,000  T8 Linear..........  Medium Bipin.......  LED...............       15.0      1,800      120.0       17.5      4,000         80
                                  EL 1...............     50,000  T8 Linear..........  Medium Bipin.......  LED...............       14.0      1,800      128.6       26.1      4,000         82
                                  EL 2...............     50,000  T8 Linear..........  Medium Bipin.......  LED...............       12.5      1,750      140.0       37.5      4,000         83
                                  EL 3...............     50,000  T8 Linear..........  Medium Bipin.......  LED...............       12.0      1,800      150.0       47.5      4,000         82
                                  EL 4...............     50,000  T8 Linear..........  Medium Bipin.......  LED...............       11.5      1,800      156.5       54.0      4,000         82
                                  EL 5...............     50,000  T8 Linear..........  Medium Bipin.......  LED...............       10.5      1,700      161.9       59.4      4,000         82
                                  EL 6...............     50,000  T8 Linear..........  Medium Bipin.......  LED...............        9.2      1,625      176.6       74.1      4,000         83
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Integrated Directional Product Class
    The Integrated Directional product class consists of reflector 
shapes. While the baseline lamp for the Integrated Directional product 
class is a CFL, the more efficacious substitutes are integrated LED 
lamps. Because there is a considerable difference in lifetimes between 
CFL and LED technology, the more efficacious substitutes have lifetimes 
of 25,000 hours rather than the baseline 10,000 hours. The most common 
lifetime among the LED lamps in this product class is 25,000 hours. 
Aside from technology and lifetime, the more efficacious substitutes 
have characteristics similar to the baseline lamp, have light output 
within 10 percent of the baseline lamp, and save energy. The more 
efficacious substitutes analyzed for the representative Integrated 
Directional product class are summarized in Table VI.11.

                                                       Table VI.11--Representative Lamp Units in the Integrated Directional Product Class
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                 Nominal    Initial     Rated
          Product class                    EL           Lifetime       Lamp shape           Base type            Lamp type       wattage     lumens    efficacy   A-value    CCT  (K)     CRI
                                                          (hr)                                                                     (W)        (lm)      (lm/W)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Directional..........  Baseline...........     10,000  PAR38..............  E26................  CFL...............       23.0      1,100       47.8       94.7      2,700         82
                                  EL 1...............     25,000  PAR38..............  E26................  LED...............       17.0      1,200       70.6       72.6      2,700         80
                                  EL 2...............     25,000  PAR38..............  E26................  LED...............       16.0      1,200       75.0       68.2      2,700         80
                                  EL 3...............     25,000  PAR38..............  E26................  LED...............       15.0      1,200       80.0       63.2      2,700         83
                                  EL 4...............     25,000  PAR38..............  E26................  LED...............       14.0      1,200       85.7       57.5      2,700         82
                                  EL 5...............     25,000  PAR38..............  E26................  LED...............       12.5      1,200       96.0       47.2      2,700         83
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Non-Integrated Omnidirectional Short Product Class
    The Non-integrated Omnidirectional Short product class mainly 
consists of pin base CFLs and their LED replacements as well as linear 
and U-shape tubular LED lamps (Type A, C) less than 45 inches (e.g., 2-
foot linear and U-shape, 3-foot linear LED lamps). For non-integrated 
GSLs that operate on a ballast, DOE considered more efficacious lamps 
that did not increase energy consumption relative to the baseline and 
had light output approximately within 10 percent of the baseline lamp-
and-ballast system when possible. Due to potential physical and 
electrical constraints associated with switching base types, DOE 
selected substitute lamps that had the same base type as the baseline 
lamp. DOE paired each representative lamp with an appropriate ballast 
because non-integrated GSLs are a component of a system, and their 
performance is related to the ballast on which they operate.
LED Lamp Replacements for Non-Integrated CFLs
    DOE conducted a thorough analysis of the LED replacements for non-
integrated CFLs and found varied product offerings of efficacies, 
lumens, wattages, and bases. DOE also found that a little more than 
half of LED replacements include ballast compatibility lists. DOE was 
able to identify more efficacious non-integrated LED lamp substitutes 
for the 26 W non-integrated CFL baseline lamp. DOE notes that while 
these non-integrated LED lamps are marketed as replacements for the 26 
W non-integrated CFL, they have much lower lumens than the CFL they are 
intended to replace. Hence, the more efficacious non-integrated LED 
lamps selected have lumens about 30-35 percent lower than the 26 W non-
integrated CFL baseline lumens of 1,700. DOE confirmed with several 
manufacturers' product support that these lamps are indeed equivalent 
replacements for the 26 W CFLs. DOE learned that because these LED 
lamps are designed to emit light in one direction, they emit fewer 
lumens than their CFL counterparts which are designed to emit light in 
all directions (i.e., omnidirectional). Therefore, in a fixture the 26 
W CFL and its equivalent LED lamp emit similar lumen outputs, as some 
of the CFL omnidirectional light is lost within the fixture.
    The more efficacious non-integrated LED substitutes identified have 
a PL shape, a G24q base, 4,000K CCT, and 50,000-hour lifetime. These 
characteristics differ from the baseline 26 W CFL which has a double 
tube shape, a G24q-3 base, 4,100K CCT, and 10,000-hour lifetime (see 
section VI.C.3.d). Regarding shape, DOE found that most LED replacement 
lamps for non-integrated CFLs are marketed as having a PL shape which 
denotes plug-in or PLL shape which denotes a plug-in that is a longer 
lamp. The more efficacious non-integrated LED substitutes identified 
have a PL shape. The double tube shape of the CFL comprises of two 
tubes each bent in a U-shape, set side by side, while the PL shape of 
the LED is a singular tube with no bends. However, due to similar 
overall diameter and length, the PL shape lamp can serve as a suitable

[[Page 1664]]

replacement for the double tube shape lamp. Regarding base type, DOE 
determined that non-integrated LED lamp replacements for non-integrated 
CFLs do not include a number identification at the end of the base 
type, i.e. they are labeled as G24q rather than G24q-3. This is because 
the ``-#'' identification number correlates to the CFL wattage. Non-
integrated LED replacements can be compatible with multiple CFL 
wattages and therefore, the ``-#'' is not required. Additionally, a 
non-integrated LED lamp with a G24q base can adequately replace G24q-1, 
G24q-2, G24q-3 bases of a non-integrated CFL. DOE confirmed that at the 
highest levels of efficacy, the vast majority of base types were 
available and thus consumers would not be forced to change base types 
in most scenarios. Consumers may need to change a base type if that 
base type is paired with a lamp that does not have a high efficacy. 
However, because the vast majority of base types do meet the highest 
ELs, this scenario would not be very common. Further, for the few, 
uncommon base types that are typically paired with less efficacious 
lamps and are not meeting the highest ELs, the base type should not 
pose a technological limitation for increasing lamp efficacy.
    Regarding the difference in CCT, very few non-integrated LED 
replacements for non-integrated CFLs have a CCT of 4,100K. Therefore, 
DOE chose more efficacious non-integrated LED lamps with a 4,000K CCT, 
which is the most popular CCT closest to 4,100K. Regarding lifetime, 
there is a considerable difference in lifetimes between CFL and LED 
technology, and almost all non-integrated LED replacements for non-
integrated CFLs have a lifetime of 50,000 hours. DOE also confirmed 
that there is an even split of non-integrated LED lamp replacements for 
non-integrated CFLs that operate in the horizontal, vertical or 
universal orientation. DOE ensured that there were both horizontal and 
vertical orientation options at each proposed EL.
Ballast Luminous Efficiency
    DOE compiled catalog data of non-integrated CFL ballasts in order 
to estimate the system power ratings and initial lumen outputs of the 
representative lamp-and-ballast systems in the Non-integrated product 
class. A lamp-and-ballast system input power depends on the total lamp 
arc power operated by the ballast and the ballast's efficiency, or BLE. 
Because BLE specifications were not commonly listed in ballast 
catalogs, DOE instead used catalog ballast efficacy factor (BEF) data 
to convert to BLE for ballasts paired with full wattage lamps. DOE then 
determined an estimated BLE for ballasts paired with reduced wattage 
lamps, because ballast specifications when operating reduced wattage 
lamps are not published. DOE used BLE instead of BEF because the market 
has been shifting towards the BLE metric due to the fluorescent lamp 
ballast (FLB) final rule published on November 14, 2011 (76 FR 70548), 
and a simple, accurate method for converting BEF to BLE existed. (See 
chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD for more information on the determination of 
BLE and system input power.) The more efficacious non-integrated LED 
lamps identified in this analysis are Type A LEDs that can be used with 
the existing CFL ballast. Hence, DOE used the same ballast parameters 
for the non-integrated CFL and LED lamp units.
Same-Wattage Substitute
    DOE identified more efficacious CFLs that were lower wattage than 
the baseline but produced similar light and were therefore more 
efficacious. DOE also identified substitute CFLs that were the same 
wattage as the baseline but produced more light and were therefore more 
efficacious. The difference in lumens between full-wattage EL 1 
representative unit and the same-wattage baseline unit is 100 lumens, 
which is small. Thereby, the more efficacious, full wattage substitute 
at EL 1 is close in efficacy to the baseline. However, the more 
efficacious substitutes identified are likely replacement options for 
consumers in specific applications where light output must remain 
constant and thus a reduced wattage lamp with lower lumen output could 
not be used.
    The more efficacious substitutes for the Non-integrated 
Omnidirectional Short product class are summarized in Table VI.12.

                                                Table VI.12--Representative Lamp Units in the Non-Integrated Omnidirectional Short Product Class
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                 Nominal    Initial     Rated
          Product class                    EL           Lifetime       Lamp shape           Base type            Lamp type       wattage     lumens    efficacy   A-value    CCT  (K)     CRI
                                                          (hr)                                                                     (W)        (lm)      (lm/W)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-integrated Omnidirectional    Baseline...........     10,000  Double Tube........  G24q-3.............  CFL...............       26.0      1,700       65.4      155.3      4,100         82
 Short.
                                  EL 1...............     10,000  Double Tube........  G24q-3.............  CFL...............       26.0      1,800       69.2      151.8      4,100         82
                                                          16,000  Double Tube........  G24q-3.............  CFL...............       21.0      1,525       72.6      147.3      4,100         82
                                  EL 2...............     50,000  PL.................  G24q...............  LED...............       12.0      1,100       91.7      123.4      4,000         80
                                  EL 3...............     50,000  PL.................  G24q...............  LED...............        9.0      1,200      133.3       83.4      4,000         80
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. Non-Integrated Directional Product Class
    As noted, the Non-integrated Directional product class consists of 
reflector shapes that mainly operate at 12 V. DOE identified more 
efficacious substitutes that save energy, have light output within 10 
percent of the baseline lamp, and have characteristics similar to the 
baseline lamp. The more efficacious substitutes analyzed in this NOPR 
for the representative Non-integrated Directional product class are 
summarized in Table VI.13.

                                                     Table VI.13--Representative Lamp Units in the Non-Integrated Directional Product Class
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                 Nominal    Initial     Rated
          Product class                    EL           Lifetime       Lamp shape           Base type            Lamp type       wattage     lumens    efficacy   A-value    CCT  (K)     CRI
                                                          (hr)                                                                     (W)        (lm)      (lm/W)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-integrated Directional......  Baseline...........     25,000  MR16...............  GU5.3..............  LED...............        8.0        500       62.5       73.9      2,700         80
                                  EL 1...............     25,000  MR16...............  GU5.3..............  LED...............        7.0        500       71.4       65.0      2,700         82
                                  EL 2...............     25,000  MR16...............  GU5.3..............  LED...............        6.5        500       76.9       59.5      2,700         83
                                  EL 3...............     25,000  MR16...............  GU5.3..............  LED...............        6.0        500       83.3       53.1      2,700         84
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1665]]

5. Efficacy Levels
    After identifying more efficacious substitutes for each of the 
baseline lamps, DOE developed ELs based on the consideration of several 
factors, including: (1) the design options associated with the specific 
lamps being studied (e.g., grades of phosphor for CFLs, improved 
package architecture for LED lamps); (2) the ability of lamps across 
the applicable lumen range to comply with the standard level of a given 
product class; and (3) the max-tech level. DOE requests comments on the 
ELs analyzed for each representative product class (i.e., Integrated 
Omnidirectional Short Non-standby Mode, Integrated Directional Non-
standby Mode, Integrated Omnidirectional Long, Non-integrated 
Omnidirectional Short, and Non-integrated Directional). See section 
IX.E for a list of issues on which DOE seeks comment.
a. Equation Form
    In this NOPR, using the lamps database of commercially available 
GSLs it developed for this analysis (see section VI.C.1 of this 
document), DOE conducted regression analyses to identify the equation 
form that best fits the GSL data. DOE determined a sigmoid equation is 
the best fit equation form to capture the relationship between wattage 
and lumens across all ranges for GSLs. DOE ensured that the equation 
forms employed in this analysis capture product performance at both the 
high and low end of the lumen range. The equation determines the 
minimum efficacy based on the measured lumen output of the lamp. The A-
value in the equations is a value that can be changed to move the 
equation curve up or down and thereby change the minimum required 
efficacy. The constants of the equations were the same for the 
Integrated Omnidirectional Short and Integrated Omnidirectional Long 
product classes. The equations for each representative product class 
are shown in Table VI.14. These equations were scaled for the non-
representative product classes (see section VI.C.6 of this document).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11JA23.001

b. Integrated Omnidirectional Short Product Classes
    In this NOPR, DOE identified seven ELs for the Integrated 
Omnidirectional Short product class. The baseline represents a basic 
CFL with an efficacy representative of the most common least 
efficacious product on the market. EL 1 represents an improved CFL with 
more-efficient phosphors and improved ballast components. EL 2 
represents an advanced CFL with more-efficient phosphors, improved 
ballast components, and higher efficiency coatings. EL 3 represents an 
improved LED lamp with improved package architecture and high-
efficiency driver design. EL 4 represents a more improved LED lamp with 
improved package architecture, high-efficiency driver design, and 
improved optics. EL 5 represents an advanced LED lamp with improved 
package architecture, high-efficiency driver design, improved optics, 
and reduced current density. EL 6 represents a more advanced LED lamp 
with improved package architecture, high-efficiency driver design, 
improved optics, reduced current density, and improved heat sink/
thermal management. EL 7 represents the maximum technologically 
feasible LED lamp with improved package architecture, high-efficiency 
driver design, improved optics, reduced current density, improved heat 
sink/thermal management, and improved alternative substrate materials.
    To establish final minimum efficacy requirements for each EL, DOE 
evaluated whether any adjustments were necessary to the initial ELs to 
ensure lamps were available across the entire lumen range and 
maintained consumer utility. DOE confirmed that a range of lamp 
characteristics such as lumens, CCT, and CRI would be available at the 
highest levels of efficacy. Because the Integrated Omnidirectional 
Short product class consists of MBCFLs which have existing standards, 
DOE assessed whether the initial ELs are equal to or more stringent to 
the existing standards (i.e., that backsliding is not occurring). DOE 
determined that for products with lumens less than 424, the initial EL 
1 equation would result in an efficacy requirement less than the 45 lm/
W MBCFL standard. Similarly, for products with lumens less than 371, 
the initial EL 2 equation would result in an efficacy requirement less 
than the 45 lm/W MBCFL standard. Hence, DOE is proposing at EL 1 and EL 
2 products with respectively, lumens less than 424 and lumens less than 
371 must meet a minimum efficacy requirement of 45 lm/W. Regarding 
other lumen ranges, DOE is proposing at EL 1 products with lumens equal 
to 424 and less than or equal 3,300 meet the minimum efficacy 
requirement based on the equation line of EL 1; and at EL 2 products 
with lumens equal to 371 and less than or equal to 3,300 lumens meet 
the

[[Page 1666]]

minimum efficacy requirement based on the equation line of EL 2.
c. Integrated Omnidirectional Long Product Class
    In this NOPR, DOE identified six ELs for the Integrated 
Omnidirectional Long product class. The baseline represents a basic LED 
with an efficacy representative of the most common least efficacious 
product on the market. EL 1 represents an improved LED lamp with 
improved package architecture. EL 2 represents a more improved LED lamp 
with improved package architecture and high-efficiency driver design. 
EL 3 represents an advanced LED lamp with improved package 
architecture, high-efficiency driver design, and improved optics. EL 4 
represents an advanced LED lamp with improved package architecture, 
high-efficiency driver design, improved optics, and reduced current 
density. EL 5 represents a more advanced LED lamp with improved package 
architecture, high-efficiency driver design, improved optics, reduced 
current density, and improved heat sink/thermal management. EL 6 
represents the maximum technologically feasible LED lamp with improved 
package architecture, high-efficiency driver design, improved optics, 
reduced current density, improved heat sink/thermal management, and 
improved alternative substrate materials.
    To establish final minimum efficacy requirements for each EL, DOE 
evaluated whether any adjustments were necessary to the initial ELs to 
ensure lamps were available across the entire lumen range and 
maintained consumer utility. DOE confirmed that a range of lamp 
characteristics such as lumens, CCT, and CRI would be available at the 
highest levels of efficacy. After reviewing these characteristics, DOE 
determined that an adjustment to the max tech level was necessary to 
allow for lamps with lower CCTs to meet the max tech levels. DOE 
recognizes that LED technology may be less efficacious at lower CCTs. 
Therefore, DOE decided to lower the max tech level by adjusting the A-
value from 74.1 to 71.7, and thereby the minimum lm/W required at that 
EL.
d. Integrated Directional Product Class
    In this NOPR, DOE identified five ELs for the Integrated 
Directional product class. The baseline represents a basic CFL with an 
efficacy representative of the most common least efficacious product on 
the market. EL 1 represents an improved LED lamp with improved package 
architecture and high-efficiency driver design. EL 2 represents a more 
improved LED lamp with improved package architecture, high-efficiency 
driver design, and improved optics. EL 3 represents an advanced LED 
lamp with improved package architecture, high-efficiency driver design, 
improved optics, and reduced current density. EL 4 represents a more 
advanced LED lamp with improved package architecture, high-efficiency 
driver design, improved optics, reduced current density, and improved 
heat sink/thermal management. EL 5 represents the maximum 
technologically feasible with improved package architecture, high-
efficiency driver design, improved optics, reduced current density, 
improved heat sink/thermal management, and improved alternative 
substrate materials.
    To establish final minimum efficacy requirements for each EL, DOE 
evaluated whether any adjustments were necessary to the initial ELs to 
ensure lamps were available across the entire lumen range and 
maintained consumer utility. DOE confirmed that a range of lamp 
characteristics such as lumens, CCT, and CRI would be available at the 
highest levels of efficacy. Hence, DOE found no reason to make 
adjustments to the initials ELs developed in this NOPR.
e. Non-Integrated Omnidirectional Short Product Class
    As previously noted, the Non-integrated Omnidirectional Short 
product class comprises products with a wide range of base types (see 
section VI.C.4.d of this document). DOE confirmed that at the highest 
levels of efficacy, the vast majority of base types were available and 
thus consumers would not be forced to change base types in most 
scenarios. For the few, uncommon base types that are typically paired 
with less efficacious lamps and are not meeting the highest ELs, the 
base type should not pose a technological limitation for increasing 
lamp efficacy.
    In this NOPR, DOE identified three ELs for the Non-integrated 
Omnidirectional Short product class. The baseline represents a basic 
CFL with an efficacy representative of the most common least 
efficacious product on the market. EL 1 represents a full wattage, 
improved CFL with more-efficient phosphors and thus more light output 
and a more efficacious reduced wattage CFL that produces similar lumen 
output as the baseline unit. The full wattage representative lamp unit 
was used to set the minimum efficacy requirements of EL 1 because it 
represents the technologically feasible level that applied across all 
lumen packages within the product class. EL 2 represents an advanced 
LED lamp with improved package architecture, high-efficiency driver 
design, improved optics, and reduced current density. EL 3 represents 
the maximum technologically feasible level with improved package 
architecture, high-efficiency driver design, improved optics, reduced 
current density, improved heat sink/thermal management, and improved 
alternative substrate materials.
    To establish final minimum efficacy requirements for each EL, DOE 
evaluated whether any adjustments were necessary to the initial ELs to 
ensure lamps were available across the entire lumen range and also 
maintained consumer utility. Specifically, DOE considered the impacts 
on lumen package, CCT, CRI, lamp shapes, and lamp bases. DOE found 
lamps with a range of lumens available at the highest levels of 
efficacy. DOE also confirmed that a range of lamp characteristics such 
as CCT, CRI, shape, and base would be available at the highest levels 
of efficacy. Hence, DOE found no reason to make adjustments to the 
initial ELs developed in this NOPR.
f. Non-Integrated Directional Product Class
    In this NOPR, DOE identified three ELs for the Non-integrated 
Directional product class. The baseline represents a basic LED with an 
efficacy representative of the most common least efficacious product on 
the market. EL 1 represents an advanced LED lamp with improved package 
architecture, high-efficiency driver design, improved optics, and 
reduced current density. EL 2 represents a more advanced LED lamp with 
improved package architecture, high-efficiency driver design, improved 
optics, reduced current density, and improved heat sink/thermal 
management. EL 3 represents the maximum technologically feasible with 
improved package architecture, high-efficiency driver design, improved 
optics, reduced current density, improved heat sink/thermal management, 
and improved alternative substrate materials.
    To establish final minimum efficacy requirements for each EL, DOE 
evaluated whether any adjustments were necessary to the initial ELs to 
ensure lamps were available across the entire lumen range and also 
maintained consumer utility. Specifically, DOE considered the impacts 
on lumen package, CCT, CRI, lamp shapes, and lamp bases. DOE found 
lamps with a range of lumens available at the highest levels of 
efficacy. DOE also confirmed that a range of lamp characteristics such

[[Page 1667]]

as CCT, CRI, shape, and base would be available at the highest levels 
of efficacy. Hence, DOE found no reason to make adjustments to the 
initial ELs developed in this NOPR.
6. Scaling to Other Product Classes
    As noted previously, DOE analyzes the representative product 
classes directly. DOE then scales the levels developed for the 
representative product classes to determine levels for product classes 
not analyzed directly. In this NOPR, DOE scaled the Integrated 
Omnidirectional Short Standby product class from the Integrated 
Omnidirectional Short Non-Standby product class. DOE scaled the 
Integrated Directional Standby product class from the Integrated 
Directional Non-Standby product class. DOE scaled the Non-integrated 
Omnidirectional Long product class from Integrated Omnidirectional Long 
product class. The scaling for the non-representative product classes 
is discussed in the following sections. DOE requests comment on its 
approach to scaling non-representative product classes in this NOPR. 
See section IX.E for a list of issues on which DOE seeks comment.
a. Scaling of Integrated Standby Mode Product Classes
    DOE did not observe standby mode functionality in lamps in the Non-
integrated product classes or the Integrated Omnidirectional Long 
product class, and therefore is proposing standby mode product classes 
only for the Integrated Omnidirectional Short and Integrated 
Directional Standby Mode products. DOE requests comments on its 
tentative determination that lamps such as Type B or Type A/B linear 
LED lamps do not have standby mode functionality. See section IX.E for 
a list of issues on which DOE seeks comment.
    Based on test data, DOE found that standby power consumption was 
0.5 W or less for the vast majority of lamps available. (See appendix 
5A of the NOPR TSD for more information on the test results.) 
Therefore, DOE assumed a typical wattage constant for standby mode 
power consumption of 0.5 W and added this wattage to the rated wattage 
of the non-standby mode representative units to calculate the expected 
efficacy of lamps with the addition of standby mode functionality. DOE 
then used the expected efficacy of the lamps with the addition of 
standby mode functionality at each EL to calculate the corresponding A-
value. DOE assumed the lumens for a lamp with the addition of standby 
mode functionality were the same as for the non-standby mode 
representative units.
    DOE has tentatively determined that this is the most appropriate 
approach for establishing ELs for standby mode product classes. DOE 
test procedures to measure efficacy in active mode of integrated LED 
lamps, CFLs and GSLs include the measurement of any standby mode power 
a lamp may have (see respectively, appendix BB, appendix W, and 
appendix DD of 10 CFR part 430, subpart B). DOE is proposing a standard 
based on the integrated measure of active mode and standby mode 
efficiency. For GSLs with standby mode functionality, the energy 
efficiency standards proposed in this NOPR set an assumed power 
consumption attributable to standby mode. It is possible for a lamp 
with standby mode power consumption greater than the assumed value to 
comply with the applicable energy efficiency standard, but only if the 
decreased efficiency of standby mode was offset by an increased 
efficiency in active mode. This ability for manufacturers to trade off 
efficiency between active mode efficiency and standby mode efficiency 
is a function of integrating the efficiencies into a single standard 
and is consistent with EPCA. EPCA directs DOE to incorporate, if 
feasible, standby mode and active mode into a single standard. (42 
U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)(A)) The integration of efficacies of multiple modes 
into a single standard allows for this type of trade-off. The combined 
energy consumption of a GSL in active mode and standby mode must result 
in an efficiency that is equal to or less than the applicable standard.
b. Scaling of Non-Integrated Long Product Class
    In this NOPR, DOE scaled the Non-integrated Omnidirectional Long 
product class from the representative Integrated Omnidirectional Long 
product class. Both classes consist of linear and U-shape tubular LED 
lamps. The Non-integrated Omnidirectional Long product class consists 
of Type A and Type C lamps which require an external component to 
operate. The Integrated Omnidirectional Long product class consists of 
Type B or Type A/B lamps which can be directly connected to the main 
line voltage. DOE determined that because the lamps in these product 
classes are the same in shape and size, they could be scaled from or to 
one another.
    Because the linear shapes are substantively more prevalent than the 
U-shape lamps, DOE identified linear tubular LED lamp pairs that had 
the same manufacturer, initial lumen output, length, CCT, lifetime, CRI 
range in the 80s and differed only in being integrated (Type B) or non-
integrated (Type A). Using 13 lamp pairs identified, DOE determined an 
average 10.7 percent efficacy increase and applied it to the efficacy 
at each EL of the Integrated Omnidirectional Long product class to 
calculate the efficacies of ELs for the Non-integrated Omnidirectional 
Long product class. The scaled efficacies of the ELs were then used to 
calculate the corresponding A-values.
7. Summary of All Efficacy Levels
    Table VI.15 displays the efficacy requirements for each level 
analyzed by product class. Note that the non-standby and standby 
Integrated Omnidirectional Short product classes EL 1 and EL 2 have 
different requirements for lower and higher lumens. This is to ensure 
that lamps in the Integrated Omnidirectional Short product classes 
already subject to an existing standard are not subject to a less 
stringent standard, i.e., that backsliding in violation of 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(1) is not occurring (see section VI.C.5.b for further 
information). The representative product classes are shown in gray, and 
all others are scaled product classes.

                                  Table VI.15--Proposed Efficacy Levels of GSLs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Efficacy
   Representative product class        level                             Efficacy (lm/W)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Omnidirectional Short         EL 1                                     45 (for lumens less than 424)
 (Not Capable of Operating in                       123/(1.2+e-0.005*(Lumens-200)))-35.7 (for lumens 424-3,300)
 Standby Mode)....................
                                         EL 2                                     45 (for lumens less than 371)
                                                    123/(1.2+e-0.005*(Lumens-200)))-30.8 (for lumens 371-3,300)
                                         EL 3                              123/(1.2+e-0.005*(Lumens-200)))-18.5

[[Page 1668]]

 
                                         EL 4                               123/(1.2+e-0.005*(Lumens-200)))-9.6
                                         EL 5                             123/(1.2+e-0.005*(Lumens-200))) + 1.5
                                         EL 6                            123/(1.2+e-0.005*(Lumens-200))) + 15.8
                                         EL 7                            123/(1.2+e-0.005*(Lumens-200))) + 25.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Omnidirectional Long          EL 1                           123/(1.2+e(-0.005*(Lumens-200))) + 26.1
 (Not Capable of Operating in
 Standby Mode)....................
                                         EL 2                           123/(1.2+e(-0.005*(Lumens-200))) + 37.5
                                         EL 3                           123/(1.2+e(-0.005*(Lumens-200))) + 47.5
                                         EL 4                           123/(1.2+e(-0.005*(Lumens-200))) + 54.0
                                         EL 5                           123/(1.2+e(-0.005*(Lumens-200))) + 59.4
                                         EL 6                           123/(1.2+e(-0.005*(Lumens-200))) + 74.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Directional (Not              EL 1                            73/(0.5+e(-0.0021*(Lumens+1000)))-72.6
 Capable of Operating in Standby
 Mode)............................
                                         EL 2                            73/(0.5+e(-0.0021*(Lumens+1000)))-68.2
                                         EL 3                            73/(0.5+e(-0.0021*(Lumens+1000)))-63.2
                                         EL 4                            73/(0.5+e(-0.0021*(Lumens+1000)))-57.5
                                         EL 5                            73/(0.5+e(-0.0021*(Lumens+1000)))-47.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-integrated Omnidirectional           EL 1                           122/(0.55+e(-0.003*(Lumens+250)))-151.8
 Short (Not Capable of Operating         EL 2                           122/(0.55+e(-0.003*(Lumens+250)))-123.4
 in Standby Mode).................
                                         EL 3                            122/(0.55+e(-0.003*(Lumens+250)))-83.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-integrated Directional (Not          EL 1                          67/(0.45+e(-0.00176*(Lumens+1310)))-65.0
 Capable of Operating in Standby
 Mode)............................
                                         EL 2                          67/(0.45+e(-0.00176*(Lumens+1310)))-59.5
                                         EL 3                          67/(0.45+e(-0.00176*(Lumens+1310)))-53.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Omnidirectional Short         EL 1                                     45 (for lumens less than 452)
 (Capable of Operating in Standby                  123/(1.2+e(-0.005*(Lumens-200)))-37.9 (for lumens 452-3,300)
 Mode)............................
                                         EL 2                                     45 (for lumens less than 399)
                                                   123/(1.2+e(-0.005*(Lumens-200)))-33.3 (for lumens 399-3,300)
                                         EL 3                             123/(1.2+e(-0.005*(Lumens-200)))-22.2
                                         EL 4                             123/(1.2+e(-0.005*(Lumens-200)))-14.2
                                         EL 5                              123/(1.2+e(-0.005*(Lumens-200)))-4.3
                                         EL 6                            123/(1.2+e(-0.005*(Lumens-200))) + 8.2
                                         EL 7                           123/(1.2+e(-0.005*(Lumens-200))) + 17.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Directional (Capable of       EL 1                            73/(0.5+e(-0.0021*(Lumens+1000)))-74.6
 Operating in Standby Mode).......       EL 2                            73/(0.5+e(-0.0021*(Lumens+1000)))-70.5
                                         EL 3                            73/(0.5+e(-0.0021*(Lumens+1000)))-65.8
                                         EL 4                            73/(0.5+e(-0.0021*(Lumens+1000)))-60.4
                                         EL 5                            73/(0.5+e(-0.0021*(Lumens+1000)))-50.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-integrated Omnidirectional           EL 1                           123/(1.2+e(-0.005*(Lumens-200))) + 39.8
 Long (Not Capable of Standby            EL 2                           123/(1.2+e(-0.005*(Lumens-200))) + 52.4
 Mode)............................
                                         EL 3                           123/(1.2+e(-0.005*(Lumens-200))) + 63.5
                                         EL 4                           123/(1.2+e(-0.005*(Lumens-200))) + 70.7
                                         EL 5                           123/(1.2+e(-0.005*(Lumens-200))) + 76.6
                                         EL 6                           123/(1.2+e(-0.005*(Lumens-200))) + 93.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Cost Analysis

    The cost analysis portion of the engineering analysis is conducted 
using one or a combination of cost approaches. The selection of cost 
approach depends on a suite of factors, including the availability and 
reliability of public information, characteristics of the regulated 
product, the availability and timeliness of purchasing the GSLs on the 
market. The cost approaches are summarized as follows:
     Physical teardowns: Under this approach, DOE physically 
dismantles a commercially available product, component-by-component, to 
develop a detailed bill of materials for the product.
     Catalog teardowns: In lieu of physically deconstructing a 
product, DOE identifies each component using parts diagrams (available 
from manufacturer websites or appliance repair websites, for example) 
to develop the bill of materials for the product.
     Price surveys: If neither a physical nor catalog teardown 
is feasible (for example, for tightly integrated products such as 
fluorescent lamps, which are infeasible to disassemble and for which 
parts diagrams are unavailable) or cost-prohibitive and otherwise 
impractical (e.g., large commercial boilers), DOE conducts price 
surveys using publicly available pricing data published on

[[Page 1669]]

major online retailer websites and/or by soliciting prices from 
distributors and other commercial channels.
    In the present case, DOE conducted the analysis using the price 
survey approach. Typically, DOE develops manufacturing selling prices 
(MSPs) for covered products and applies markups to create end-user 
prices to use as inputs to the LCC analysis and NIA. Because GSLs are 
difficult to reverse-engineer (i.e., not easily disassembled), DOE 
directly derives end-user prices for the lamps covered in this 
rulemaking. The end-user price refers to the product price a consumer 
pays before tax and installation. Because non-integrated CFLs operate 
with a ballast in practice, DOE also developed prices for ballasts that 
operate those lamps.
    DOE reviewed and used publicly available retail prices to develop 
end-user prices for GSLs. In its review, DOE observed a range of end-
user prices paid for a lamp, depending on the distribution channel 
through which the lamp was purchased. DOE identified the following four 
main distribution channels: Small Consumer-Based Distributors (i.e., 
internet retailers); Large Consumer-Based Distributors: (i.e., home 
centers, mass merchants, and hardware stores); Electrical Distributors; 
and State Procurement.
    In this NOPR, for each distribution channel, DOE calculated an 
aggregate price for the representative lamp unit at each EL using the 
average prices for the representative lamp unit and similar lamp 
models. Because the lamps included in the calculation were equivalent 
to the representative lamp unit in terms of performance and utility 
(i.e., had similar wattage, CCT, shape, base type, CRI), DOE considered 
the pricing of these lamps to be representative of the technology of 
the EL. DOE developed average end-user prices for the representative 
lamp units sold in each of the four main distribution channels 
analyzed. DOE then calculated an average weighted end-user price using 
estimated shipments through each distribution channel.
    DOE used one set of shipment percentages reflecting commercial 
products for the Non-integrated Omnidirectional Short, Non-integrated 
Directional, and Integrated Omnidirectional Long product classes and 
another set of shipment percentages reflecting residential products for 
the Integrated Omnidirectional Short and Integrated Directional product 
classes. DOE grouped the Integrated Omnidirectional Long product class 
in the commercial product categories as these are mainly linear tubular 
LED lamps used as replacements for linear fluorescents in commercial 
spaces. Table VI.16 shows the shipment weightings used for each 
distribution channel.

                         Table VI.16--Shipment Weightings Used per Distribution Channel
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Small consumer- Large consumer-
                                                       based           based        Electrical         State
                                                   distributors    distributors    distributors     procurement
                                                        (%)             (%)             (%)             (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Residential (Integrated Omnidirectional Short                 20              70               5               5
 and Integrated Directional)....................
Commercial (Non-Integrated Omnidirectional, Non-              20               8              62              10
 integrated Directional, Integrated
 Omnidirectional Long)..........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE also determined prices for CFL ballasts by comparing the blue 
book prices of CFL ballasts with comparable fluorescent lamp ballasts 
and developing a scaling factor to apply to the end-user prices of the 
fluorescent lamp ballasts developed for the final rule that was 
published on November 14, 2011. 76 FR 70548. See chapter 5 of the NOPR 
TSD for shipment percentages and ballast prices.
    The end-user prices determined in this NOPR are detailed in chapter 
5 of the NOPR TSD. These end-user prices are used to determine an MSP 
using a distribution chain markup. DOE developed an average 
distribution chain markup by examining the annual Securities and 
Exchange Commission (SEC) 10-K reports filed by publicly traded retail 
stores that sell GSLs. See section VI.J for further details. DOE 
requests comments on its methodology for determining end-user prices 
and the resulting prices. See section IX.E for a list of issues on 
which DOE seeks comment.

E. Energy Use Analysis

    The purpose of the energy use analysis is to determine the annual 
energy consumption of GSLs at different efficacies in representative 
U.S. single-family homes, multi-family residences, and commercial 
buildings, and to assess the energy savings potential of increased GSL 
efficacy. The energy use analysis estimates the range of energy use of 
GSLs in the field (i.e., as they are actually used by consumers). The 
energy use analysis provides the basis for other analyses DOE 
performed, particularly assessments of the energy savings and the 
savings in consumer operating costs that could result from adoption of 
amended or new standards. To develop annual energy use estimates, DOE 
multiplied GSL input power by the number of hours of use (HOU) per year 
and a factor representing the impact of controls.
    DOE analyzed energy use in the residential and commercial sectors 
separately but did not explicitly analyze GSLs installed in the 
industrial sector. This is because far fewer GSLs are installed in that 
sector compared to the commercial sector, and the average operating 
hours for GSLs in the two sectors were assumed to be approximately 
equal. In the energy use and subsequent analyses, DOE analyzed these 
sectors together (using data specific to the commercial sector), and 
refers to the combined sector as the commercial sector.
1. Operating Hours
a. Residential Sector
    To determine the average HOU of Integrated Omnidirectional Short 
GSLs in the residential sector, DOE collected data from a number of 
sources. Consistent with the approach taken in the December 2019 Final 
Determination, DOE used data from various regional field-metering 
studies of GSL operating hours conducted across the U.S. (84 FR 71626-
71671) DOE determined the regional variation in average HOU using 
average HOU data from the regional metering studies, which are listed 
in the energy use chapter (chapter 6 of the NOPR TSD). Specifically, 
DOE determined the average HOU for each EIA 2015 Residential Energy 
Consumption Survey (RECS) reportable domain (i.e., state, or group of 
states).\32\

[[Page 1670]]

For regions without HOU metered data, DOE used data from adjacent 
regions. DOE estimated the national weighted-average HOU of Integrated 
Omnidirectional Short GSLs in the residential sector to be 2.3 hours 
per day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information 
Administration. 2015 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS). 
2015. (Last accessed February 1, 2022.) https://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2015/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For lamps in the other GSL product classes, DOE estimated average 
HOU by scaling the average HOU from the Integrated Omnidirectional 
Short product class. Scaling factors were developed based on the 
distribution of room types that particular lamp types (e.g., reflector 
or linear) are typically installed in, and the associated HOU for those 
room types. Room-specific average HOU data came from NEEA's 2014 
Residential Building Stock Assessment Metering Study (RBSAM) \33\ and 
room distribution data by lamp type came from a 2010 KEMA report.\34\ 
See chapter 6 of this NOPR TSD for more detail. DOE notes that this 
approach assumes that the ratio of average HOU for reflector or linear 
lamps to A-line lamps will be approximately the same across the United 
States, even if the average HOU varies by geographic location. DOE 
estimated the national weighted-average HOU of Integrated Directional 
and Non-integrated Directional GSLs to be 2.9 hours per day and 
Integrated Omnidirectional Long GSLs to be 2.1 hours per day in the 
residential sector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Ecotope Inc. Residential Building Stock Assessment: 
Metering Study. 2014. Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance: Seattle, 
WA. Report No. E14-283. (Last accessed February 23, 2022.) https://neea.org/data/residential-building-stock-assessment.
    \34\ KEMA, Inc. Final Evaluation Report: Upstream Lighting 
Program: Volume 2. 2010. California Public Utilities Commission, 
Energy Division: Sacramento, CA. Report No. CPU0015.02. (Last 
accessed August 5, 2021.) https://www.calmac.org/publications/FinalUpstreamLightingEvaluationReport_Vol2_CALMAC.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE assumes that operating hours do not vary by light source 
technology. Although some metering studies have observed higher hours 
of operation for CFL GSLs compared to all GSLs--such as NMR Group, 
Inc.'s Northeast Residential Lighting Hours-of-Use Study \35\ and the 
Residential Lighting End-Use Consumption Study (RLEUCS) \36\--DOE 
assumes that the higher HOU found for CFL GSLs is based on those lamps 
disproportionately filling sockets with higher HOU at the time of the 
studies. This would not be the case during the analysis period, when 
CFL and LED GSLs were expected to fill all GSL sockets. DOE assumes 
that it is appropriate to apply the HOU estimate for all GSLs to CFLs 
and LEDs, as only CFLs and LEDs will be available during the analysis 
period, consistent with DOE's approach in the March 2016 NOPR. This 
assumption is equivalent to assuming no rebound in operating hours as a 
result of more efficacious technologies filling sockets currently 
filled by less efficacious technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ NMR Group, Inc. and DNV GL. Northeast Residential Lighting 
Hours-of-Use Study. 2014. Connecticut Energy Efficiency Board, Cape 
Light Compact, Massachusetts Energy Efficiency Advisory Council, 
National Grid Massachusetts, National Grid Rhode Island, New York 
State Energy Research and Development Authority. (Last accessed 
August 5, 2021.) https://app.box.com/s/o1f3bhbunib2av2wiblu/1/1995940511/17399081887/1.
    \36\ DNV KEMA Energy and Sustainability and Pacific Northwest 
National Laboratory. Residential Lighting End-Use Consumption Study: 
Estimation Framework and Baseline Estimates. 2012. U.S. Department 
of Energy: Washington, DC (Last accessed February 23, 2022.) https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/2012_residential-lighting-study.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The operating hours of lamps in actual use are known to vary 
significantly based on the room type the lamp is located in; therefore, 
DOE estimated this variability by developing HOU distributions for each 
room type using data from NEEA's 2014 RBSAM, a metering study of 101 
single-family houses in the Northwest. DOE assumed that the shape of 
the HOU distribution for a particular room type would be the same 
across the U.S., even if the average HOU for that room type varied by 
geographic location. To determine the distribution of GSLs by room 
type, DOE used data from NEEA's 2016-2017 RBSAM for single-family 
homes,\37\ which included GSL room-distribution data for more than 700 
single-family homes throughout the Northwest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance. Residential Building 
Stock Assessment II: Single-Family Homes Report: 2016-2017. 2019. 
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance. (Last accessed August 16, 
2021.) https://neea.org/img/uploads/Residential-Building-Stock-Assessment-II-Single-Family-Homes-Report-2016-2017.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE requests comment on the data and methodology used to estimate 
operating hours for GSLs in the residential sector. See section IX.E 
for a list of issues on which DOE seeks comment.
b. Commercial Sector
    For each commercial building type presented in the 2015 U.S. 
Lighting Market Characterization (LMC), DOE determined average HOU 
based on the fraction of installed lamps utilizing each of the light 
source technologies typically used in GSLs and the HOU for each of 
these light source technologies for Integrated Omnidirectional Short, 
Integrated Directional, Non-integrated Directional, and Non-integrated 
Omnidirectional GSLs.\38\ For Integrated Omnidirectional Long GSLs, DOE 
used the data from the 2015 LMC pertaining to linear fluorescent lamps. 
DOE estimated the national-average HOU for the commercial sector by 
mapping the LMC building types to the building types used in CBECS 
2012,\39\ and then weighting the building-specific HOU for GSLs by the 
relative floor space of each building type as reported in the 2015 LMC. 
The national weighted-average HOU for Integrated Omnidirectional Short, 
Integrated Directional, Non-integrated Directional, and Non-integrated 
Omnidirectional GSLs in the commercial sector were estimated at 11.5 
hours per day. The national weighted-average HOU for Integrated 
Omnidirectional Long GSLs in the commercial sector were estimated at 
8.1 hours per day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Navigant Consulting, Inc. 2015 U.S. Lighting Market 
Characterization. 2017. U.S. Department of Energy: Washington, DC 
Report No. DOE/EE-1719. (Last accessed February 23, 2022.) https://energy.gov/eere/ssl/downloads/2015-us-lighting-market-characterization.
    \39\ U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information 
Administration. 2012 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey 
(CBECS). 2012. (Last accessed February 1, 2022.) https://www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/data/2012/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To capture the variability in HOU for individual consumers in the 
commercial sector, DOE used data from NEEA's 2019 Commercial Building 
Stock Assessment (CBSA).\40\ Similar to the residential sector, DOE 
assumed that the shape of the HOU distribution from the CBSA was 
similar for the U.S. as a whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Cadmus Group. Commercial Building Stock Assessment 4 (2019) 
Final Report. 2020. Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance: Seattle, 
WA. (Last accessed August 18, 2021.) https://neea.org/resources/cbsa-4-2019-final-report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE requests comment on the data and methodology used to estimate 
operating hours for GSLs in the commercial sector. See section IX.E for 
a list of issues on which DOE seeks comment.
2. Input Power
    The input power used in the energy use analysis is the input power 
presented in the engineering analysis (section VI.C.4 of this document) 
for the representative lamps considered in this proposed rulemaking.
3. Lighting Controls
    For GSLs that operate with controls, DOE assumed an average energy 
reduction of 30 percent, which is based on a meta-analysis of field 
measurements of energy savings from commercial lighting controls by

[[Page 1671]]

Williams, et al.\41\ Because field measurements of energy savings from 
controls in the residential sector are very limited, DOE assumed that 
controls would have the same impact as in the commercial sector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Williams, A., B. Atkinson, K. Garbesi, E. Page, and F. 
Rubinstein. Lighting Controls in Commercial Buildings. LEUKOS. 2012. 
8(3): pp. 161-180.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For this NOPR, DOE assumed that the controls penetration of 9 
percent reported in the 2015 LMC is representative of Integrated 
Omnidirectional Short GSLs. DOE estimated different controls 
penetrations for Integrated Omnidirectional Long and Integrated and 
Non-integrated Directional GSLs. The 2015 LMC reports a controls 
penetration of 0 percent for linear fluorescent lamps in the 
residential sector; therefore, DOE assumed that no residential 
Integrated Omnidirectional Long lamps are operated on controls. To 
estimate controls penetrations for Integrated Directional and Non-
integrated Directional GSLs, DOE scaled the controls penetration for 
Integrated Omnidirectional Short GSLs based on the distribution of room 
types that reflector lamps are typically installed in relative to A-
type GSLs, and the controls penetration by room type from a 2010 KEMA 
report.\42\ Based on this analysis, DOE estimated the controls 
penetrations for Integrated Directional and Non-integrated Directional 
GSLs as 10 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ KEMA, Inc. Final Evaluation Report: Upstream Lighting 
Program: Volume 2. 2010. California Public Utilities Commission, 
Energy Division: Sacramento, CA. Report No. CPU0015.02. (Last 
accessed August 5, 2021.) https://www.calmac.org/publications/FinalUpstreamLightingEvaluationReport_Vol2_CALMAC.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For this NOPR, DOE maintains its assumption in the March 2016 NOPR 
that the fraction of CFLs and LED lamps on controls is the same. By 
maintaining the same controls fraction for both technologies derived 
from estimates for all GSLs, DOE's estimates of energy savings may be 
slightly conservative compared to a scenario where fewer CFLs are on 
dimmers. Additionally, DOE's shipments model projects that only 2.4 
percent of shipments in the Integrated Omnidirectional Short product 
class and 0.3 percent of shipments in the Integrated Directional 
product class will be CFLs by 2029, indicating that the control 
fraction for CFLs will not significantly impact the overall results of 
DOE's analysis.
    In the reference scenario, DOE assumed the fraction of residential 
GSLs on external controls remain fixed throughout the analysis period 
at 9 percent for Integrated Omnidirectional Short GSLs, 10 percent for 
Integrated Directional and Non-integrated Directional GSLs, and 0 
percent for Integrated Omnidirectional Long GSLs. The national impact 
analysis does, however, assume an increasing fraction of residential 
LED GSLs that operate with controls in the form of smart lamps, as 
discussed in section VI.H.1.a of this document.
    DOE assumed that building codes would drive an increase in floor 
space utilizing controls in the commercial sector in this NOPR, similar 
to its assumption in the March 2016 NOPR. By the assumed first full 
year of compliance (2029), DOE estimated 33.2 percent of commercial 
GSLs in all product classes will operate on controls.
    DOE requests any relevant data and comment on the energy use 
analysis methodology. See section IX.E for a list of issues on which 
DOE seeks comment.
    Chapter 6 of the NOPR TSD provides details on DOE's energy use 
analysis for GSLs.

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

    DOE conducted LCC and PBP analyses to evaluate the economic impacts 
on individual consumers of potential energy conservation standards for 
GSLs. The effect of new or amended energy conservation standards on 
individual consumers usually involves a reduction in operating cost and 
an increase in purchase cost. DOE used the following two metrics to 
measure consumer impacts:
     The LCC is the total consumer expense of an appliance or 
product over the life of that product, consisting of total installed 
cost (manufacturer selling price, distribution chain markups, sales 
tax, and installation costs) plus operating costs (expenses for energy 
use, maintenance, and repair). To compute the operating costs, DOE 
discounts future operating costs to the time of purchase and sums them 
over the lifetime of the product.
     The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it 
takes consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including 
installation) of a more-efficient product through lower operating 
costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost 
at higher efficiency levels by the change in annual operating cost for 
the year that amended or new standards are assumed to take effect.
    For each considered standard level, DOE measures the change in LCC 
relative to the LCC in the no-new-standards case, which reflects the 
change in the estimated efficiency distribution of GSLs in the 
standards case compared to the absence of new or 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 residential consumers and commercial customers. Separate 
calculations were conducted for the residential and commercial sectors. 
DOE developed consumer samples based on the 2015 RECS and the 2012 
CBECS for the residential and commercial sectors, respectively. For 
each consumer in the sample, DOE determined the energy consumption of 
the lamp purchased and the appropriate electricity price. By developing 
consumer samples, the analysis captured the variability in energy 
consumption and energy prices associated with the use of GSLs.
    DOE added sales tax, which varied by state, and installation cost 
(for the commercial sector) to the cost of the product developed in the 
product price determination to determine the total installed cost. 
Inputs to the calculation of operating expenses include annual energy 
consumption, energy prices and price projections, lamp lifetimes, and 
discount rates. DOE created distributions of values for lamp lifetimes, 
discount rates, and sales taxes, with probabilities attached to each 
value, to account for their uncertainty and variability.
    For a GSL standard case (i.e., case where a standard would be in 
place at a particular TSL), DOE measured the annualized LCC savings 
resulting from the estimated efficacy distribution under the considered 
standard relative to the estimated efficacy distribution in the no-new-
standards case. The efficacy distributions include market trends that 
can result in some lamps with efficacies that exceed the minimum 
efficacy associated with the standard under consideration. In contrast, 
the PBP only considers the average time required to recover any 
increased first cost associated with a purchase at a particular EL 
relative to the baseline product.
    The computer model DOE 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 consumer user samples. 
The model calculated the LCC and PBP for a sample of 10,000 consumers 
per simulation run. The analytical results include a distribution of 
10,000 data points showing the range

[[Page 1672]]

of LCC savings. In performing an iteration of the Monte Carlo 
simulation for a given consumer, product efficiency is chosen based on 
its probability. By accounting for consumers who purchase more-
efficient products in the no-new-standards case, DOE avoids overstating 
the potential benefits from increasing product efficiency.
    DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for all consumers of GSLs as if each 
were to purchase a new product in the expected first full year of 
required compliance with amended standards. As discussed in section VI 
of this document, since compliance with the statutory backstop 
requirement for GSLs commenced on July 25, 2022, DOE would set a 6-year 
compliance date of July 25, 2028 for consistency with requirements in 
42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(4)(B) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(B)(iii). Therefore, 
because the compliance date would be in the second half of 2028, for 
purposes of its analysis, DOE used 2029 as the first full year of 
compliance with any amended standards for GSLs.
    Table VI.17 summarizes the approach and data DOE used to derive 
inputs to the LCC and PBP calculations. The subsections that follow 
provide further discussion. Details of the spreadsheet model, and of 
all the inputs to the LCC and PBP analyses, are contained in chapter 7 
of the NOPR TSD and its appendices.

 Table VI.17--Summary of Inputs and Methods for the LCC and PBP Analysis
                                    *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Inputs                           Source/method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product Cost.................  Weighted-average end-user price
                                determined in the product price
                                determination. To project the price of
                                the LED lamps in the first full year of
                                compliance, DOE used a price-learning
                                analysis.
Sales Tax....................  Derived 2029 population-weighted-average
                                tax values for each state based on
                                Census population projections and sales
                                tax data from Sales Tax Clearinghouse.
Installation Costs...........  Used RSMeans and U.S. Bureau of Labor
                                Statistics data to estimate an
                                installation cost of $1.73 per installed
                                GSL for the commercial sector.
Disposal Cost................  Assumed 35 percent of commercial CFLs are
                                disposed of at a cost of $0.70 per CFL.
                                Assumptions based on industry expert
                                feedback and a Massachusetts Department
                                of Environmental Protection mercury lamp
                                recycling rate report.
Annual Energy Use............  Derived in the energy use analysis.
                                Varies by geographic location and room
                                type in the residential sector and by
                                building type in the commercial sector.
Energy Prices................  Based on 2021 average and marginal
                                electricity price data from the Edison
                                Electric Institute. Electricity prices
                                vary by season and U.S. region.
Energy Price Trends..........  Based on AEO 2022 price forecasts.
Product Lifetime.............  A Weibull survival function is used to
                                provide the survival probability as a
                                function of GSL age, based on the GSL's
                                rated lifetime and sector-specific HOU.
                                On-time cycle length effects are
                                included for residential CFLs.
Residual Value...............  Represents the value of surviving lamps
                                at the end of the LCC analysis period.
                                DOE discounts the residual value to the
                                start of the analysis period and
                                calculates it based on the remaining
                                lamp's lifetime and price at the end of
                                the LCC analysis period.
Discount Rates...............  Approach involves identifying all
                                possible debt or asset classes that
                                might be used to purchase the considered
                                appliances, or might be affected
                                indirectly. Primary data source was the
                                Federal Reserve Board's Survey of
                                Consumer Finances.
Efficacy Distribution........  Estimated by the market-share module of
                                shipments model. See chapter 8 of the
                                NOPR TSD for details.
First Full Year of Compliance  2029.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* References for the data sources mentioned in this table are provided
  in the sections following the table or in chapter 7 of the NOPR TSD.

1. Product Cost
    To calculate consumer product costs, DOE typically multiplies the 
manufacturer production costs (MPCs) developed in the engineering 
analysis by the markups along with sales taxes. For GSLs, the 
engineering analysis determined end-user prices directly; therefore, 
for the LCC analysis, the only adjustment was to add sales taxes, which 
were assigned to each household or building in the LCC sample based on 
its location. In the March 2016 NOPR, due to the high variability in 
LED lamp price by light output, DOE developed and analyzed lamp options 
across three additional lumen ranges (310-749 lm, 1050-1489 lm, and 
1490-1999 lm) for the Integrated Low-Lumen product class. However, for 
this NOPR analysis DOE has not analyzed any of the representative 
product classes on a lumen range basis because DOE has found that the 
price variability for LED lamps has lessened to such a degree that 
conducting the analysis by lumen range is unnecessary.
    DOE also used a price-learning analysis to account for changes in 
LED lamp prices that are expected to occur between the time for which 
DOE has data for lamp prices (2020) and the assumed first full year of 
compliance of the rulemaking (2029). For details on the price-learning 
analysis, see section VI.G of this document.
2. Installation Cost
    Installation cost includes labor, overhead, and any miscellaneous 
materials and parts needed to install the product. For this NOPR, DOE 
assumed an installation cost of $1.73 per installed commercial GSL--
based on an estimated lamp installation time of 5 minutes from RSMeans 
\43\ and hourly wage data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 
\44\--but zero installation cost for residential GSLs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ RSMeans. Facilities Maintenance & Repair Cost Data 2013. 
2012. RSMeans: Kingston, MA.
    \44\ U.S. Department of Labor-Bureau of Labor Statistics. 
Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2021: 49-9071 Maintenance and 
Repair Workers, General. May 2021. (Last accessed April 13, 2022.) 
https://www.bls.gov/oes/2021/may/oes499071.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE requests comment on the installation cost assumptions used in 
its analyses. See section IX.E for a list of issues on which DOE seeks 
comment.
3. Annual Energy Consumption
    For each sampled household or commercial building, DOE determined 
the energy consumption for a GSL at different efficiency levels using 
the approach described previously in section VI.E of this document.
4. Energy Prices
    Because marginal electricity price more accurately captures the

[[Page 1673]]

incremental savings associated with a change in energy use from higher 
efficiency, it provides a better representation of incremental change 
in consumer costs than average electricity prices. To use marginal 
electricity prices, DOE generally applies average electricity prices 
for the energy use of the product purchased in the no-new-standards 
case, and marginal electricity prices for the incremental change in 
energy use associated with the other efficiency levels considered.
    In this NOPR, DOE only used marginal electricity prices due to the 
calculated annual electricity cost for some regions and efficiency 
levels being negative when using average electricity prices for the 
energy use of the product purchased in the no-new-standards case. 
Negative costs can occur in instances where the marginal electricity 
cost for the region and the energy savings relative to the baseline for 
the given efficiency level are large enough that the incremental cost 
savings exceed the baseline cost.
    DOE derived electricity prices in 2021 using data from EEI Typical 
Bills and Average Rates reports.\45\ Based upon comprehensive, 
industry-wide surveys, this semi-annual report presents typical monthly 
electric bills and average kilowatt-hour costs to the customer as 
charged by investor-owned utilities. For the residential sector, DOE 
calculated electricity prices using the methodology described in 
Coughlin and Beraki (2018).\46\ For the commercial sector, DOE 
calculated electricity prices using the methodology described in 
Coughlin and Beraki (2019).\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Edison Electric Institute. Typical Bills and Average Rates 
Report. 2021. Winter 2021, Summer 2021: Washington, DC.
    \46\ Coughlin, K. and B. Beraki. 2018. Residential Electricity 
Prices: A Review of Data Sources and Estimation Methods. Lawrence 
Berkeley National Lab. Berkeley, CA. Report No. LBNL-2001169. 
https://ees.lbl.gov/publications/residential-electricity-prices-review.
    \47\ Coughlin, K. and B. Beraki. 2019. Non-residential 
Electricity Prices: A Review of Data Sources and Estimation Methods. 
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. Berkeley, CA. Report No. LBNL-
2001203. https://ees.lbl.gov/publications/non-residential-electricity-prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE's methodology allows electricity prices to vary by sector, 
region and season. In the analysis, variability in electricity prices 
is chosen to be consistent with the way the consumer economic and 
energy use characteristics are defined in the LCC analysis. DOE 
assigned seasonal marginal prices to each household in the LCC sample 
based on its location. DOE also assigned seasonal marginal prices to 
each commercial building in the LCC sample based on its location and 
annual energy consumption.
    For a detailed discussion of the development of electricity prices, 
see chapter 7 of the NOPR TSD.
    To estimate electricity prices in future years, DOE multiplied the 
2021 regional energy prices by a projection of annual change in 
national-average residential or commercial energy price from AEO2022, 
which has an end year of 2050.\48\ For each consumer sampled, DOE 
applied the projection for the census division in which the consumer 
was located. To estimate price trends after 2050, DOE assumed that the 
regional prices would remain at the 2050 value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ U.S. Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy 
Outlook 2022. 2022. Washington, DC (Last accessed April 13, 2022.) 
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/index.php.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE used the electricity price trends associated with the AEO 
Reference case, which is a business-as-usual estimate, given known 
market, demographic, and technological trends. DOE also included AEO 
High Economic Growth and AEO Low Economic Growth scenarios in the 
analysis. The high- and low-growth cases show the projected effects of 
alternative economic growth assumptions on energy prices.
5. Product Lifetime
    In this NOPR, DOE considered the GSL lifetime to be the service 
lifetime (i.e., the age at which the lamp is retired from service). For 
the representative lamps in this analysis, including GSLs not 
considered in the March 2016 NOPR, DOE used the reference (Renovation-
Driven) lifetime scenario methodology from the March 2016 NOPR. This 
methodology uses Weibull survival models to calculate the probability 
of survival as a function of lamp age. In the analysis, DOE considered 
the lamp's rated lifetime (taken from the engineering analysis), 
sector- and product class-specific HOU distributions, typical 
renovation timelines, and effects of on-time cycle length, which DOE 
assumed only applied to residential CFL GSLs. DOE requests comment on 
the GSL service lifetime model used in its analyses. In particular, DOE 
seeks information about the rate of premature failures for LED lamps 
analyzed in this NOPR and whether this rate differs from that of 
comparable CFLs or general service fluorescent lamps. DOE also seeks 
feedback or data that would inform the modeling of Integrated 
Omnidirectional Long lamp lifetimes, which have a longer rated lifetime 
than LED lamps in the other analyzed product classes. See section IX.E 
for a list of issues on which DOE seeks comment.
    For a detailed discussion of the development of lamp lifetimes, see 
Appendix 7C of the NOPR TSD.
6. Residual Value
    The residual value represents the remaining dollar value of 
surviving lamps at the end of the LCC analysis period (the lifetime of 
the shortest-lived GSL in each product class), discounted to the first 
full year of compliance. To account for the value of any lamps with 
remaining life to the consumer, the LCC model applies this residual 
value as a ``credit'' at the end of the LCC analysis period. Because 
DOE estimates that LED GSLs undergo price learning, the residual value 
of these lamps is calculated based on the lamp price at the end of the 
LCC analysis period.
7. Disposal Cost
    Disposal cost is the cost a consumer pays to dispose of their 
retired GSLs. DOE assumed that 35 percent of CFLs are recycled (this 
fraction remains constant over the analysis period), and that the 
disposal cost is $0.70 per lamp for commercial consumers. Disposal 
costs were not applied to residential consumers. Because LED lamps do 
not contain mercury, DOE assumes no disposal costs for LED lamps in 
both the residential and commercial sectors. DOE requests comment and 
relevant data on the disposal cost assumptions used in its analyses. 
See section IX.E for a list of issues on which DOE seeks comment.
8. Discount Rates
    In the calculation of LCC, DOE applies discount rates appropriate 
to residential and commercial consumers to estimate the present value 
of future operating cost savings. The subsections below provide 
information on the derivation of the discount rates by sector. See 
chapter 7 of the NOPR TSD for further details on the development of 
discount rates.
a. Residential
    DOE estimated a distribution of residential discount rates for GSLs 
based on the opportunity cost of consumer funds. DOE applies weighted 
average discount rates calculated from consumer debt and asset data, 
rather than marginal or implicit discount rates.\49\ The LCC analysis 
estimates net

[[Page 1674]]

present value over the lifetime of the product, so the appropriate 
discount rate will reflect the general opportunity cost of household 
funds, taking this time scale into account. Given the long-time horizon 
modeled in the LCC analysis, the application of a marginal interest 
rate associated with an initial source of funds is inaccurate. 
Regardless of the method of purchase, consumers are expected to 
continue to rebalance their debt and asset holdings over the LCC 
analysis period, based on the restrictions consumers face in their debt 
payment requirements and the relative size of the interest rates 
available on debts and assets. DOE estimates the aggregate impact of 
this rebalancing using the historical distribution of debts and assets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ The implicit discount rate is inferred from a consumer 
purchase decision between two otherwise identical goods with 
different first cost and operating cost. It is the interest rate 
that equates the increment of first cost to the difference in net 
present value of lifetime operating cost, incorporating the 
influence of several factors: transaction costs; risk premiums and 
response to uncertainty; time preferences; interest rates at which a 
consumer is able to borrow or lend. The implicit discount rate is 
not appropriate for the LCC analysis because it reflects a range of 
factors that influence consumer purchase decisions, rather than the 
opportunity cost of the funds that are used in purchases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To establish residential discount rates for the LCC analysis, DOE 
identified all relevant household debt or asset classes in order to 
approximate a consumer's opportunity cost of funds related to appliance 
energy cost savings. It estimated the average percentage shares of the 
various types of debt and equity by household income group using data 
from the Federal Reserve Board's Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF).\50\ 
Using the SCF and other sources, DOE developed a distribution of rates 
for each type of debt and asset by income group to represent the rates 
that may apply in the year in which amended standards would take 
effect. DOE assigned each sample household a specific discount rate 
drawn from one of the distributions. The average rate across all types 
of household debt and equity and income groups, weighted by the shares 
of each type, is 4.3 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ U.S. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. 
Survey of Consumer Finances. 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2010, 
2013, 2016, and 2019. (Last accessed February 1, 2022.) https://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/scf/scfindex.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Commercial
    For commercial consumers, DOE used the cost of capital to estimate 
the present value of cash flows to be derived from a typical company 
project or investment. Most companies use both debt and equity capital 
to fund investments, so the cost of capital is the weighted-average 
cost to the firm of equity and debt financing. This corporate finance 
approach is referred to as the weighted-average cost of capital. DOE 
used currently available economic data in developing commercial 
discount rates, with Damadoran Online being the primary data 
source.\51\ The average discount rate across the commercial building 
types is 6.6 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ Damodaran, A. Data Page: Historical Returns on Stocks, 
Bonds and Bills-United States. 2021. (Last accessed April 26, 2022.) 
https://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

9. Efficacy Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case
    To accurately estimate the share of consumers that would be 
affected by a potential energy conservation standard at a particular 
TSL, DOE's LCC analysis considered the projected distribution (i.e., 
market shares) of product efficacies that consumers purchase under the 
no-new-standards case and each of the standard cases (i.e., the cases 
where a standard would be set at each TSL) in the assumed first full 
year of compliance.
    To estimate the efficacy distribution in the first full year of 
compliance, DOE used a consumer-choice model based on consumer 
sensitivity to lamp price, lifetime, energy savings, and mercury 
content, as measured in a market study, as well as on consumer 
preferences for lighting technology as revealed in historical shipments 
data. DOE also included consumer sensitivity to dimmability in the 
market-share model for non-linear lamps to capture the better dimming 
performance of LED lamps relative to CFLs. Dimmability was excluded as 
a parameter in the market-share model for linear lamps, because DOE 
assumed that this feature was equivalently available among lamp options 
in the consumer-choice model. Consumer-choice parameters were derived 
from consumer surveys of the residential sector. DOE was unable to 
obtain appropriate data to directly calibrate parameters for consumers 
in the commercial sector. Due to a lack of data to support an 
alternative set of parameters, DOE assumed the same parameters in the 
commercial sector. For further information on the derivation of the 
market efficiency distributions, see section VI.G of this document and 
chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD.
    The estimated market shares for the no-new-standards case and each 
standards case are determined by the shipments analysis and are shown 
in Table VI.18 through Table VI.22 of this document. A description of 
each of the TSLs is located in section VII.A of this document.

                     Table VI.18--Integrated Omnidirectional Short GSL Market Efficacy Distribution by Trial Standard Level in 2029
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                               Total **
        Trial standard level           EL 0 (%)     EL 1 (%)     EL 2 (%)    EL 3 * (%)   EL 4 * (%)    EL 5 (%)     EL 6 (%)     EL 7 (%)       (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Residential
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No-New-Standards...................          0.7          0.7          0.8         26.6         26.1         14.0         13.9         17.1        100.0
TSL 1..............................          0.0          0.0          0.8         27.0         26.4         14.2         14.1         17.4        100.0
TSL 2..............................          0.0          0.0          0.0         27.2         26.6         14.3         14.3         17.5        100.0
TSL 3..............................          0.0          0.0          0.0          0.0          0.0         31.1         30.9         38.0        100.0
TSL 4..............................          0.0          0.0          0.0          0.0          0.0          0.0         44.9         55.1        100.0
TSL 5..............................          0.0          0.0          0.0          0.0          0.0          0.0          0.0        100.0        100.0
TSL 6..............................          0.0          0.0          0.0          0.0          0.0          0.0          0.0        100.0        100.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Commercial
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No-New-Standards...................          0.7          0.7          0.8         27.4         26.8         13.6         13.5         16.6        100.0
TSL 1..............................          0.0          0.0          0.8         27.8         27.2         13.8         13.7         16.8        100.0
TSL 2..............................          0.0          0.0          0.0         28.0         27.4         13.9         13.8         17.0        100.0
TSL 3..............................          0.0          0.0          0.0          0.0          0.0         31.1         30.9         38.0        100.0
TSL 4..............................          0.0          0.0          0.0          0.0          0.0          0.0         44.9         55.1        100.0
TSL 5..............................          0.0          0.0          0.0          0.0          0.0          0.0          0.0        100.0        100.0
TSL 6..............................          0.0          0.0          0.0          0.0          0.0          0.0          0.0        100.0        100.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This EL contains two representative lamp options.

[[Page 1675]]

 
** The total may not sum to 100% due to rounding.


                          Table VI.19--Integrated Directional GSL Market Efficacy Distribution by Trial Standard Level in 2029
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Trial standard level               EL 0 (%)        EL 1 (%)        EL 2 (%)        EL 3 (%)        EL 4 (%)        EL 5 (%)       Total * (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Residential
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No-New-Standards........................            0.34            12.3            14.7            17.4            21.1            34.2           100.0
TSL 1...................................             0.0            12.3            14.7            17.5            21.1            34.3           100.0
TSL 2...................................             0.0             0.0             0.0            24.0            29.0            47.0           100.0
TSL 3-6.................................             0.0             0.0             0.0             0.0             0.0           100.0           100.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Commercial
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No-New-Standards........................             0.3            12.3            14.7            17.4            21.1            34.2           100.0
TSL 1...................................             0.0            12.3            14.7            17.5            21.1            34.3           100.0
TSL 2...................................             0.0             0.0             0.0            24.0            29.0            47.0           100.0
TSL 3-6.................................             0.0             0.0             0.0             0.0             0.0           100.0           100.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The total may not sum to 100% due to rounding.


    Table VI.20--Non-Integrated Directional GSL Market Efficacy Distribution by Trial Standard Level in 2029
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Trial standard level           EL 0 (%)        EL 1 (%)        EL 2 (%)        EL 3 (%)       Total * (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Residential
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No-New-Standards................            25.8            24.6            22.9            26.8           100.0
TSL 1-4.........................             0.0            33.1            30.8            36.1           100.0
TSL 5-6.........................             0.0             0.0             0.0           100.0           100.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Commercial
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No-New-Standards................            25.8            24.6            22.9            26.8           100.0
TSL 1-4.........................             0.0            33.1            30.8            36.1           100.0
TSL 5-6.........................             0.0             0.0             0.0           100.0           100.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The total may not sum to 100% due to rounding.


  Table VI.21--Non-Integrated Omnidirectional GSL Market Efficacy Distribution by Trial Standard Level in 2029
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Trial standard level           EL 0 (%)       EL 1 * (%)       EL 2 (%)        EL 3 (%)      Total ** (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Commercial
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No-New-Standards................             2.4             2.2            40.8            54.6           100.0
TSL 1...........................             0.0             2.3            41.8            56.0           100.0
TSL 2-6.........................             0.0             0.0             0.0           100.0           100.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This EL contains two representative lamp options.
** The total may not sum to 100% due to rounding.


                                          Table VI.22--Integrated Omnidirectional Long GSL Market Efficacy Distribution by Trial Standard Level in 2029
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Trial standard level                           EL 0 (%)        EL 1 (%)        EL 2 (%)        EL 3 (%)        EL 4 (%)        EL 5 (%)        EL 6 (%)       Total* (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Residential
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No-New-Standards................................................            14.1            14.0            14.0            15.0            14.1            14.6            14.1           100.0
TSL 1...........................................................             0.0            16.3            16.3            17.5            16.5            17.0            16.4           100.0
TSL 2...........................................................             0.0             0.0             0.0            25.9           24.45            25.3            24.3           100.0
TSL 3-5.........................................................             0.0             0.0             0.0             0.0             0.0           51.01            49.0           100.0
TSL 6...........................................................             0.0             0.0             0.0             0.0             0.0             0.0           100.0           100.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Commercial
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No-New-Standards................................................            14.1            14.0            14.0            15.0            14.1            14.6            14.1           100.0
TSL 1...........................................................             0.0            16.3            16.3            17.5            16.5            17.0            16.4           100.0
TSL 2...........................................................             0.0             0.0             0.0            25.9           24.45            25.3            24.3           100.0
TSL 3-5.........................................................             0.0             0.0             0.0             0.0             0.0            51.0            49.0           100.0
TSL 6...........................................................             0.0             0.0             0.0             0.0             0.0             0.0           100.0           100.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The total may not sum to 100% due to rounding.


[[Page 1676]]

    See chapter 7 of the NOPR TSD for further information on the 
derivation of the efficacy distributions.
10. LCC Savings Calculation
    In the reference scenario, DOE calculated the LCC savings at each 
TSL based on the change in average LCC for each standards case compared 
to the no-new-standards case, considering the efficacy distribution of 
products derived by the shipments analysis. This approach allows 
consumers to choose products that are more efficient than the standard 
level and is intended to more accurately reflect the impact of a 
potential standard on consumers.
    DOE used the consumer-choice model in the shipments analysis to 
determine the fraction of consumers that purchase each lamp option 
under a standard, but the model is unable to track the purchasing 
decision for individual consumers in the LCC sample. However, DOE must 
track any difference in purchasing decision for each consumer in the 
sample in order to determine the fraction of consumers who experience a 
net cost. Therefore, DOE assumed that the rank order of consumers, in 
terms of the efficacy of the product they purchase, is the same in the 
no-new-standards case as in the standards cases. In other words, DOE 
assumed that the consumers who purchased the most-efficacious products 
in the no-new-standards case would continue to do so in standards 
cases, and similarly, those consumers who purchased the least 
efficacious products in the no-new-standards case would continue to do 
so in standards cases. This assumption is only relevant in determining 
the fraction of consumers who experience a net cost in the LCC savings 
calculation, and has no effect on the estimated national impact of a 
potential standard.
11. Payback Period Analysis
    The payback period is the amount of time 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 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.
    As noted previously, EPCA establishes a rebuttable presumption that 
a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the 
additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying with 
an energy conservation standard level will be less than three times the 
value of the first year's energy savings resulting from the standard, 
as calculated under the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) For each considered efficiency level, DOE 
determined the value of the first year's energy savings by calculating 
the energy savings in accordance with the applicable DOE test 
procedure, and multiplying those savings by the average energy price 
projection for the first full year in which compliance with the amended 
standards would be required.
    DOE requests any relevant data and comment on the LCC and PBP 
analysis methodology. See section IX.E for a list of issues on which 
DOE seeks comment.

G. Shipments Analysis

    DOE uses projections of annual product shipments to calculate the 
national impacts of potential amended or new energy conservation 
standards on energy use, NPV, and future manufacturer cash flows.\52\ 
The shipments model takes an accounting approach, tracking market 
shares of each product class and the vintage of units in the stock. 
Stock accounting uses product shipments as inputs to estimate the age 
distribution of in-service product stocks for all years. The age 
distribution of in-service product stocks is a key input to 
calculations of both the NES and NPV, because operating costs for any 
year depend on the age distribution of the stock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ DOE uses data on manufacturer shipments as a proxy for 
national sales, as aggregate data on sales are lacking. In general, 
one would expect a close correspondence between shipments and sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Shipments Model
    The shipments model projects shipments of GSLs over a thirty-year 
analysis period for the no-new-standards case and for all standards 
cases. Consistent with the May 2022 Backstop Final Rule, DOE developed 
a shipments model that implements the 45 lm/W minimum efficiency 
requirement for GSLs in 2022 in the no-new-standards case and all 
standards cases. Accurate modeling of GSL shipments also requires 
modeling, in the years prior to 2022, the demand and market shares of 
those lamps that are eliminated by the implementation of the 45 lm/W 
minimum efficiency requirement, as well as general service fluorescent 
lamps (GSFLs), because replacements of these lamps are a source of 
demand for in-scope products.
    Separate shipments projections are calculated for the residential 
sector and for the commercial sector. The shipments model used to 
estimate GSL lamp shipments for this rulemaking has three main 
interacting elements: (1) a lamp demand module that estimates the 
demand for GSL lighting for each year of the analysis period; (2) a 
price-learning module that projects future prices based on historic 
price trends; and (3) a market-share module that assigns shipments to 
the available lamp options. DOE requests any relevant data and comment 
on the shipment analysis methodology. See section IX.E for a list of 
issues on which DOE seeks comment.
a. Lamp Demand Module
    The lamp demand module first estimates the national demand for GSLs 
in each year. The demand calculation assumes that sector-specific 
lighting capacity (maximum lumen output of installed lamps) remains 
fixed per square foot of floor space over the analysis period, and 
total floor space changes over the analysis period according to the 
EIA's AEO2022 projections of U.S. residential and commercial floor 
space.\53\ For linear lamps, DOE assumed that there is no new demand 
from floorspace growth due to the increasing prevalence of integral LED 
luminaires in new commercial construction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information 
Administration. Annual Energy Outlook 2022 with projections to 2050. 
2022. Washington, DC Report No. AEO2022. (Last accessed June 23, 
2022.) https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/AEO2022_Narrative.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE requests data or feedback that might inform the assumption that 
linear lamps (regardless of technology type) are increasingly absent 
from new construction. See section IX.E for a list of issues on which 
DOE seeks comment.
    A lamp turnover calculation estimates demand for new lamps in each 
year based on the growth of floor space in each year, the expected 
demand for replacement lamps, and sector-specific assumptions about the 
distribution of per-lamp lumen output desired by consumers. The demand 
for replacements is computed based on the historical shipments of lamps 
and the probability of lamp failure as a function of age. DOE used 
rated lamp lifetimes (in hours) and expected usage patterns in order to 
derive these probability distributions (see section VI.F.5 for further 
details on the derivation of lamp lifetime distributions).
    The lamp demand module also accounts for the reduction in GSL 
demand due to the adoption of integral LED luminaires into lighting

[[Page 1677]]

applications traditionally served by GSLs, both prior to and during the 
analysis period. For non-linear lamps in each year, an increasing 
portion of demand capped at 15 percent is assumed to be met by integral 
LED luminaires modeled as a Bass diffusion curve \54\ as in the March 
2016 NOPR. For linear lamps, DOE assumes that 8.2 percent of stock is 
replaced in each year with integrated LED fixtures in order to account 
for retrofits and renovations, and that demand comes from replacement 
of failures in the remaining stock. This annual rate of stock 
replacement is based on a projection of commercial lighting stock 
composition through 2050 produced for AEO2022.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ Bass, F.M. A New Product Growth Model for Consumer 
Durables. Management Science. 1969. 15(5): pp. 215-227.
    \55\ U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information 
Administration. Annual Energy Outlook 2022 with Projections to 2050. 
Washington, DC Report No. AEO2022. (Last accessed June 23, 2022.) 
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE requests comment on the assumption that 15 percent of demand 
will be met by integral LED luminaires.
    DOE requests input on the described method of accounting for demand 
lost to integral LED fixtures. In particular, DOE seeks information 
about the rate at which linear lamp stock is converted to integrated 
LED fixtures via retrofit or renovation. See section IX.E for a list of 
issues on which DOE seeks comment. Further details on the assumptions 
used to model these market transitions are presented in chapter 8 of 
the NOPR TSD.
    For this NOPR, DOE assumed the implementation of a 45 lm/W minimum 
efficiency requirement for GSLs in 2022, consistent with the May 2022 
Backstop Final Rule. DOE notes that CFL and LEDs make up 77 percent of 
A-line lamp sales in 2020 based on data collected from NEMA A-line lamp 
indices, indicating that the market has moved rapidly towards 
increasing production capacity for CFL and LED technologies.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ National Electrical Manufacturers Association. Lamp 
Indices. (Last accessed August 2nd, 2021.) https://www.nema.org/analytics/lamp-indices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the Integrated Omnidirectional Short product class, DOE 
developed separate shipments projections for A-line lamps and for non-
A-line lamps (candelabra, intermediate and medium-screw base lamps 
including, B, BA, C, CA, F, G and T-shape lamps) in order to capture 
the different market drivers between the two types of lamps. Based on 
an analysis of online product offerings, DOE assumed that the prices of 
lamp options at each EL would be approximately the same for A-line and 
non-A-line Integrated Omnidirectional Short lamps, but scaled the power 
consumption of non-A-line lamps to be representative of a 450 lumen 
lamp. Although modelled separately, results for A-line and non-A-line 
lamps are aggregated into the Integrated Omnidirectional Short product 
class throughout this NOPR analysis.
b. Price-Learning Module
    The price-learning module estimates lamp prices in each year of the 
analysis period using a standard price-learning model,\57\ which 
relates the price of a given technology to its cumulative production, 
as represented by total cumulative shipments. Cumulative shipments are 
determined for each GSL lighting technology under consideration in this 
analysis (CFL and LED) at the start of the analysis period and are 
augmented in each subsequent year of the analysis based on the 
shipments determined for the prior year. New prices for each lighting 
technology are calculated from the updated cumulative shipments 
according to the learning (or experience) curve for each technology. 
The current year's shipments, in turn, affect the subsequent year's 
prices. Because LED lamps are a relatively young technology, their 
cumulative shipments increase relatively rapidly and hence they undergo 
a substantial price decline during the shipments analysis period. For 
simplicity, shipments of Integrated Omnidirectional Long lamps were not 
included in the cumulative shipments total used to determine the price 
learning rate for LED GSLs, as shipments of those lamps would not 
contribute significantly to the total cumulative LED shipments or the 
resulting LED GSL learning rate, but Integrated Omnidirectional Long 
GSLs were assumed to experience the same rate of price decline as all 
LED GSLs. DOE assumed that CFLs and GSFLs undergo no price learning in 
the analysis period due to the long history of these lamps in the 
market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ Taylor, M. and S.K. Fujita. Accounting for Technological 
Change in Regulatory Impact Analyses: The Learning Curve Technique. 
2013. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory: Berkeley, CA. Report 
No. LBNL-6195E. (Last accessed August 5. 2021) https://eta.lbl.gov/publications/accounting-technological-change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Market-Share Module
    The market-share module apportions the lamp shipments in each year 
among the different lamp options developed in the engineering analysis. 
DOE used a consumer-choice model based on consumer sensitivity to lamp 
price, lifetime, energy savings, and mercury content, as measured in a 
market study, as well as on consumer preferences for lighting 
technology as revealed in historical shipments data. DOE also included 
consumer sensitivity to dimmability in the market-share model for non-
linear lamps to capture the better dimming performance of LED lamps 
relative to CFLs. Dimmability was excluded as a parameter in the 
market-share model for linear lamps, because DOE assumed that this 
feature was equivalently available among lamp options in the consumer-
choice model. GSFL substitute lamp options were included in the 
consumer-choice model for Integrated Omnidirectional Long lamps, as 
such GSFLs can serve as substitutes for linear LED lamps. Specifically, 
the 4-foot T8 lamp options described in the 2022 GSFL NOPD analysis 
(see 87 FR, 32338-32342) were included as lamp options to more 
accurately estimate the impact of any potential standard on costs and 
energy use in the broader linear lamp market.
    The market-share module assumes that, when replacing a lamp, 
consumers will choose among all of the available lamp options. 
Substitution matrices were developed to specify the product choices 
available to consumers. The available options depend on the case under 
consideration; in each of the standards cases corresponding to the 
different TSLs, only those lamp options at or above the particular 
standard level, and relevant alternative lamps, are considered to be 
available. The market-share module also incorporates a limit on the 
diffusion of LED technology into the market using the widely accepted 
Bass adoption model,\58\ the parameters of which are based on data on 
the market penetration of LED lamps published by NEMA,\59\ as discussed 
previously. In this way, the module assigns market shares to available 
lamp options, based on observations of consumer preferences.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ Bass, F.M. A New Product Growth Model for Consumer 
Durables. Management Science. 1969. 15(5): pp. 215-227.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE also used a Bass adoption model to estimate the diffusion of 
LED lamp technologies into the non-integrated product class and 
requests feedback on its assumption that non-integrated LED lamp 
options became available starting in 2015. See section IX.E for a list 
of issues on which DOE seeks comment.
    DOE requests relevant historical data on GSL shipments, 
disaggregated by product class and lamp technology, as they become 
available in order to improve the accuracy of the shipments analysis. 
See section IX.E for a list of issues on which DOE seeks comment.

[[Page 1678]]

H. National Impact Analysis

    The NIA assesses the NES and the NPV from a national perspective of 
total consumer costs and savings that would be expected to result from 
new or amended standards at specific efficiency levels.\59\ 
(``Consumer'' in this context refers to consumers of the product being 
regulated.) DOE calculates the NES and NPV for the potential standard 
levels considered based on projections of annual product shipments, 
along with the annual energy consumption and total installed cost data 
from the energy use and LCC analyses. For the present analysis, DOE 
projected the energy savings, operating cost savings, product costs, 
and NPV of consumer benefits over the lifetime of GSLs sold from 2029 
through 2058.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ The NIA accounts for impacts in the 50 states and U.S. 
territories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE evaluates the impacts of new or amended standards by comparing 
a case without such standards with standards-case projections. The no-
new-standards case characterizes energy use and consumer costs for each 
product class in the absence of new or amended energy conservation 
standards. For this projection, DOE considers historical trends in 
efficiency and various forces that are likely to affect the mix of 
efficiencies over time. DOE compares the no-new-standards case with 
projections characterizing the market for each product class if DOE 
adopted new or amended standards at specific energy efficiency levels 
(i.e., the TSLs or standards cases) for that class. For the standards 
cases, DOE considers how a given standard would likely affect the 
market shares of products with efficacies greater than the standard 
and, in the case of Integrated Omnidirectional Long lamps, out-of-scope 
alternatives such as GSFLs.
    DOE uses a model coded in the Python programming language to 
calculate the energy savings and the national consumer costs and 
savings from each TSL and presents the results in the form of a 
spreadsheet. Interested parties can review DOE's analyses by changing 
various input quantities within the spreadsheet. The NIA uses typical 
values (as opposed to probability distributions) as inputs.
    Table VI.23 summarizes the inputs and methods DOE used for the NIA 
analysis for the NOPR. Discussion of these inputs and methods are 
described in Table VI.23. See chapter 9 of the NOPR TSD for further 
details.

  Table VI.23--Summary of Inputs and Methods for the National Impact--
                                Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Inputs                               Method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shipments.........................  Annual shipments for each lamp
                                     option from shipments model for the
                                     no-new standards case and each TSL
                                     analyzed.
First Full Year of Compliance.....  2029.
No-New-Standards Case and           Both No-New-Standards Case and
 Standards-case Efficacy             Standards-case efficiency
 Distributions.                      distributions are estimated by the
                                     market-share module of the
                                     shipments analysis.
Annual Energy Consumption per Unit  Calculated for each lamp option
                                     based on inputs from the Energy Use
                                     Analysis.
Total Installed Cost per Unit.....  Uses lamp prices, and for the
                                     commercial sector only,
                                     installation costs from the LCC
                                     analysis.
Annual Operating Cost per Unit....  Calculated for each lamp option
                                     using the energy use per unit, and
                                     electricity prices and trends.
Energy Price Trends...............  AEO2022 projections (to 2050) and
                                     held fixed to 2050 value
                                     thereafter.
Energy Site-to-Primary and FFC      A time-series conversion factor
 Conversion.                         based on AEO2022.
Discount Rate.....................  3 percent and 7 percent.
Present Year......................  2022.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. National Energy Savings
    The national energy savings analysis involves a comparison of 
national energy consumption of the considered products between each 
potential standards case (TSL) and the case with no new or amended 
energy conservation standards. DOE calculated the national energy 
consumption by multiplying the number of units (stock) of each product 
(by vintage or age) by the unit energy consumption (also by vintage). 
For the unit energy consumption, DOE used average hours of use that 
were product class and sector specific (see section VI.E.1 of this 
document). DOE calculated annual NES based on the difference in 
national energy consumption for the no-new standards case and for each 
higher efficiency standard case. DOE estimated energy consumption and 
savings based on site energy and converted the electricity consumption 
and savings to primary energy (i.e., the energy consumed by power 
plants to generate site electricity) using annual conversion factors 
derived from AEO2022. Cumulative energy savings are the sum of the NES 
for each year over the timeframe of the analysis.
    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. In the case of lighting, 
the rebound effect could be manifested in increased HOU or in increased 
lighting density (lamps per square foot). DOE assumed no rebound effect 
in both the residential and commercial sectors for consumers switching 
from CFLs to LED lamps or from less efficacious LED lamps to more 
efficacious LED lamps. This is due to the relatively small incremental 
increase in efficacy between CFLs and LED GSLs or less efficacious LED 
lamps and more efficacious LED lamps, as well as an examination of 
DOE's 2001, 2010, and 2015 U.S. LMC studies, which indicates that there 
has been a reduction in total lamp operating hours in the residential 
sector concomitant with increases in lighting efficiency. Consistent 
with the residential sector, DOE does not expect there to be any 
rebound effect associated with the commercial sector. Therefore, DOE 
assumed no rebound effect in all NOPR scenarios for both the 
residential and commercial sectors.
    In 2011, in response to the recommendations of a committee on 
``Point-of-Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle Measurement Approaches to Energy 
Efficiency Standards'' appointed by the National Academy of Sciences, 
DOE announced its intention to use FFC measures of energy use and 
greenhouse gas and other emissions in the national impact analyses and 
emissions analyses included in future energy conservation standards 
rulemakings. 76 FR 51281 (Aug. 18, 2011). After evaluating the 
approaches discussed in the August 18,

[[Page 1679]]

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 \60\ that EIA uses to prepare its Annual Energy 
Outlook. The FFC factors incorporate losses in production and delivery 
in the case of natural gas (including fugitive emissions) and 
additional energy used to produce and deliver the various fuels used by 
power plants. The approach used for deriving FFC measures of energy use 
and emissions is described in appendix 9B of the NOPR TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ 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/analysis/pdfpages/0581(2009)index.php (last accessed 4/21/2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Smart Lamps
    Integrated GSLs with standby functionality, henceforth referred to 
as smart lamps, were not explicitly analyzed in the shipments analysis 
for this NOPR analysis. To account for the additional standby energy 
consumption from smart lamps in the NIA, DOE assumed that smart lamps 
would make up an increasing fraction of Integrated Omnidirectional 
Short, Integrated Directional, Non-integrated Directional, and Non-
integrated Omnidirectional lamps in the residential sector following a 
Bass adoption curve. DOE assumes for this NOPR that smart lamp 
penetration is limited to the residential sector.
    DOE requests comment on the assumption that smart lamps will reach 
50 percent market penetration by 2058. See section IX.E for a list of 
issues on which DOE seeks comment.
    DOE assumed a standby power of 0.2 W per smart lamp in alignment 
with standby requirements in California Code of Regulations--Title 20, 
as it is assumed that manufacturers would sell the same smart lamp 
models in California as in the rest of the U.S.\61\ DOE further assumed 
that the majority of smart lamps would be standalone and not require 
the need of a hub.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ California Energy Commission. California Code of 
Regulations: Title 20--Public Utilities and Energy. May 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Unit Energy Consumption Adjustment To Account for GSL Lumen 
Distribution for the Integrated Omnidirectional Short Product Class
    The engineering analysis provides representative units within the 
lumen range of 750-1049 lumens for the Integrated Omnidirectional Short 
product class. For the NIA, DOE adjusted the energy use of the 
representative units for the Integrated Omnidirectional Short product 
class to account for the full distribution of GSL lumen outputs (i.e., 
310-2600 lumens).
    Using the lumen range distribution for Integrated Omnidirectional 
Short A-line lamps from the March 2016 NOPR analysis derived from data 
provided by NRDC, DOE calculated unit energy consumption (UEC) scaling 
factors to apply to the energy use of the Integrated Omnidirectional 
Short representative lamp options by taking the ratio of the stock-
weighted wattage equivalence of the full GSL lumen distribution to the 
wattage equivalent of the representative lamp bin (750-1049 lumens). 
DOE applied a UEC scaling factor of 1.15 for the residential sector and 
1.21 for the commercial sector for Integrated Omnidirectional Short A-
line lamps.
    DOE requests comment on the methodology and assumptions used to 
determine the market share of the lumen range distributions. See 
section IX.E for a list of issues on which DOE seeks comment.
c. Unit Energy Consumption Adjustment To Account for Type A Integrated 
Omnidirectional Long Lamps
    The representative units in the engineering analysis for the 
Integrated Omnidirectional Long product class represent Type B lamp 
options. To account for Type A lamps that were not explicitly modeled, 
DOE scaled the energy consumption values of Type B Integrated 
Omnidirectional Long lamp options based on the relative energy 
consumption of equivalent Type A lamps. DOE assumed a 60/40 market 
share of Type B and Type A linear LED lamps, respectively, based on 
product offerings in the DesignLights Consortium database, which was 
held constant throughout the analysis period.
    DOE requests information on market share by lamp type and the 
composition of stock by type for Type A and Type B linear LED lamps in 
order to help refine the applied scaling. See section IX.E for a list 
of issues on which DOE seeks comment.
2. Net Present Value Analysis
    The inputs for determining the NPV of the total costs and benefits 
experienced by consumers are (1) total annual installed cost, (2) total 
annual operating costs (energy costs and repair and maintenance costs), 
and (3) a discount factor to calculate the present value of costs and 
savings. DOE calculates net savings each year as the difference between 
the no-new-standards case and each standards case in terms of total 
savings in operating costs versus total increases in installed costs. 
DOE calculates operating cost savings over the lifetime of each product 
shipped during the projection period.
    As discussed in section VI.G.1.b of this document, DOE developed 
LED lamp prices using a price-learning module incorporated in the 
shipments analysis. By 2058, which is the end date of the forecast 
period, the average LED GSL price is projected to drop 34.8 percent 
relative to 2021 in the no-new-standards case. DOE's projection of 
product prices as described in chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD.
    The operating-cost savings are primarily energy cost savings, which 
are calculated using the estimated energy savings in each year and the 
projected price of electricity. To estimate energy prices in future 
years, DOE multiplied the average national marginal electricity prices 
by the forecast of annual national-average residential or commercial 
electricity price changes in the Reference case from AEO2022, which has 
an end year of 2050. For years after 2050, DOE maintained the 2050 
electricity price. As part of the NIA, DOE also analyzed scenarios that 
used inputs from variants of the AEO2022 Reference case that have lower 
and higher economic growth. Those cases have lower and higher energy 
price trends compared to the Reference case. NIA results based on these 
cases are presented in appendix 9C of the NOPR TSD.
    In calculating the NPV, DOE multiplies the net savings in future 
years by a discount factor to determine their present value. For this 
NOPR, 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.\62\ 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

[[Page 1680]]

future consumption flows to their present value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ United States Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-
4: Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 2003. Section E. Available at 
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/legacy_drupal_files/omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf (last accessed March 25, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis

    In analyzing the potential impact of new or amended energy 
conservation standards on consumers, DOE evaluates the impact on 
identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be disproportionately 
affected by a new or amended national standard. The purpose of a 
subgroup analysis is to determine the extent of any such 
disproportional impacts. DOE evaluates impacts on particular subgroups 
of consumers by analyzing the LCC impacts and PBP for those particular 
consumers from alternative standard levels. For this NOPR, DOE analyzed 
the impacts of the considered standard levels on two subgroups--low-
income households and small businesses--using the analytical framework 
and inputs described in section VI.F of this document.
    Chapter 10 in the NOPR TSD describes the consumer subgroup 
analysis.

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis

1. Overview
    DOE performed an MIA to estimate the financial impacts of new and 
amended energy conservation standards on manufacturers of GSLs and to 
estimate the potential impacts of such standards on employment and 
manufacturing capacity. The MIA has both quantitative and qualitative 
aspects and includes analyses of projected industry cash flows, the 
INPV, as well as investments in research and development (R&D) and 
manufacturing capital. Additionally, the MIA seeks to determine how new 
and amended energy conservation standards might affect domestic 
manufacturing employment, capacity, and competition, as well as how 
standards contribute to overall regulatory burden. Finally, the MIA 
serves to identify any disproportionate impacts on manufacturer 
subgroups, including small business manufacturers.
    The quantitative part of the MIA primarily relies on the GRIM, an 
industry cash flow model with inputs specific to this rulemaking. The 
key GRIM inputs include data on the industry cost structure, unit 
production costs, product shipments, manufacturer markups, and 
investments in R&D and manufacturing capital required to produce 
compliant products. The key GRIM output is the INPV, which is the sum 
of industry annual cash flows over the analysis period, discounted 
using the industry-weighted average cost of capital. The model uses 
standard accounting principles to estimate the impacts of more-
stringent energy conservation standards on a given industry by 
comparing changes in INPV between a no-new-standards case and the 
various standards cases (i.e., TSLs). To capture the uncertainty 
relating to manufacturer pricing strategies following new and amended 
standards, the GRIM estimates a range of possible impacts under 
different manufacturer markup scenarios.
    The qualitative part of the MIA addresses manufacturer 
characteristics and market trends. Specifically, the MIA considers such 
factors as a potential standard's impact on domestic production and 
non-production employment, manufacturing capacity, competition within 
the industry, the cumulative impact of other DOE and non-DOE 
regulations, and impacts on manufacturer subgroups. The complete MIA is 
outlined in chapter 11 of the NOPR TSD.
2. Government Regulatory Impact Model and Key Inputs
    DOE uses the GRIM to quantify the changes in cash flow due to new 
and amended standards that could result in a higher or lower industry 
value. The GRIM uses an annual discounted cash-flow analysis that 
incorporates MPCs, manufacturer markups, shipments, and industry 
financial information as inputs. The GRIM models changes in costs, 
distribution of shipments, investments, and manufacturer margins that 
could result from new and amended energy conservation standards. The 
GRIM uses the inputs to arrive at a series of annual cash flows, 
beginning in 2022 (the reference year of the analysis) and continuing 
to 2058. DOE calculated INPVs by summing the stream of annual 
discounted cash flows during this period. For manufacturers of GSLs, 
DOE used a real discount rate of 6.1 percent, which was derived from 
industry financials and then modified according to feedback received 
during manufacturer interviews.
    The GRIM calculates cash flows using standard accounting principles 
and compares changes in INPV between the no-new-standards case and each 
TSL. The difference in INPV between the no-new-standards case and a 
standards case represents the financial impact of the new and amended 
energy conservation standards on GSL manufacturers. As discussed 
previously, DOE developed critical GRIM inputs using several sources, 
including publicly available data, results of the engineering analysis, 
and information gathered from industry stakeholders during manufacturer 
interviews and previous rulemaking public comments. The GRIM results 
are presented in section VII.B.2. Additional details about the GRIM, 
the discount rate, and other financial parameters can be found in 
chapter 11 of the NOPR TSD.
a. Manufacturer Production Costs
    Manufacturing more efficacious GSLs can result in changes in MPCs 
as a result of varying components and technology types necessary to 
meet standards for each TSL. Changes in MPCs for these more efficacious 
components can impact the revenue, gross margin, and cash flows of GSL 
manufacturers. Typically, DOE develops MPCs for the covered products 
using reverse-engineering. These costs are used as an input to the LCC 
analysis and NIA. However, because lamps are difficult to reverse-
engineer, DOE directly derived end-user prices and then used those 
prices in conjunction with average distribution chain markups and 
manufacturer markups to calculate the MPCs of GSLs.
    To determine MPCs of GSLs from the end-user prices, DOE divided the 
end-user price by the average distribution chain markup and then again 
by the average manufacturer markup of the representative GSLs at each 
EL. DOE used the SEC 10-Ks of publicly traded GSL manufacturers to 
estimate the manufacturer markup of 1.55 for all GSLs in this 
rulemaking. DOE used the SEC 10-Ks of the major publicly traded 
lighting retailers to estimate the distribution chain markup of 1.52 
for all GSLs.
    For a complete description of end-user prices, see the cost 
analysis in section VI.D of this document.
    DOE requests comment on the use of 1.52 as the average distribution 
chain markup for all GSLs and the use of 1.55 as the average 
manufacturer markup for all GSLs. See section IX.E for a list of issues 
on which DOE seeks comment.
b. Shipments Projections
    The GRIM estimates manufacturer revenues based on total GSL 
shipment projections and the distribution of those shipments by product 
class and EL. Changes in sales volumes and efficacy mix over time can 
significantly affect manufacturer finances. For this analysis, DOE 
developed a consumer-choice-based model to estimate shipments of GSLs. 
The model projects consumer purchases (and hence shipments) based on 
sector-specific consumer sensitivities to first cost, energy savings, 
lamp lifetime, and lamp mercury content. For a complete description of 
the shipments used in the GRIM, see the shipments

[[Page 1681]]

analysis discussion in section VI.G of this document.
c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs
    New and amended energy conservation standards could cause 
manufacturers to incur conversion costs to bring their production 
facilities and product designs into compliance. DOE evaluated the level 
of conversion-related expenditures that would be needed to comply with 
each considered 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 new 
and amended energy conservation standards. Capital conversion costs are 
investments in property, plant, and equipment necessary to adapt or 
change existing production facilities such that new compliant product 
designs can be fabricated and assembled.
    Using feedback from manufacturer interviews, DOE conducted a 
bottom-up analysis to calculate the product conversion costs for GSL 
manufacturers for each product class at each EL. To conduct this 
bottom-up analysis, DOE used manufacturer input from manufacturer 
interviews regarding the average dollar amounts or average amount of 
labor estimated to design a new product or remodel an existing model. 
DOE then estimated the number of GSL models that would need to be re-
modeled or introduced into the market for each product class at each EL 
in the standard year using DOE's database of existing GSL models and 
the distribution of shipments from the shipments analysis (see section 
VI.G).
    DOE assumed GSL manufacturers would not re-model non-compliant CFL 
models into compliant CFL models, even if it is possible for the 
remodeled CFLs to meet the analyzed energy conservation standards. 
Additionally, DOE assumed that GSL manufacturers would not need to 
introduce any new LED lamp models due to CFL models not being able to 
meet the analyzed energy conservation standards.\63\ However, DOE 
assumed that all non-compliant LED lamp models would be remodeled to 
meet the analyzed energy conservation standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ Based on the Shipment Analysis, LED lamp sales exceed 95 
percent of the total GSL sales for every analyzed product class by 
2029 (the estimated compliance year of this analysis). DOE assumed 
there are replacement LED lamps for all CFL models.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on feedback in manufacturer interviews, DOE assumed that most 
LED lamp models would be remodeled between the estimated publication of 
this rulemaking's final rule and the estimated date which energy 
conservation standards are required, even in the absence of DOE energy 
conservation standards for GSLs. Additionally, DOE estimated that 
remodeling a non-compliant LED lamp model, that would already be 
scheduled to be remodeled, into a compliant one would require an 
additional month of engineering time per LED lamp model.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ Based on feedback from manufacturers, DOE estimates that 
most LED lamp models are remodeled approximately every 2 years and 
it takes manufacturers approximately 6 months of engineering time to 
remodel one LED lamp model. DOE is therefore estimating that it 
would take manufacturers approximately 7 months (one additional 
month) to remodel a non-compliant LED lamp model into a compliant 
LED lamp model, due to the extra efficacy and any other requirement 
induced by DOE's standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE assumed that capital conversion costs would only be necessary 
if GSL manufacturers would need to increase the production volume of 
LED lamps in the standards case compared to the no-new-standards case 
and if existing LED lamp production capacity did not already exist to 
meet this additional market demand for LED lamps. Based on the 
shipments analysis, the volume of LED lamp sales in the years leading 
up to 2029, exceeds the volume of LED lamp sales in 2029 (the estimated 
first full year of compliance) for every product class at all TSLs. 
Therefore, DOE assumed no capital conversion costs as GSL manufacturers 
would not need to make any additional investments in product equipment 
to maintain, or reduce, their LED lamp production volumes from the 
previous year.
    In general, DOE assumes all conversion-related investments occur 
between the expected year of publication of the final rule and the year 
by which manufacturers must comply with the new and amended standards. 
The conversion cost figures used in the GRIM can be found in section 
VII.B.2 of this document. For additional information on the estimated 
capital and product conversion costs, see chapter 11 of the NOPR TSD.
    DOE requests comment on the methodology used to calculate product 
and capital conversion costs for GSLs in this NOPR. Specifically, DOE 
requests comment on whether GSL manufacturers would incur any capital 
conversion costs, given the decline in LED lamp sales leading up to the 
compliance year for all TSLs. If capital conversion costs would be 
incurred, DOE requests these costs be quantified, if possible. 
Additionally, DOE requests comment on the estimated product conversion 
costs; the assumption that most LED lamp models would be remodeled 
between the estimated publication of this rulemaking's final rule and 
the estimated date which energy conservation standards are required, 
even in the no-new-standards case; and the estimated additional 
engineering time to remodel LED lamp models to comply with the analyzed 
TSLs. See section IX.E for a list of issues on which DOE seeks comment.
d. Markup Scenarios
    As previous discussed in section VI.J.2.a, the MPCs for GSLs are 
the manufacturers' costs for those units. These costs include 
materials, labor, depreciation, and overhead, which are collectively 
referred to as the cost of goods sold (COGS). The MSP is the price 
received by GSL manufacturers from their consumers, typically a 
distributor, regardless of the downstream distribution channel through 
which the GSLs are ultimately sold. The MSP is not the cost the end-
user pays for GSLs because there are typically multiple sales along the 
distribution chain and various markups applied to each sale. The MSP 
equals the MPC multiplied by the manufacturer markup. The manufacturer 
markup covers all the GSL manufacturer's non-production costs (i.e., 
selling, general and administrative expenses (SG&A); R&D; interest) as 
well as profit. Total industry revenue for GSL manufacturers equals the 
MSPs at each product class and EL multiplied by the number of shipments 
at that product class and EL. Modifying these manufacturer markups in 
the standards cases yields different sets of impacts on manufacturers.
    For the MIA, DOE modeled two standards-case manufacturer markup 
scenarios to represent uncertainty regarding the potential impacts on 
prices and profitability for manufacturers following the implementation 
of new and amended energy conservation standards: (1) a preservation of 
gross margin scenario; and (2) a preservation of operating profit 
scenario. These scenarios lead to different manufacturer margins that, 
when applied to the MPCs, result in varying revenue and cash flow 
impacts on GSL manufacturers.
    Under the preservation of gross margin scenario, DOE assumes the 
COGS for each product is marked up by a fixed percentage to cover SG&A 
expenses, R&D expenses, interest expenses, and profit. This allows 
manufacturers to preserve the same

[[Page 1682]]

gross margin, as a percentage, in the standards cases as in the no-new-
standards case, despite higher MPCs. In this manufacturer markup 
scenario, GSL manufacturers fully pass on any additional MPC increase 
due to standards to their consumers. As previously discussed in section 
VI.J.2.a, DOE used a manufacturer markup of 1.55 for all GSLs in the 
no-new standards case. DOE used this same manufacturer markup for all 
TSLs in the preservation of gross margin scenario. This manufacturer 
markup scenario represents the upper-bound of manufacturer INPV and is 
the manufacturer markup scenario used to calculate the economic impacts 
on consumers.
    Under the preservation of operating profit scenario, DOE modeled a 
situation in which manufacturers are not able to increase per-unit 
operating profit in proportion to increases in MPCs in the standards 
cases. Under this scenario, as the cost of production increases, 
manufacturers reduce the manufacturer margins to maintain a cost 
competitive offering in the market. Therefore, gross margin (as a 
percentage) shrinks in the standards cases. This manufacturer markup 
scenario represents the lower-bound to industry profitability under new 
and amended energy conservation standards.
    A comparison of industry financial impacts under the two 
manufacturer markup scenarios is presented in section VII.B.2.a of this 
document.

K. Emissions Analysis

    The emissions analysis consists of two components. The first 
component estimates the effect of potential energy conservation 
standards on power sector and site (where applicable) combustion 
emissions of CO2, NOX, SO2, and Hg. 
The second component estimates the impacts of potential standards on 
emissions of two additional greenhouse gases, CH4 and 
N2O, as well as the reductions to emissions of other gases 
due to ``upstream'' activities in the fuel production chain. These 
upstream activities comprise extraction, processing, and transporting 
fuels to the site of combustion.
    The analysis of electric power sector emissions of CO2, 
NOX, SO2, and Hg uses emissions factors intended 
to represent the marginal impacts of the change in electricity 
consumption associated with amended or new standards. The methodology 
is based on results published for the AEO, including a set of side 
cases that implement a variety of efficiency-related policies. The 
methodology is described in appendix 12A in the NOPR TSD. The analysis 
presented in this rulemaking uses projections from AEO2022. Power 
sector emissions of CH4 and N2O from fuel 
combustion are estimated using Emission Factors for Greenhouse Gas 
Inventories published by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ Available at www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2021-04/documents/emission-factors_apr2021.pdf (last accessed August 4, 
2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FFC upstream emissions, which include emissions from fuel 
combustion during extraction, processing, and transportation of fuels, 
and ``fugitive'' emissions (direct leakage to the atmosphere) of 
CH4 and CO2, are estimated based on the 
methodology described in chapter 14 of the NOPR TSD.
    The emissions intensity factors are expressed in terms of physical 
units per megawatt-hours (MWh) or million British thermal units (MMBtu) 
of site energy savings. For power sector emissions, specific emissions 
intensity factors are calculated by sector and end use. Total emissions 
reductions are estimated using the energy savings calculated in the 
national impact analysis.
1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated in DOE's Analysis
    DOE's no-new-standards case for the electric power sector reflects 
the AEO, which incorporates the projected impacts of existing air 
quality regulations on emissions. AEO2022 generally represents current 
legislation and environmental regulations, including recent government 
actions, that were in place at the time of preparation of AEO2022, 
including the emissions control programs discussed in the following 
paragraphs.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ For further information, see the Assumptions to AEO2022 
report that sets forth the major assumptions used to generate the 
projections in the Annual Energy Outlook. Available at https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/assumptions/ (last accessed June 23, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SO2 emissions from affected electric generating units 
(EGUs) are subject to nationwide and regional emissions cap-and-trade 
programs. Title IV of the Clean Air Act sets an annual emissions cap on 
SO2 for affected EGUs in the 48 contiguous States and the 
District of Columbia (DC). (42 U.S.C. 7651 et seq.) SO2 
emissions from numerous States in the eastern half of the United States 
are also limited under the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). 76 
FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011). CSAPR requires these States to reduce certain 
emissions, including annual SO2 emissions; it went into 
effect in 2015 and has been subsequently updated.\67\ AEO2022 
incorporates implementation of CSAPR, including the Revised CSAPR 
Update issued in 2021. Compliance with CSAPR is flexible among EGUs and 
is enforced through the use of tradable emissions allowances. Under 
existing EPA regulations, for states subject to SO2 
emissions limits under CSAPR, any excess SO2 emissions 
allowances resulting from the lower electricity demand caused by the 
adoption of an efficiency standard could be used to permit offsetting 
increases in SO2 emissions by another regulated EGU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ CSAPR requires states to address annual emissions of 
SO2 and NOX, precursors to the formation of 
fine particulate matter (PM2.5) pollution, in order to 
address the interstate transport of pollution by attaining and 
maintaining compliance with the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). CSAPR also requires 
certain states to address the ozone season (May-September) emissions 
of NOX, a precursor to the formation of ozone pollution, 
in order to address the interstate transport of ozone pollution with 
respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 76 FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011). EPA 
subsequently issued a supplemental rule that included an additional 
five states in the CSAPR ozone season program; 76 FR 80760 (Dec. 27, 
2011) (Supplemental Rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Beginning in 2016, SO2 emissions began to fall as a 
result of implementation of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) 
for power plants. 77 FR 9304 (Feb. 16, 2012). In the MATS final rule, 
EPA established a standard for hydrogen chloride as a surrogate for 
acid gas hazardous air pollutants (HAP), and also established a 
standard for SO2 (a non-HAP acid gas) as an alternative 
equivalent surrogate standard for acid gas HAP. The same controls are 
used to reduce HAP and non-HAP acid gas; thus, SO2 emissions 
are being reduced as a result of the control technologies installed on 
coal-fired power plants to comply with the MATS requirements for acid 
gas. In order to continue operating, coal power plants must have either 
flue gas desulfurization or dry sorbent injection systems installed. 
Both technologies, which are used to reduce acid gas emissions, also 
reduce SO2 emissions. Because of the emissions reductions 
under the MATS, it is unlikely that excess SO2 emissions 
allowances resulting from the lower electricity demand would be needed 
or used to permit offsetting increases in SO2 emissions by 
another regulated EGU. Therefore, energy conservation standards that 
decrease electricity generation would generally reduce SO2 
emissions. DOE estimated SO2 emissions reduction using 
emissions factors based on AEO2022.
    CSAPR also established limits on NOX emissions for 
numerous States in the

[[Page 1683]]

eastern half of the United States. Energy conservation standards would 
have little effect on NOX emissions in those States covered 
by CSAPR emissions limits if excess NOX emissions allowances 
resulting from the lower electricity demand could be used to permit 
offsetting increases in NOX emissions from other EGUs. In 
such case, NOX emissions would remain near the limit even if 
electricity generation goes down. A different case could possibly 
result, depending on the configuration of the power sector in the 
different regions and the need for allowances, such that NOX 
emissions might not remain at the limit in the case of lower 
electricity demand. In this case, energy conservation standards might 
reduce NOX emissions in covered States. Despite this 
possibility, DOE has chosen to be conservative in its analysis and has 
maintained the assumption that standards will not reduce NOX 
emissions in States covered by CSAPR. Energy conservation standards 
would be expected to reduce NOX emissions in the States not 
covered by CSAPR.
    The MATS limit mercury emissions from power plants, but they do not 
include emissions caps and, as such, DOE's energy conservation 
standards would be expected to slightly reduce Hg emissions. DOE 
estimated mercury emissions reduction using emissions factors based on 
AEO2022, which incorporates the MATS.

L. Monetizing Emissions Impacts

    As part of the development of this proposed rule, for the purpose 
of complying with the requirements of Executive Order 12866, DOE 
considered the estimated monetary climate and health benefits from the 
reduced emissions of CO2, CH4, N2O, 
NOX, and SO2 that are expected to result from 
each of the TSLs considered. In order to make this calculation 
analogous to the calculation of the NPV of consumer benefit, DOE 
considered the reduced emissions expected to result over the lifetime 
of products shipped in the projection period for each TSL. This section 
summarizes the basis for the values used for monetizing the emissions 
benefits and presents the values considered in this NOPR.
1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
    On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-
30087) granted the federal government's emergency motion for stay 
pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued 
in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a result of 
the Fifth Circuit's order, the preliminary injunction is no longer in 
effect, pending resolution of the federal government's appeal of that 
injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the 
preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that case from 
``adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon'' the 
interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases--which were 
issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of 
Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021--to monetize the benefits of 
reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As reflected in this proposed rule, 
DOE has reverted to its approach prior to the injunction and presents 
monetized greenhouse gas abatement benefits where appropriate and 
permissible under law. DOE requests comment on how to address the 
climate benefits and other effects of the proposal. See section IX.E 
for a list of issues on which DOE seeks comment.
    DOE estimates the monetized benefits of the reductions in emissions 
of CO2, CH4, and N2O by using a 
measure of the social cost (SC) of each pollutant (e.g., SC-
CO2). These estimates represent the monetary value of the 
net harm to society associated with a marginal increase in emissions of 
these pollutants in a given year, or the benefit of avoiding that 
increase. These estimates are intended to include (but are not limited 
to) climate-change-related changes in net agricultural productivity, 
human health, property damages from increased flood risk, disruption of 
energy systems, risk of conflict, environmental migration, and the 
value of ecosystem services.
    DOE exercises its own judgment in presenting monetized climate 
benefits as recommended by applicable Executive Orders, and DOE would 
reach the same conclusion presented in this rulemaking in the absence 
of the social cost of greenhouse gases, including the February 2021 
Interim Estimates presented by the Interagency Working Group on the 
Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases. DOE estimated the global social 
benefits of CO2, CH4, and N2O 
reductions (i.e., SC-GHGs) using the estimates presented in the 
Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous 
Oxide Interim Estimates under Executive Order 13990, published in 
February 2021 by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of 
Greenhouse Gases (IWG).\68\ The SC-GHGs is the monetary value of the 
net harm to society associated with a marginal increase in emissions in 
a given year, or the benefit of avoiding that increase. In principle, 
SC-GHGs includes the value of all climate change impacts, including 
(but not limited to) changes in net agricultural productivity, human 
health effects, property damage from increased flood risk and natural 
disasters, disruption of energy systems, risk of conflict, 
environmental migration, and the value of ecosystem services. The SC-
GHGs therefore, reflects the societal value of reducing emissions of 
the gas in question by one metric ton. The SC-GHGs is the theoretically 
appropriate value to use in conducting benefit-cost analyses of 
policies that affect CO2, N2O and CH4 
emissions. As a member of the IWG involved in the development of the 
February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, the DOE agrees that the interim SC-GHG 
estimates represent the most appropriate estimate of the SC-GHG until 
revised estimates have been developed reflecting the latest, peer-
reviewed science.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ See Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse 
Gases, Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, 
and Nitrous Oxide. Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990, 
Washington, DC, February 2021. Available at: www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf 
(last accessed March 17, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SC-GHGs estimates presented here were developed over many 
years, using transparent process, peer-reviewed methodologies, the best 
science available at the time of that process, and with input from the 
public. Specifically, in 2009, an IWG that included the DOE and other 
executive branch agencies and offices was established to ensure that 
agencies were using the best available science and to promote 
consistency in the social cost of carbon (SC-CO2) values 
used across agencies. The IWG published SC-CO2 estimates in 
2010 that were developed from an ensemble of three widely cited 
integrated assessment models (IAMs) that estimate global climate 
damages using highly aggregated representations of climate processes 
and the global economy combined into a single modeling framework. The 
three IAMs were run using a common set of input assumptions in each 
model for future population, economic, and CO2 emissions 
growth, as well as equilibrium climate sensitivity--a measure of the 
globally averaged temperature response to increased atmospheric 
CO2 concentrations. These estimates were updated in 2013 
based on new versions of each IAM. In August 2016 the IWG published 
estimates of the social cost of methane (SC-CH4) and nitrous 
oxide (SC-N2O) using

[[Page 1684]]

methodologies that are consistent with the methodology underlying the 
SC-CO2 estimates. The modeling approach that extends the IWG 
SC-CO2 methodology to non-CO2 GHGs has undergone 
multiple stages of peer review. The SC-CH4 and SC-
N2O estimates were developed by Marten et al. and underwent 
a standard double-blind peer review process prior to journal 
publication.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ Marten, A.L., E.A. Kopits, C.W. Griffiths, S.C. Newbold, 
and A. Wolverton. Incremental CH4 and N2O mitigation 
benefits consistent with the U.S. Government's SC-CO2 
estimates. Climate Policy. 2015. 15(2): pp. 272-298.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2015, as part of the response to public comments received to a 
2013 solicitation for comments on the SC-CO2 estimates, the 
IWG announced a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and 
Medicine review of the SC-CO2 estimates to offer advice on 
how to approach future updates to ensure that the estimates continue to 
reflect the best available science and methodologies. In January 2017, 
the National Academies released their final report, Valuing Climate 
Damages: Updating Estimation of the Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide, and 
recommended specific criteria for future updates to the SC-
CO2 estimates, a modeling framework to satisfy the specified 
criteria, and both near-term updates and longer-term research needs 
pertaining to various components of the estimation process.\70\ Shortly 
thereafter, in March 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order 
13783, which disbanded the IWG, withdrew the previous TSDs, and 
directed agencies to ensure SC-CO2 estimates used in 
regulatory analyses are consistent with the guidance contained in OMB's 
Circular A-4, ``including with respect to the consideration of domestic 
versus international impacts and the consideration of appropriate 
discount rates'' (E.O. 13783, Section 5(c)). Benefit-cost analyses 
following E.O. 13783 used SC-GHG estimates that attempted to focus on 
the U.S.-specific share of climate change damages as estimated by the 
models and were calculated using two discount rates recommended by 
Circular A-4, 3 percent and 7 percent. All other methodological 
decisions and model versions used in SC-GHG calculations remained the 
same as those used by the IWG in 2010 and 2013, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 
Valuing Climate Damages: Updating Estimation of the Social Cost of 
Carbon Dioxide. 2017. The National Academies Press: Washington, DC. 
(Last accessed September 28, 2021.) https://www.nap.edu/catalog/24651/valuing-climate-damages-updating-estimation-of-the-social-cost-of.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 20, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 13990, 
which re-established the IWG and directed it to ensure that the U.S. 
Government's estimates of the social cost of carbon and other 
greenhouse gases reflect the best available science and the 
recommendations of the National Academies (2017). The IWG was tasked 
with first reviewing the SC-GHG estimates currently used in Federal 
analyses and publishing interim estimates within 30 days of the E.O. 
that reflect the full impact of GHG emissions, including by taking 
global damages into account. The interim SC-GHG estimates published in 
February 2021 are used here to estimate the climate benefits for this 
proposed rulemaking. The E.O. instructs the IWG to undertake a fuller 
update of the SC-GHG estimates by January 2022 that takes into 
consideration the advice of the National Academies (2017) and other 
recent scientific literature. The February 2021 SC-GHG TSD provides a 
complete discussion of the IWG's initial review conducted under E.O. 
13990. In particular, the IWG found that the SC-GHG estimates used 
under E.O. 13783 fail to reflect the full impact of GHG emissions in 
multiple ways.
    First, the IWG found that the SC-GHG estimates used under E.O. 
13783 fail to fully capture many climate impacts that affect the 
welfare of U.S. citizens and residents, and those impacts are better 
reflected by global measures of the SC-GHG. Examples of omitted effects 
from the E.O. 13783 estimates include direct effects on U.S. citizens, 
assets, and investments located abroad, supply chains, U.S. military 
assets and interests abroad, and tourism, and spillover pathways such 
as economic and political destabilization and global migration that can 
lead to adverse impacts on U.S. national security, public health, and 
humanitarian concerns. In addition, assessing the benefits of U.S. GHG 
mitigation activities requires consideration of how those actions may 
affect mitigation activities by other countries, as those international 
mitigation actions will provide a benefit to U.S. citizens and 
residents by mitigating climate impacts that affect U.S. citizens and 
residents. A wide range of scientific and economic experts have 
emphasized the issue of reciprocity as support for considering global 
damages of GHG emissions. If the United States does not consider 
impacts on other countries, it is difficult to convince other countries 
to consider the impacts of their emissions on the United States. The 
only way to achieve an efficient allocation of resources for emissions 
reduction on a global basis--and so benefit the U.S. and its citizens--
is for all countries to base their policies on global estimates of 
damages. As a member of the IWG involved in the development of the 
February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, DOE agrees with this assessment and, 
therefore, in this proposed rule DOE centers attention on a global 
measure of SC-GHG. This approach is the same as that taken in DOE 
regulatory analyses from 2012 through 2016. A robust estimate of 
climate damages to U.S. citizens and residents does not currently exist 
in the literature. As explained in the February 2021 TSD, existing 
estimates are both incomplete and an underestimate of total damages 
that accrue to the citizens and residents of the U.S. because they do 
not fully capture the regional interactions and spillovers discussed 
above, nor do they include all of the important physical, ecological, 
and economic impacts of climate change recognized in the climate change 
literature. As noted in the February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, the IWG will 
continue to review developments in the literature, including more 
robust methodologies for estimating U.S.-specific SC-GHG values, and 
explore ways to better inform the public of the full range of carbon 
impacts. As a member of the IWG, DOE will continue to follow 
developments in the literature pertaining to this issue.
    Second, the IWG found that the use of the social rate of return on 
capital (7 percent under current OMB Circular A-4 guidance) to discount 
the future benefits of reducing GHG emissions inappropriately 
underestimates the impacts of climate change for the purposes of 
estimating the SC-GHG. Consistent with the findings of the National 
Academies (2017) and the economic literature, the IWG continued to 
conclude that the consumption rate of interest is the theoretically 
appropriate discount rate in an intergenerational context, and 
recommended that discount rate uncertainty and relevant aspects of 
intergenerational ethical considerations be accounted for in selecting 
future discount rates.71 72 73 74
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon. Social 
Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis under Executive Order 
12866. 2010. United States Government. (Last accessed May 18, 2022.) 
www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-12/documents/scc_tsd_2010.pdf.
    \72\ Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon. 
Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact 
Analysis Under Executive Order 12866. 2013. (Last accessed May 18, 
2022.) www.federalregister.gov/documents/2013/11/26/2013-28242/technical-support-document-technical-update-of-the-social-cost-of-carbon-for-regulatory-impact.
    \73\ Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse 
Gases, United States Government. Technical Support Document: 
Technical Update on the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact 
Analysis-Under Executive Order 12866. August 2016. (Last accessed 
January 18, 2022.) https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-12/documents/sc_co2_tsd_august_2016.pdf.
    \74\ Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse 
Gases, United States Government. Addendum to Technical Support 
Document on Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis 
under Executive Order 12866: Application of the Methodology to 
Estimate the Social Cost of Methane and the Social Cost of Nitrous 
Oxide. August 2016. (Last accessed January 18, 2022.) https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-12/documents/addendum_to_sc-ghg_tsd_august_2016.pdf.

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

[[Page 1685]]

    Furthermore, the damage estimates developed for use in the SC-GHG 
are estimated in consumption-equivalent terms, and so an application of 
OMB Circular A-4's guidance for regulatory analysis would then use the 
consumption discount rate to calculate the SC-GHG. DOE agrees with this 
assessment and will continue to follow developments in the literature 
pertaining to this issue. DOE also notes that while OMB Circular A-4, 
as published in 2003, recommends using 3% and 7% discount rates as 
``default'' values, Circular A-4 also reminds agencies that ``different 
regulations may call for different emphases in the analysis, depending 
on the nature and complexity of the regulatory issues and the 
sensitivity of the benefit and cost estimates to the key assumptions.'' 
On discounting, Circular A-4 recognizes that ``special ethical 
considerations arise when comparing benefits and costs across 
generations,'' and Circular A-4 acknowledges that analyses may 
appropriately ``discount future costs and consumption benefits. . . at 
a lower rate than for intragenerational analysis.'' In the 2015 
Response to Comments on the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact 
Analysis, OMB, DOE, and the other IWG members recognized that 
``Circular A-4 is a living document'' and ``the use of 7 percent is not 
considered appropriate for intergenerational discounting. There is wide 
support for this view in the academic literature, and it is recognized 
in Circular A-4 itself.'' Thus, DOE concludes that a 7% discount rate 
is not appropriate to apply to value the social cost of greenhouse 
gases in the analysis presented in this analysis. In this analysis, to 
calculate the present and annualized values of climate benefits, DOE 
uses the same discount rate as the rate used to discount the value of 
damages from future GHG emissions, for internal consistency. That 
approach to discounting follows the same approach that the February 
2021 TSD recommends ``to ensure internal consistency--i.e., future 
damages from climate change using the SC-GHG at 2.5 percent should be 
discounted to the base year of the analysis using the same 2.5 percent 
rate.'' DOE has also consulted the National Academies' 2017 
recommendations on how SC-GHG estimates can ``be combined in RIAs with 
other cost and benefits estimates that may use different discount 
rates.'' The National Academies reviewed ``several options,'' including 
``presenting all discount rate combinations of other costs and benefits 
with [SC-GHG] estimates.''
    As a member of the IWG involved in the development of the February 
2021 SC-GHG TSD, DOE agrees with this assessment and will continue to 
follow developments in the literature pertaining to this issue. While 
the IWG works to assess how best to incorporate the latest, peer 
reviewed science to develop an updated set of SC-GHG estimates, it set 
the interim estimates to be the most recent estimates developed by the 
IWG prior to the group being disbanded in 2017. The estimates rely on 
the same models and harmonized inputs and are calculated using a range 
of discount rates. As explained in the February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, the 
IWG has recommended that agencies use the same set of four values drawn 
from the SC-GHG distributions based on three discount rates and subject 
to public comment. For each discount rate, the IWG combined the 
distributions across models and socioeconomic emissions scenarios 
(applying equal weight to each) and then selected a set of four values 
recommended for use in benefit-cost analyses: an average value 
resulting from the model runs for each of three discount rates (2.5 
percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent), plus a fourth value, selected as 
the 95th percentile of estimates based on a 3 percent discount rate. 
The fourth value was included to provide information on potentially 
higher-than-expected economic impacts from climate change. As explained 
in the February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, and DOE agrees, this update reflects 
the immediate need to have operational SC-GHG values for use in 
regulatory benefit-cost analyses and other applications that were 
developed using a transparent process, peer-reviewed methodologies, and 
the science available at the time of that process. Those estimates were 
subject to public comment in the context of dozens of proposed 
rulemakings as well as in a dedicated public comment period in 2013.
    There are a number of limitations and uncertainties associated with 
the SC-GHG estimates. First, the current scientific and economic 
understanding of discounting approaches suggests discount rates 
appropriate for intergenerational analysis in the context of climate 
change are likely to be less than 3 percent, near 2 percent or 
lower.\75\ Second, the IAMs used to produce these interim estimates do 
not include all of the important physical, ecological, and economic 
impacts of climate change recognized in the climate change literature 
and the science underlying their ``damage functions''--i.e., the core 
parts of the IAMs that map global mean temperature changes and other 
physical impacts of climate change into economic (both market and 
nonmarket) damages--lags behind the most recent research. For example, 
limitations include the incomplete treatment of catastrophic and non-
catastrophic impacts in the integrated assessment models, their 
incomplete treatment of adaptation and technological change, the 
incomplete way in which inter-regional and intersectoral linkages are 
modeled, uncertainty in the extrapolation of damages to high 
temperatures, and inadequate representation of the relationship between 
the discount rate and uncertainty in economic growth over long time 
horizons. Likewise, the socioeconomic and emissions scenarios used as 
inputs to the models do not reflect new information from the last 
decade of scenario generation or the full range of projections. The 
modeling limitations do not all work in the same direction in terms of 
their influence on the SC-CO2 estimates. However, as 
discussed in the February 2021 TSD, the IWG has recommended that, taken 
together, the limitations suggest that the interim SC-GHG estimates 
used in this final rule likely underestimate the damages from GHG 
emissions. DOE concurs with this assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse 
Gases (IWG). 2021. Technical Support Document: Social Cost of 
Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates under Executive 
Order 13990. February. United States Government. Available at: 
<https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/blog/2021/02/26/a-return-to-science-evidence-based-estimates-of-the-benefits-of-reducing-climate-pollution/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE's derivations of the SC-CO2, SC-N2O, and 
SC-CH4 values used for this NOPR are discussed in the 
following sections, and the results of DOE's analyses estimating the 
benefits of the reductions in emissions of these pollutants are 
presented in section VII.B.6.

[[Page 1686]]

a. Social Cost of Carbon
    The SC-CO2 values used for this NOPR were generated 
using the values presented in the 2021 update from the IWG's February 
2021 TSD. Table VI.24 shows the updated sets of SC-CO2 
estimates from the latest interagency update in 5-year increments from 
2020 to 2050. The full set of annual values used is presented in 
Appendix 13A of the NOPR TSD. For purposes of capturing the 
uncertainties involved in regulatory impact analysis, DOE has 
determined it is appropriate include all four sets of SC-CO2 
values, as recommended by the IWG.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ For example, the February 2021 TSD discusses how the 
understanding of discounting approaches suggests that discount rates 
appropriate for intergenerational analysis in the context of climate 
change may be lower than 3 percent.

                    Table VI.24--Annual SC-CO2 Values From 2021 Interagency Update, 2020-2050
                                           [2020$ per metric ton CO2]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Discount rate
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        5%              3%             2.5%             3%
                      Year                       ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       95th
                                                      Average         Average         Average       percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020............................................              14              51              76             152
2025............................................              17              56              83             169
2030............................................              19              62              89             187
2035............................................              22              67              96             206
2040............................................              25              73             103             225
2045............................................              28              79             110             242
2050............................................              32              85             116             260
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For 2051 to 2070, DOE used SC-CO2 estimates published by 
EPA, adjusted to 2021$.\77\ These estimates are based on methods, 
assumptions, and parameters identical to the 2020-2050 estimates 
published by the IWG. DOE expects additional climate benefits to accrue 
for any longer-life GSLs after 2070, but a lack of available SC-CO2 
estimates for emissions years beyond 2070 prevents DOE from monetizing 
these potential benefits in this analysis. If further analysis of 
monetized climate benefits beyond 2070 becomes available prior to the 
publication of the final rule, DOE will include that analysis in the 
final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ See EPA, Revised 2023 and Later Model Year Light-Duty 
Vehicle GHG Emissions Standards: Regulatory Impact Analysis, 
Washington, DC, December 2021. Available at: www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-12/420r21028.pdf (last accessed January 13, 
2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE multiplied the CO2 emissions reduction estimated for 
each year by the SC-CO2 value for that year in each of the 
four cases. DOE adjusted the values to 2021$ using the implicit price 
deflator for gross domestic product (GDP) from the Bureau of Economic 
Analysis. To calculate a present value of the stream of monetary 
values, DOE discounted the values in each of the four cases using the 
specific discount rate that had been used to obtain the SC-
CO2 values in each case.
b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous Oxide
    The SC-CH4 and SC-N2O values used for this 
NOPR were generated using the values presented in the February 2021 
TSD. Table VI.25 shows the updated sets of SC-CH4 and SC-
N2O estimates from the latest interagency update in 5-year 
increments from 2020 to 2050. The full set of annual values used is 
presented in Appendix 13A of the NOPR TSD. To capture the uncertainties 
involved in regulatory impact analysis, DOE has determined it is 
appropriate to include all four sets of SC-CH4 and SC-
N2O values, as recommended by the IWG. DOE derived values 
after 2050 using the approach described above for the SC-
CO2.

                                  Table VI.25--Annual SC-CH4 and SC-N2O Values From 2021 Interagency Update, 2020-2050
                                                                 [2020$ per metric ton]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 SC-CH4                                        SC-N2O
                                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Discount rate and statistic                   Discount rate and statistic
                                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Year                                 5%        3%       2.5%          3%           5%        3%       2.5%          3%
                                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 95th                                          95th
                                                               Average   Average   Average    percentile     Average   Average   Average    percentile
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020........................................................       670     1,500     2,000           3,900     5,800    18,000    27,000          48,000
2025........................................................       800     1,700     2,200           4,500     6,800    21,000    30,000          54,000
2030........................................................       940     2,000     2,500           5,200     7,800    23,000    33,000          60,000
2035........................................................     1,100     2,200     2,800           6,000     9,000    25,000    36,000          67,000
2040........................................................     1,300     2,500     3,100           6,700    10,000    28,000    39,000          74,000
2045........................................................     1,500     2,800     3,500           7,500    12,000    30,000    42,000          81,000
2050........................................................     1,700     3,100     3,800           8,200    13,000    33,000    45,000          88,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1687]]

    DOE multiplied the CH4 and N2O emissions 
reduction estimated for each year by the SC-CH4 and SC-
N2O estimates for that year in each of the cases. DOE 
adjusted the values to 2021$ using the implicit price deflator for 
gross domestic product (GDP) from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. To 
calculate a present value of the stream of monetary values, DOE 
discounted the values in each of the cases using the specific discount 
rate that had been used to obtain the SC-CH4 and SC-
N2O estimates in each case.
2. Monetization of Other Air Pollutants
    For the NOPR, DOE estimated the monetized value of NOX 
and SO2 emissions reductions from electricity generation 
using the latest benefit per ton estimates for that sector from the 
EPA's Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program.\78\ DOE used EPA's values 
for PM2.5-related benefits associated with NOX 
and SO2 and for ozone-related benefits associated with 
NOX for 2025, 2030, 2035, and 2040, calculated with discount 
rates of 3 percent and 7 percent. DOE used linear interpolation to 
define values for the years not given in the 2025 to 2040 period; for 
years beyond 2040 the values are held constant. DOE derived values 
specific to the sector for GSLs using a method described in appendix 
13B of the NOPR TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ Estimating the Benefit per Ton of Reducing PM2.5 
Precursors from 21 Sectors.. www.epa.gov/benmap/estimating-benefit-ton-reducing-pm25-precursors-21-sectors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE multiplied the site emissions reduction (in tons) in each year 
by the associated $/ton values, and then discounted each series using 
discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent as appropriate. Additional 
details on the monetization of NOX and SO2 
emissions reductions are included in chapter 13 of the NOPR TSD.

M. Utility Impact Analysis

    The utility impact analysis estimates the changes in installed 
electrical capacity and generation that would result for each 
considered TSL. The analysis is based on published output from the NEMS 
associated with AEO2022. NEMS produces the AEO Reference case, as well 
as a number of side cases that estimate the economy-wide impacts of 
changes to energy supply and demand. For the current analysis, impacts 
are quantified by comparing the levels of electricity sector 
generation, installed capacity, fuel consumption and emissions in the 
AEO2022 Reference case and various side cases. Details of the 
methodology are provided in the appendices to chapters 12 and 14 of the 
NOPR TSD.
    The output of this analysis is a set of time-dependent coefficients 
that capture the change in electricity generation, primary fuel 
consumption, installed capacity and power sector emissions due to a 
unit reduction in demand for a given end use. These coefficients are 
multiplied by the stream of electricity savings calculated in the NIA 
to provide estimates of selected utility impacts of potential new or 
amended energy conservation standards.

N. Employment Impact Analysis

    DOE considers employment impacts in the domestic economy as one 
factor in selecting a proposed standard. Employment impacts from new or 
amended energy conservation standards include both direct and indirect 
impacts. Direct employment impacts are any changes in the number of 
employees of manufacturers of the products subject to standards, their 
suppliers, and related service firms. The MIA addresses those impacts. 
Indirect employment impacts are changes in national employment that 
occur due to the shift in expenditures and capital investment caused by 
the purchase and operation of more-efficient appliances. Indirect 
employment impacts from standards consist of the net jobs created or 
eliminated in the national economy, other than in the manufacturing 
sector being regulated, caused by (1) reduced spending by consumers on 
energy, (2) reduced spending on new energy supply by the utility 
industry, (3) increased consumer spending on the products to which the 
new standards apply and other goods and services, and (4) the effects 
of those three factors throughout the economy.
    One method for assessing the possible effects on the demand for 
labor of such shifts in economic activity is to compare sector 
employment statistics developed by the Labor Department's Bureau of 
Labor Statistics (BLS). BLS regularly publishes its estimates of the 
number of jobs per million dollars of economic activity in different 
sectors of the economy, as well as the jobs created elsewhere in the 
economy by this same economic activity. Data from BLS indicate that 
expenditures in the utility sector generally create fewer jobs (both 
directly and indirectly) than expenditures in other sectors of the 
economy.\79\ There are many reasons for these differences, including 
wage differences and the fact that the utility sector is more capital-
intensive and less labor-intensive than other sectors. Energy 
conservation standards have the effect of reducing consumer utility 
bills. Because reduced consumer expenditures for energy likely lead to 
increased expenditures in other sectors of the economy, the general 
effect of efficiency standards is to shift economic activity from a 
less labor-intensive sector (i.e., the utility sector) to more labor-
intensive sectors (e.g., the retail and service sectors). Thus, the BLS 
data suggest that net national employment may increase due to shifts in 
economic activity resulting from energy conservation standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ See U.S. Department of Commerce--Bureau of Economic 
Analysis. Regional Multipliers: A User Handbook for the Regional 
Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS II). 1997. U.S. Government 
Printing Office: Washington, DC. Available at https://apps.bea.gov/scb/pdf/regional/perinc/meth/rims2.pdf (last accessed March 25, 
2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE estimated indirect national employment impacts for the standard 
levels considered in this NOPR using an input/output model of the U.S. 
economy called Impact of Sector Energy Technologies version 4 
(ImSET).\80\ ImSET is a special-purpose version of the ``U.S. Benchmark 
National Input-Output'' (I-O) model, which was designed to estimate the 
national employment and income effects of energy-saving technologies. 
The ImSET software includes a computer-based I-O model having 
structural coefficients that characterize economic flows among 187 
sectors most relevant to industrial, commercial, and residential 
building energy use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ Livingston, O.V., S.R. Bender, M.J. Scott, and R.W. 
Schultz. ImSET 4.0: Impact of Sector Energy Technologies Model 
Description and User Guide. 2015. Pacific Northwest National 
Laboratory: Richland, WA. PNNL-24563.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE notes that ImSET is not a general equilibrium forecasting 
model, and that the uncertainties involved in projecting employment 
impacts, especially changes in the later years of the analysis. Because 
ImSET does not incorporate price changes, the employment effects 
predicted by ImSET may over-estimate actual job impacts over the long 
run for this proposed rule. Therefore, DOE used ImSET only to generate 
results for near-term timeframes (2029), where these uncertainties are 
reduced. For more details on the employment impact analysis, see 
chapter 15 of the NOPR TSD.

VII. Analytical Results and Conclusions

    The following section addresses the results from DOE's analyses 
with respect to the considered energy conservation standards for GSLs. 
It addresses the TSLs examined by DOE, the projected impacts of each of 
these

[[Page 1688]]

levels if adopted as energy conservation standards for GSLs, and the 
standards levels that DOE is proposing to adopt in this NOPR. 
Additional details regarding DOE's analyses are contained in the NOPR 
TSD supporting this document.

A. Trial Standard Levels

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

                          Table VII.1--Trial Standard Levels for GSLs by Efficacy Level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Representative product class
                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             TSL                  Integrated       Integrated
                               omnidirectional  omnidirectional    Integrated     Non-integrated  Non-integrated
                                    short             long         directional   omnidirectional    directional
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................             EL 2             EL 1            EL 1             EL 1            EL 1
2............................             EL 3             EL 3            EL 3             EL 3            EL 1
3............................             EL 5             EL 5            EL 5             EL 3            EL 1
4............................             EL 6             EL 5            EL 5             EL 3            EL 1
5............................             EL 7             EL 5            EL 5             EL 3            EL 3
6............................             EL 7             EL 6            EL 5             EL 3            EL 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE constructed the TSLs for this NOPR to include ELs 
representative of ELs with similar characteristics (e.g., using similar 
technologies and/or efficiencies) or representing significant increases 
in efficiency and energy savings. The use of representative ELs 
provided for greater distinction between the TSLs. While representative 
ELs were included in the TSLs, DOE considered all efficiency levels as 
part of its analysis.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ Efficiency levels that were analyzed for this NOPR are 
discussed in section VI.C.5 of this document. Results by efficiency 
level are presented in TSD chapters 7, 9, and 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings

1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers
    DOE analyzed the economic impacts on GSL consumers by looking at 
the effects that potential standards at each TSL would have on the LCC 
and PBP. DOE also examined the impacts of potential standards on 
selected consumer subgroups. These analyses are discussed in the 
following sections.
a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
    In general, higher-efficiency products affect consumers in two 
ways: (1) purchase price increases and (2) annual operating costs 
decrease. Inputs used for calculating the LCC and PBP include total 
installed costs (i.e., product price plus installation costs), and 
operating costs (i.e., annual energy use, energy prices, energy price 
trends, repair costs, and maintenance costs). The LCC calculation also 
uses product lifetime and a discount rate. Chapter 7 of the NOPR TSD 
provides detailed information on the LCC and PBP analyses.
    Table VII.2 through Table VII.11 show the LCC and PBP results for 
the TSLs considered for each product class. In the first of each pair 
of tables, the simple payback is measured relative to the baseline 
product. In the second table, impacts are measured based on the changes 
in the efficacy distribution under a standard relative to the efficacy 
distribution in the no-new-standards case in the first full year of 
compliance (see section VI.F.9 of this document). Because some 
consumers purchase products with higher efficiency than the minimum 
allowed under a standard or in the no-new standards case, the average 
savings can differ from than the difference between the average LCC of 
the baseline product and the average LCC at each TSL. The savings refer 
only to consumers who are affected by a standard at a given TSL. 
Consumers for whom the LCC increases at a given TSL experience a net 
cost.

[[Page 1689]]



                                                       Table VII.2--Average LCC and PBP Results for Integrated Omnidirectional Short GSLs
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                               Average costs 2021$
                                                                               ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------                     Average
                          Lamp option                                 EL                                             Lifetime                                     Simple payback     lifetime
                                                                                Installed cost    First year's    operating cost  Residual value        LCC           (years)         (years)
                                                                                                 operating cost         *
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Residential
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.............................................................               0            3.24             3.90             6.84            0.00           10.07  ..............             7.1
1.............................................................               1            3.38             3.64             6.38            0.00            9.76             0.5             7.1
2.............................................................               2            3.52             3.38             5.93            0.00            9.44             0.5             7.1
3.............................................................               3            2.85             2.60             4.56            1.25            6.15             0.0            11.9
4.............................................................               3            3.88             2.60             4.56            2.00            6.44             0.5            13.5
5.............................................................               4            3.49             2.34             4.10            1.54            6.06             0.2            11.9
6.............................................................               4            4.74             2.34             4.10            2.44            6.40             1.0            13.5
7.............................................................               5            4.13             2.08             3.65            1.82            5.96             0.5            11.9
8.............................................................               6            4.76             1.82             3.19            2.10            5.86             0.7            11.9
9.............................................................               7            5.08             1.69             2.96            2.24            5.81             0.8            11.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Commercial
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.............................................................               0            4.97             6.30            12.88            0.00           18.05  ..............             2.8
1.............................................................               1            5.11             5.88            12.02            0.00           17.34             0.3             2.8
2.............................................................               2            5.25             5.46            11.16            0.00           16.62             0.3             2.8
3.............................................................               3            4.58             4.20             8.59            0.85           12.32             0.0             4.1
4.............................................................               3            5.61             4.20             8.59            2.07           12.13             0.3             6.7
5.............................................................               4            5.22             3.78             7.73            1.04           11.91             0.1             4.1
6.............................................................               4            6.48             3.78             7.73            2.53           11.68             0.6             6.7
7.............................................................               5            5.86             3.36             6.87            1.23           11.50             0.3             4.1
8.............................................................               6            6.49             2.94             6.01            1.42           11.09             0.5             4.1
9.............................................................               7            6.82             2.73             5.58            1.52           10.88             0.5             4.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each lamp option represent the average value if all purchasers use products at that lamp option. The PBP is measured relative to the baseline (EL 0) product; therefore,
  the PBP is not defined for EL 0.
* Calculated over the LCC analysis period, which is the lifetime of the EL 0 lamp.


               Table VII.3--Average LCC Savings Results for Integrated Omnidirectional Short GSLs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Percent of
                                                                               Average LCC       consumers that
                          TSL                                    EL         savings * (2021$)    experience net
                                                                                                      cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Residential Sector
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1......................................................                  2               1.89                0.9
2......................................................                  3               2.35                1.3
3......................................................                  5               0.51               19.9
4......................................................                  6               0.56               21.1
5-6....................................................                  7               0.59               22.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Commercial Sector
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1......................................................                  2               2.32                0.2
2......................................................                  3               2.91                0.3
3......................................................                  5               0.82                5.6
4......................................................                  6               1.01                5.1
5-6....................................................                  7               1.11                4.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.


                                                        Table VII.4--Average LCC and PBP Results for Integrated Omnidirectional Long GSLs
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                               Average costs 2021$
                                                                               ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Lamp option                                 EL                                             Lifetime                                     Simple payback      Average
                                                                                Installed cost    First year's    operating cost  Residual value        LCC            years      lifetime years
                                                                                                 operating cost         *
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Residential
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.............................................................               0            8.11             2.39            22.07            0.00           30.18  ..............            17.4
1.............................................................               1            9.05             2.23            20.60            0.00           29.65             5.9            17.4
2.............................................................               2           10.31             2.00            18.39            0.00           28.70             5.5            17.4
3.............................................................               3           10.21             1.92            17.65            0.00           27.87             4.4            17.4
4.............................................................               4           11.10             1.84            16.92            0.00           28.02             5.4            17.4
5.............................................................               5           11.70             1.68            15.45            0.00           27.14             5.0            17.4
6.............................................................               6           13.11             1.47            13.54            0.00           26.64             5.4            17.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Commercial
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.............................................................               0            9.84             4.51            34.58            0.00           44.42  ..............            13.8

[[Page 1690]]

 
1.............................................................               1           10.78             4.21            32.28            0.00           43.06             3.1            13.8
2.............................................................               2           12.04             3.75            28.82            0.00           40.86             2.9            13.8
3.............................................................               3           11.95             3.60            27.67            0.00           39.61             2.3            13.8
4.............................................................               4           12.83             3.45            26.51            0.00           39.34             2.8            13.8
5.............................................................               5           13.43             3.15            24.21            0.00           37.64             2.7            13.8
6.............................................................               6           14.84             2.76            21.21            0.00           36.05             2.9            13.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each lamp option represent the average value if all purchasers use products at that lamp option. The PBP is measured relative to the baseline (EL 0) product; therefore,
  the PBP is not defined for EL 0.
* Calculated over the LCC analysis period, which is the lifetime of the EL 0 lamp.


                Table VII.5--Average LCC Savings Results for Integrated Omnidirectional Long GSLs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Percent of consumers
                    TSL                              EL          Average LCC savings *     that experience net
                                                                        (2021$)                    cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Residential Sector
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..........................................                  1                     0.59                     21.1
2..........................................                  3                     1.02                     39.0
3-5........................................                  5                     1.57                     41.7
6..........................................                  6                     1.82                     43.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Commercial Sector
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..........................................                  1                     1.42                      2.8
2..........................................                  3                     2.37                      3.8
3-5........................................                  5                     3.80                      1.9
6..........................................                  6                     4.74                      2.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.


                                        Table VII.6--Average LCC and PBP Results for Integrated Directional GSLs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Average costs  (2021$)
                                         --------------------------------------------------------------------------------     Simple          Average
         Lamp option              EL                       First year's      Lifetime                                         payback        lifetime
                                          Installed cost     operating       operating    Residual value        LCC           (years)         (years)
                                                               cost           cost *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Residential
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0...........................           0           17.13            6.52           11.70            0.00           28.83  ..............             7.3
1...........................           1           11.25            4.82            8.65            5.67           14.23             0.0            13.5
2...........................           2           10.42            4.53            8.14            5.25           13.31             0.0            13.5
3...........................           3            9.61            4.25            7.63            4.84           12.40             0.0            13.5
4...........................           4            8.69            3.97            7.12            4.38           11.43             0.0            13.5
5...........................           5            7.11            3.54            6.36            3.58            9.88             0.0            13.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Commercial
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0...........................           0           18.87            9.76           19.96            0.00           39.03  ..............             2.8
1...........................           1           12.99            7.22           14.75            5.97           21.77             0.0             6.8
2...........................           2           12.15            6.79           13.88            5.53           20.51             0.0             6.8
3...........................           3           11.35            6.37           13.02            5.10           19.26             0.0             6.8
4...........................           4           10.43            5.94           12.15            4.61           17.96             0.0             6.8
5...........................           5            8.84            5.31           10.85            3.77           15.92             0.0             6.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each lamp option represent the average value if all purchasers use products at that lamp option. The PBP is measured relative to
  the baseline (EL 0) product; therefore, the PBP is not defined for EL 0.
* Calculated over the LCC analysis period, which is the lifetime of the EL 0 lamp.


                    Table VII.7--Average LCC Savings Results for Integrated Directional GSLs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Percent of consumers
                    TSL                              EL          Average LCC savings *     that experience net
                                                                        (2021$)                    cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Residential Sector
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..........................................                  1                     8.87                      0.0
2..........................................                  3                     1.61                      0.0
3-6........................................                  5                     3.01                      0.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 1691]]

 
                                                Commercial Sector
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..........................................                  1                     9.44                      0.0
2..........................................                  3                     2.01                      0.0
3-6........................................                  5                     3.86                      0.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.


                                    Table VII.8--Average LCC and PBP Results for Non-Integrated Omnidirectional GSLs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Average costs (2021$)
                                         --------------------------------------------------------------------------------     Simple          Average
         Lamp option              EL                       First year's      Lifetime                                       payback **       lifetime
                                          Installed cost     operating       operating    Residual value        LCC           (years)         (years)
                                                               cost           cost *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Commercial
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0...........................           0            7.11           10.74           22.56            0.00           29.87  ..............             3.0
1...........................           1            9.88           10.74           22.56            0.00           32.64           Never             3.0
2...........................           1           20.71            8.68           18.22            6.50           32.62             6.6             4.7
3...........................           2           20.93            4.96           10.41           13.05           18.29             2.4            11.9
4...........................           3           21.79            3.72            7.81           13.64           15.96             2.1            11.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each lamp option represent the average value if all purchasers use products at that lamp option. The PBP is measured relative to
  the baseline (EL 0) product; therefore, the PBP is not defined for EL 0.
* Calculated over the LCC analysis period, which is the lifetime of the EL 0 lamp.
** A reported PBP of ``Never'' indicates that the increased purchase cost will never be recouped by operating cost savings.


                Table VII.9--Average LCC Savings Results for Non-integrated Omnidirectional GSLs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Percent of  consumers
                    TSL                              EL          Average LCC savings *    that  experience  net
                                                                        (2021$)                    cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Residential Sector
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..........................................                  1                     4.93                     9.4%
2-6........................................                  3                     6.62                     0.2%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.


                                      Table VII.10--Average LCC and PBP Results for Non-Integrated Directional GSLs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Average costs  (2021$)
                                         --------------------------------------------------------------------------------     Simply          Average
         Lamp option              EL                       First year's      Lifetime                                         payback        lifetime
                                          Installed cost     operating       operating    Residual value        LCC           (years)         (years)
                                                               cost           cost *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Residential
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0...........................           0            8.47            2.24           12.66            0.00           21.13  ..............            13.4
1...........................           1            9.34            1.96           11.08            0.00           20.41             3.1            13.4
2...........................           2           10.10            1.82           10.29            0.00           20.38             3.9            13.4
3...........................           3           10.82            1.68            9.49            0.00           20.32             4.2            13.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Commercial
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0...........................           0           10.20            3.38           15.07            0.00           25.27  ..............             6.8
1...........................           1           11.07            2.96           13.19            0.00           24.26             2.1             6.8
2...........................           2           11.83            2.75           12.25            0.00           24.08             2.6             6.8
3...........................           3           12.56            2.53           11.30            0.00           23.86             2.8             6.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each lamp option represent the average value if all purchasers use products at that lamp option. The PBP is measured relative to
  the baseline (EL 0) product; therefore, the PBP is not defined for EL 0.
* Calculated over the LCC analysis period, which is the lifetime of the EL 0 lamp.


[[Page 1692]]


                  Table VII.11--Average LCC Savings Results for Non-Integrated Directional GSLs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Percent of consumers
                    TSL                              EL          Average LCC  savings *    that experience net
                                                                        (2021$)                    cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Residential Sector
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-4........................................                  1                     0.34                     22.2
5-6........................................                  3                     0.28                     34.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Commercial Sector
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-4........................................                  1                     0.59                      9.0
5-6........................................                  3                     0.69                     16.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.

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

                Table VII.12--Comparison of LCC Savings for Consumer Subgroups and All Consumers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Average LCC savings *  (2021$)
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Residential                           Commercial
                 TSL                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Low-income
                                          households       All households    Small businesses    All businesses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Integrated Omnidirectional Short
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................               1.94               1.89               2.22               2.32
2...................................               2.57               2.35               2.78               2.91
3...................................               0.53               0.51               0.77               0.82
4...................................               0.59               0.56               0.94               1.01
5-6.................................               0.62               0.59               1.03               1.11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Integrated Omnidirectional Long
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................              N/A**               0.59               1.15               1.42
2...................................                                  1.02               1.94               2.37
3-5.................................                                  1.57               3.08               3.80
6...................................                                  1.82               3.81               4.74
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Integrated Directional
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................               9.61               8.87               9.22               9.44
2...................................               1.66               1.61               1.98               2.01
3-6.................................               3.03               3.01               3.82               3.86
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Non-integrated Omnidirectional
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................                   N/A                               4.54               4.93
2-6.................................                                                     6.20               6.62
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Non-integrated Directional
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-4.................................               0.33               0.34               0.48               0.59
5-6.................................               0.27               0.28               0.52               0.69
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.
** Approximately 95% of Integrated Omnidirectional Long GSLs are shipped to the commercial sector. Moreover, for
  those low-income consumers who are renters (a subset of the residential consumer subgroup), DOE anticipates
  that the landlord, rather than the tenant, would typically purchase the lamps because Integrated
  Omnidirectional Long GSLs are not typical screw-in bulbs. For these reasons, DOE provides results for this PC
  only for the commercial sector.


[[Page 1693]]


                    Table VII.13--Comparison of PBP for Consumer Subgroups and All Consumers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Simple payback period * (years)
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Residential                           Commercial
             Lamp option             ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Low-income
                                          households       All households    Small businesses    All businesses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Integrated Omnidirectional Short
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................                0.5                0.5                0.3                0.3
2...................................                0.5                0.5                0.3                0.3
3...................................                0.0                0.0                0.0                0.0
4...................................                0.5                0.5                0.3                0.3
5...................................                0.2                0.2                0.1                0.1
6...................................                0.9                1.0                0.6                0.6
7...................................                0.5                0.5                0.3                0.3
8...................................                0.7                0.7                0.5                0.5
9...................................                0.8                0.8                0.5                0.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Integrated Omnidirectional Long
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................             N/A **                5.9                3.2                3.1
2...................................                                   5.5                3.0                2.9
3...................................                                   4.4                2.4                2.3
4...................................                                   5.4                2.9                2.8
5...................................                                   5.0                2.7                2.7
6...................................                                   5.4                2.9                2.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Integrated Directional
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................                0.0                0.0                0.0                0.0
2...................................                0.0                0.0                0.0                0.0
3...................................                0.0                0.0                0.0                0.0
4...................................                0.0                0.0                0.0                0.0
5...................................                0.0                0.0                0.0                0.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Non-integrated Omnidirectional
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................                   N/A                              Never              Never
2...................................                                                      6.7                6.6
3...................................                                                      2.4                2.4
4...................................                                                      2.1                2.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Non-integrated Directional
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................                3.1                3.1                2.1                2.1
2...................................                3.9                3.9                2.6                2.6
3...................................                4.3                4.2                2.8                2.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* A reported PBP of ``Never'' indicates that the increased purchase cost will never be recouped by operating
  cost savings.
** Approximately 95% of Integrated Omnidirectional Long GSLs are shipped to the commercial sector. Moreover, for
  those low-income consumers who are renters (a subset of the residential consumer subgroup), DOE anticipates
  that the landlord, rather than the tenant, would typically purchase the lamps because Integrated
  Omnidirectional Long GSLs are not typical screw-in bulbs. For these reasons, DOE provides results for this PC
  only for the commercial sector.

c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
    As discussed in section VI.F.11, EPCA establishes a rebuttable 
presumption that an energy conservation standard is economically 
justified if the increased purchase cost for a product that meets the 
standard is less than three times the value of the first-year energy 
savings resulting from the standard. In calculating a rebuttable 
presumption payback period for each of the considered TSLs, DOE used 
discrete values, and, as required by EPCA, based the energy use 
calculation on the DOE test procedure for GSLs. In contrast, the PBPs 
presented in section VII.B.1.a of this document were calculated using 
distributions that reflect the range of energy use in the field.
    Table VII.14 presents the rebuttable-presumption payback periods 
for the considered TSLs for GSLs. While DOE examined the rebuttable-
presumption criterion, it considered whether the standard levels 
considered for the NOPR are economically justified through a more 
detailed analysis of the economic impacts of those levels, pursuant to 
42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i), that considers the full range of impacts to 
the consumer, manufacturer, Nation, and environment. The results of 
that analysis serve as the basis for DOE to definitively evaluate the 
economic justification for a potential standard level, thereby 
supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of 
economic justification.

[[Page 1694]]



                              Table VII.14--Rebuttable-Presumption Payback Periods
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Rebuttable PBP * (years)
                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Lamp option              Integrated       Integrated
                               omnidirectional  omnidirectional    Integrated     Non-integrated  Non-integrated
                                    short             long         directional   omnidirectional    directional
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Residential
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................              0.5              5.9             0.0  ...............             3.0
2............................              0.5              5.5             0.0  ...............             3.8
3............................              0.0              4.4             0.0  ...............             4.1
4............................              0.5              5.4             0.0  ...............  ..............
5............................              0.2              5.0             0.0  ...............  ..............
6............................              0.9              5.4  ..............  ...............  ..............
7............................              0.5  ...............  ..............  ...............  ..............
8............................              0.7  ...............  ..............  ...............  ..............
9............................              0.8  ...............  ..............  ...............  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Commercial
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................              0.3              2.8             0.0            Never             1.8
2............................              0.3              2.6             0.0              5.9             2.3
3............................              0.0              2.1             0.0              2.1             2.5
4............................              0.3              2.6             0.0              1.9  ..............
5............................              0.1              2.4             0.0  ...............  ..............
6............................              0.5              2.6  ..............  ...............  ..............
7............................              0.3  ...............  ..............  ...............  ..............
8............................              0.4  ...............  ..............  ...............  ..............
9............................              0.5  ...............  ..............  ...............  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* A reported PBP of ``Never'' indicates that the increased purchase cost will never be recouped by operating
  cost savings.

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
    DOE performed an MIA to estimate the impact of new and amended 
energy conservation standards on manufacturers of GSLs. The following 
section describes the expected impacts on manufacturers at each 
considered TSL. Chapter 11 of the NOPR TSD explains the analysis in 
further detail.
a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results
    In this section, DOE provides GRIM results from the analysis, which 
examines changes in the industry that would result from new and amended 
standards. The following tables summarize the estimated financial 
impacts (represented by changes in INPV) of new and amended energy 
conservation standards on manufacturers of GSLs, as well as the 
conversion costs that DOE estimates manufacturers of GSLs would incur 
at each TSL.
    To evaluate the range of cash flow impacts on the GSL industry, DOE 
modeled two manufacturer markup scenarios that correspond to the range 
of possible market responses to new and amended standards. Each 
manufacturer markup scenario results in a unique set of cash flows and 
corresponding INPVs at each TSL.
    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 (2022) through the end of the analysis period 
(2058). The results also discuss the difference in cash flows between 
the no-new-standards case and the standards cases in the year before 
the estimated compliance date for new and amended energy conservation 
standards. This figure represents the size of the required conversion 
costs relative to the cash flow generated by the GSL industry in the 
absence of new and amended energy conservation standards.
    To assess the upper (less severe) end of the range of potential 
impacts on GSL manufacturers, DOE modeled a preservation of gross 
margin scenario. This scenario assumes that in the standards cases, GSL 
manufacturers would be able to pass along all the higher production 
costs required for more efficacious products to their consumers. 
Specifically, the industry would be able to maintain its average no-
new-standards case gross margin (as a percentage of revenue) despite 
the higher production costs in the standards cases. In general, the 
larger the product price increases, the less likely manufacturers are 
to achieve the cash flow from operations calculated in this scenario 
because it is less likely that manufacturers would be able to fully 
markup these larger production cost increases.
    To assess the lower (more severe) end of the range of potential 
impacts on the GSL manufacturers, DOE modeled a preservation of 
operating profit scenario. This scenario represents the lower end of 
the range of impacts on manufacturers because no additional operating 
profit is earned on the higher production costs, eroding profit margins 
as a percentage of total revenue.

   Table VII.15--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for General Service Lamps--Preservation of Gross Margin Scenario
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 No-new-                    Trial standard level
                                   Units        standards  -----------------------------------------------------
                                                   case        1        2        3        4        5        6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV........................  2021$ millions.        2,014    1,968    1,874    1,868    1,873    1,868    1,867

[[Page 1695]]

 
Change in INPV..............  2021$ millions.  ...........     (46)    (139)    (144)    (139)    (144)    (145)
                              %..............  ...........    (2.3)    (6.9)    (7.1)    (6.9)    (7.2)    (7.2)
Total Conversion Costs......  2021$ millions.  ...........       82      220      337      373      403      407
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Numbers in parentheses indicate negative numbers.


 Table VII.16--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for General Service Lamps--Preservation of Operating Profit Scenario
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 No-new-                    Trial standard level
                                   Units        standards  -----------------------------------------------------
                                                   case        1        2        3        4        5        6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV........................  2021$ millions.        2,014    1,964    1,880    1,838    1,821    1,745    1,741
Change in INPV..............  2021$ millions.  ...........     (50)    (134)    (174)    (190)    (266)    (271)
                              %..............  ...........    (2.5)    (6.6)    (8.6)    (9.5)   (13.2)   (13.5)
Total Conversion Costs......  2021$ millions.  ...........       82      220      337      373      403      407
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Numbers in parentheses indicate negative numbers.

    TSL 1 sets the efficacy level at EL 2 for the Integrated 
Omnidirectional Short product class and EL 1 for all other product 
classes (Integrated Omnidirectional Long, Integrated Directional, Non-
Integrated Omnidirectional, Non-Integrated Directional). At TSL 1, DOE 
estimates impacts on INPV would range from -$50 million to -$46 
million, or a change in INPV of -2.5 percent to -2.3 percent. At TSL 1, 
industry free cash flow (operating cash flow minus capital 
expenditures) is estimated to decrease to $74 million, or a drop of 28 
percent, compared to the no-new-standards case value of $103 million in 
2028, the year leading up to the estimated compliance date of new and 
amended energy conservation standards.
    Percentage impacts on INPV are slightly negative at TSL 1. DOE 
estimates that approximately 99 percent of the Integrated 
Omnidirectional Short and Integrated Directional product class 
shipments; 86 percent of the Integrated Omnidirectional Long product 
class shipments; 98 percent of the Non-Integrated Omnidirectional Short 
product class shipments; and 74 percent of the Non-Integrated 
Directional product class shipments will meet or exceed the ELs 
required at TSL 1 in 2029, the estimated first full year of compliance 
of new and amended standards.
    DOE does not expect manufacturers to incur any capital conversion 
costs at TSL 1. At TSL 1, additional LED lamp production capacity is 
not expected to be needed to meet the expected volume of LED lamp 
shipments, as GSL manufacturers are expected to produce more LED lamps 
for every product class in years leading up to 2029 than in 2029, the 
estimated first full year of compliance of new and amended standards. 
DOE estimates approximately $82 million in product conversion costs as 
some LED lamps may need to be re-modeled to meet ELs required at TSL 1. 
DOE does not estimate any conversion costs for CFL models as GSL 
manufacturers are not expected to remodel non-compliant CFLs, even 
though that may be possible for some CFLs at TSL 1.
    At TSL 1, under the preservation of gross margin scenario, the 
shipment weighted-average MPC increases slightly by approximately 0.8 
percent relative to the no-new-standards case MPC. This slight price 
increase is outweighed by the $82 million in conversion costs estimated 
at TSL 1, resulting in slightly negative INPV impacts at TSL 1 under 
the preservation of gross margin scenario.
    Under the preservation of operating profit scenario, manufacturers 
earn the same nominal operating profit as would be earned in the no-
new-standards case, but manufacturers do not earn additional profit 
from their investments. The slight increase in the shipment weighted-
average MPC results in a slightly lower average manufacturer markup 
(slightly smaller than the 1.55 manufacturer markup used in the no-new-
standards case). This slightly lower average manufacturer markup and 
the $82 million in conversion costs result in slightly negative INPV 
impacts at TSL 1 under the preservation of operating profit scenario.
    TSL 2 sets the efficacy level at EL 1 for the Non-Integrated 
Directional product class and EL 3 for all other product classes 
(Integrated Omnidirectional Short, Integrated Omnidirectional Long, 
Integrated Directional, Non-Integrated Omnidirectional). At TSL 2, DOE 
estimates impacts on INPV would range from -$134 million to -$139 
million, or a change in INPV of -6.6 percent to -6.9 percent. At TSL 2, 
industry free cash flow is estimated to decrease to $25 million, or a 
drop of 76 percent, compared to the no-new-standards case value of $103 
million in 2028, the year leading up to the estimated compliance date 
of new and amended energy conservation standards.
    Percentage impacts on INPV are moderately negative at TSL 2. DOE 
estimates that approximately 98 percent of the Integrated 
Omnidirectional Short product class shipments; 58 percent of the 
Integrated Omnidirectional Long product class shipments; 73 percent of 
the Integrated Directional product class shipments; 55 percent of the 
Non-Integrated Omnidirectional Short product class shipments; and 74 
percent of the Non-Integrated Directional product class shipments will 
meet or exceed the ELs required at TSL 2 in 2029, the estimated first 
full year of compliance of new and amended standards.
    DOE does not expect manufacturers to incur any capital conversion 
costs at TSL 2. At TSL 2, additional LED lamp production capacity is 
not expected to be needed to meet the expected volume of LED lamp 
shipments, as GSL manufacturers are expected to produce

[[Page 1696]]

more LED lamps for every product class in years leading up to 2029 than 
in 2029, the estimated first full year of compliance of new and amended 
standards. DOE estimates approximately $220 million in product 
conversion costs as some LED lamps may need to be re-modeled to meet 
ELs required at TSL 2. DOE does not estimate any conversion costs for 
CFL models as GSL manufacturers are expected to discontinue all CFLs 
for any standard level beyond TSL 1.
    At TSL 2, under the preservation of gross margin scenario, the 
shipment weighted-average MPC increases slightly by approximately 0.1 
percent relative to the no-new-standards case MPC. This slight price 
increase is outweighed by the $220 million in conversion costs 
estimated at TSL 2, resulting in moderately negative INPV impacts at 
TSL 2 under the preservation of gross margin scenario.
    Under the preservation of operating profit scenario, the slight 
increase in the shipment weighted-average MPC results in a slightly 
lower average manufacturer markup (slightly smaller than the 1.55 
manufacturer markup used in the no-new-standards case). This slightly 
lower average manufacturer markup and the $220 million in conversion 
costs result in moderately negative INPV impacts at TSL 2 under the 
preservation of operating profit scenario.
    TSL 3 sets the efficacy level at EL 1 for the Non-Integrated 
Directional product class; at EL 3 for the Non-Integrated 
Omnidirectional Short product class, which is ``max-tech'' for the Non-
Integrated Omnidirectional Short product class; and at EL 5 for all 
other product classes (Integrated Omnidirectional Short, Integrated 
Omnidirectional Long, Integrated Directional), EL 5 is ``max-tech'' for 
the Integrated Directional product class. At TSL 3, DOE estimates 
impacts on INPV would range from -$174 million to -$144 million, or a 
change in INPV of approximately -8.6 percent to -7.1 percent. At TSL 3, 
industry free cash flow is estimated to decrease to -$26 million, or a 
drop of 126 percent, compared to the no-new-standards case value of 
$103 million in 2028, the year leading up to the estimated compliance 
date of new and amended energy conservation standards.
    Percentage impacts on INPV are moderately negative at TSL 3. DOE 
estimates that approximately 45 percent of the Integrated 
Omnidirectional Short product class shipments; 29 percent of the 
Integrated Omnidirectional Long product class shipments; 34 percent of 
the Integrated Directional product class shipments; 55 percent of the 
Non-Integrated Omnidirectional Short product class shipments; and 74 
percent of the Non-Integrated Directional product class shipments will 
meet or exceed the ELs required at TSL 3 in 2029, the estimated first 
full year of compliance of new and amended standards.
    DOE does not expect manufacturers to incur any capital conversion 
costs at TSL 3. At TSL 3, additional LED lamp production capacity is 
not expected to be needed to meet the expected volume of LED lamp 
shipments, as GSL manufactures are expected to produce more LED lamps 
for every product class in the years leading up to 2029 than in 2029, 
the estimated first full year of compliance of new and amended 
standards. DOE estimates approximately $337 million in product 
conversion costs as many LED lamps may need to be re-modeled to meet 
ELs required at TSL 3.
    At TSL 3, under the preservation of gross margin scenario, the 
shipment weighted-average MPC increases moderately by approximately 6.4 
percent relative to the no-new-standards case MPC. This moderate price 
increase is outweighed by the $337 million in conversion costs 
estimated at TSL 3, resulting in moderately negative INPV impacts at 
TSL 3 under the preservation of gross margin scenario.
    Under the preservation of operating profit scenario, the moderate 
increase in the shipment weighted-average MPC results in a slightly 
lower average manufacturer markup (slightly smaller than the 1.55 
manufacturer markup used in the no-new-standards case). This slightly 
lower average manufacturer markup and the $337 million in conversion 
costs result in moderately negative INPV impacts at TSL 3 under the 
preservation of operating profit scenario.
    TSL 4 sets the efficacy level at EL 1 for the Non-Integrated 
Directional product class; at EL 3 for the Non-Integrated 
Omnidirectional Short product class, which is ``max-tech'' for the Non-
Integrated Omnidirectional Short product class; at EL 5 for the 
Integrated Omnidirectional Long and Integrated Directional product 
classes, which is ``max-tech'' for the Integrated Directional product 
class; and at EL 6 for the Integrated Omnidirectional Short product 
class. At TSL 4, DOE estimates impacts on INPV would range from -$190 
million to -$139 million, or a change in INPV of -9.5 percent to -6.9 
percent. At TSL 4, industry free cash flow is estimated to decrease to 
-$42 million, or a drop of 141 percent, compared to the no-new-
standards case value of $103 million in 2028, the year leading up to 
the estimated compliance date of new and amended energy conservation 
standards.
    Percentage impacts on INPV are moderately negative at TSL 4. DOE 
estimates that approximately 31 percent of the Integrated 
Omnidirectional Short product class shipments; 29 percent of the 
Integrated Omnidirectional Long product class shipments; 34 percent of 
the Integrated Directional product class shipments; 55 percent of the 
Non-Integrated Omnidirectional Short product class shipments; and 74 
percent of the Non-Integrated Directional product class shipments will 
meet or exceed the ELs required at TSL 4 in 2029, the estimated first 
full year of compliance of new and amended standards.
    DOE does not expect manufacturers to incur any capital conversion 
costs at TSL 4. At TSL 4, additional LED lamp production capacity is 
not expected to be needed to meet the expected volume of LED lamp 
shipments, as GSL manufacturers are expected to produce more LED lamps 
for every product class in the years leading up to 2029 than in 2029, 
the estimated first full year of compliance of new and amended 
standards. DOE estimates approximately $373 million in product 
conversion costs as many LED lamps may need to be re-modeled to meet 
ELs required at TSL 4. DOE does not estimate any conversion costs for 
CFL models as GSL manufacturers are expected to discontinue all CFLs 
for any standard level beyond TSL 1.
    At TSL 4, under the preservation of gross margin scenario, the 
shipment weighted-average MPC increases moderately by approximately 
10.2 percent relative to the no-new-standards case MPC. This moderate 
price increase is outweighed by the $373 million in conversion costs 
estimated at TSL 4, resulting in moderately negative INPV impacts at 
TSL 4 under the preservation of gross margin scenario.
    Under the preservation of operating profit scenario, the moderate 
increase in the shipment weighted-average MPC results in a slightly 
lower average manufacturer markup of 1.54 (compared to the 1.55 
manufacturer markup used in the no-new-standards case). This slightly 
lower average manufacturer markup and the $373 million in conversion 
costs result in moderately negative INPV impacts at TSL 4 under the 
preservation of operating profit scenario.
    TSL 5 sets the efficacy level at EL 3 for the Non-Integrated 
Omnidirectional Short and Non-Integrated Directional product classes, 
which is ``max-tech'' for those product classes; at EL 5 for the

[[Page 1697]]

Integrated Omnidirectional Long and Integrated Directional product 
classes, which is ``max-tech'' for the Integrated Directional product 
class; and at EL 7 for the Integrated Omnidirectional Short product 
class, which is ``max-tech'' for this product class. At TSL 5, DOE 
estimates impacts on INPV would range from -$266 million to -$144 
million, or a change in INPV of -13.2 percent to -7.2 percent. At TSL 
5, industry free cash flow is estimated to decrease to -$56 million, or 
a drop of 154 percent, compared to the no-new-standards case value of 
$103 million in 2028, the year leading up to the estimated compliance 
date of new and amended energy conservation standards.
    Percentage impacts on INPV are moderately negative at TSL 5. DOE 
estimates that approximately 17 percent of the Integrated 
Omnidirectional Short product class shipments; 29 percent of the 
Integrated Omnidirectional Long product class shipments; 34 percent of 
the Integrated Directional product class shipments; 55 percent of the 
Non-Integrated Omnidirectional Short product class shipments; and 27 
percent of the Non-Integrated Directional product class shipments will 
meet or exceed the ELs required at TSL 5 in 2029, the estimated first 
full year of compliance of new and amended standards.
    DOE does not expect manufacturers to incur any capital conversion 
costs at TSL 5. At TSL 5, additional LED lamp production capacity is 
not expected to be needed to meet the expected volume of LED lamp 
shipments, as GSL manufacturers are expected to produce more LED lamps 
for every product class in the years leading up to 2029 than in 2029, 
the estimated first full year of compliance of new and amended 
standards. DOE estimates approximately $403 million in product 
conversion costs as many LED lamps may need to be re-modeled to meet 
ELs required at TSL 5. DOE does not estimate any conversion costs for 
CFL models as GSL manufacturers are expected to discontinue all CFLs 
for any standard level beyond TSL 1.
    At TSL 5, under the preservation of gross margin scenario, the 
shipment weighted-average MPC increases moderately by approximately 
12.5 percent relative to the no-new-standards case MPC. This moderate 
price increase is outweighed by the $403 million in conversion costs 
estimated at TSL 5, resulting in moderately negative INPV impacts at 
TSL 5 under the preservation of gross margin scenario.
    Under the preservation of operating profit scenario, the moderate 
increase in the shipment weighted-average MPC results in a slightly 
lower average manufacturer markup of 1.53 (compared to the 1.55 
manufacturer markup used in the no-new-standards case). This slightly 
lower average manufacturer markup and the $403 million in conversion 
costs result in moderately negative INPV impacts at TSL 5 under the 
preservation of operating profit scenario.
    TSL 6 sets the efficacy level at EL 3 for the Non-Integrated 
Omnidirectional Short and Non-Integrated Directional product classes, 
which is ``max-tech'' for those product classes; at EL 5 for the 
Integrated Directional product class, which is ``max-tech''; at EL 6 
for the Integrated Omnidirectional Long product classes, which is 
``max-tech''; and at EL 7 for the Integrated Omnidirectional Short 
product class, which is ``max-tech''. At TSL 6, DOE estimates impacts 
on INPV would range from -$271 million to -$145 million, or a change in 
INPV of -13.5 percent to -7.2 percent. At TSL 6, industry free cash 
flow is estimated to decrease to -$58 million, or a drop of 156 
percent, compared to the no-new-standards case value of $103 million in 
2028, the year leading up to the estimated compliance date of new and 
amended energy conservation standards.
    Percentage impacts on INPV are moderately negative at TSL 6. DOE 
estimates that approximately 17 percent of the Integrated 
Omnidirectional Short product class shipments; approximately 14 percent 
of the Integrated Omnidirectional Long product class shipments; 34 
percent of the Integrated Directional product class shipments; 55 
percent of the Non-Integrated Omnidirectional Short product class 
shipments; and 27 percent of the Non-Integrated Directional product 
class shipments will meet the ELs required at TSL 6 in 2029, the 
estimated first full year of compliance of new and amended standards.
    DOE does not expect manufacturers to incur any capital conversion 
costs at TSL 6. At TSL 6, additional LED lamp production capacity is 
not expected to be needed to meet the expected volume of LED lamp 
shipments, as GSL manufacturers are expected to produce more LED lamps 
for every product class in the years leading up to 2029 than in 2029, 
the estimated first full year of compliance of new and amended 
standards. DOE estimates approximately $407 million in product 
conversion costs as most LED lamps may need to be re-modeled to meet 
ELs required at TSL 6. DOE does not estimate any conversion costs for 
CFL models as GSL manufacturers are expected to discontinue all CFLs 
for any standard level beyond TSL 1.
    At TSL 6, under the preservation of gross margin scenario, the 
shipment weighted-average MPC increases moderately by approximately 
12.7 percent relative to the no-new-standards case MPC. This moderate 
price increase is outweighed by the $407 million in conversion costs 
estimated at TSL 6, resulting in moderately negative INPV impacts at 
TSL 6 under the preservation of gross margin scenario.
    Under the preservation of operating profit scenario, the moderate 
increase in the shipment weighted-average MPC results in a slightly 
lower average manufacturer markup of 1.53 (compared to the 1.55 
manufacturer markup used in the no-new-standards case). This slightly 
lower average manufacturer markup and the $407 million in conversion 
costs result in moderately negative INPV impacts at TSL 6 under the 
preservation of operating profit scenario.
b. Direct Impacts on Employment
    Based on previous manufacturer interviews and public comments from 
GSL rulemaking documents previously published, DOE determined that 
there are no GSL manufacturers that manufacture CFLs in the United 
States, as all CFLs sold in the United States are manufactured abroad. 
Some of these CFL manufacturing facilities are owned by the GSL 
manufacturer and others outsource their CFL production to original 
equipment manufacturers located primarily in Asia. However, several GSL 
manufacturers that sell CFLs in the United States have domestic 
employees responsible for the R&D, marketing, sales, and distribution 
of CFLs.
    In the March 2016 NOPR, DOE estimated that there would be 
approximately 100 domestic employees dedicated to the non-production 
aspects of CFLs in 2020, the estimated compliance year of the March 
2016 NOPR analysis.\82\ Due to the ongoing decline in CFL shipments 
since the March 2016 NOPR, the shipments analysis for this NOPR 
projects that CFL shipments will decline by more than two-thirds 
between 2020, the estimated compliance year of the March 2016 NOPR, and 
2029, the estimated first full year of compliance in this NOPR 
analysis. Therefore, in this NOPR analysis, DOE estimated that in the 
no-new-standards case there could be approximately 30 domestic 
employees dedicated to the non-production aspects of CFLs in 2029, the 
estimated first full

[[Page 1698]]

year of compliance for this NOPR analysis.\83\ For this NOPR analysis, 
DOE estimates GSL manufacturers selling CFLs in the U. S. could reduce 
or eliminate up to 30 domestic non-production employees if CFLs are not 
able to meet the adopted new and amended standards.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ 81 FR 14528, 14609.
    \83\ DOE assumed the number of domestic non-production employees 
scales with the number of CFL shipments. Therefore, a two-third 
reduction in CFL shipments between 2020 and 2029, would cause a two-
third reduction in domestic non-production employees.
    \84\ DOE assumed most, if not all, CFLs would not be able to 
meet standards if energy conservation standards are set at TSL 2 or 
higher. The majority of CFLs projected to be sold in 2029 (the 
estimated compliance year) are in the Integrated Omnidirectional-
Short product class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While most LED lamp manufacturing is done abroad, there is a 
limited number of LED lamps and LED lamp components covered by this 
rulemaking that are manufactured domestically. DOE assumed that all GSL 
manufacturers selling LED lamps in the U.S. would not reduce or 
eliminate any domestic production or non-production employees involved 
in manufacturing or selling LED lamps due to any of the analyzed TSLs 
in this NOPR. DOE did not estimate the potential increase in domestic 
production employment due to energy conservation standards, as existing 
domestic LED lamp manufacturing represents a small portion of LED lamp 
manufacturing overall and would not necessarily increase as LED lamp 
sales increase.
    DOE seeks comment on the assumption that there are no GSL 
manufacturers manufacturing CFLs in the United States. Additionally, 
DOE requests comment on the assumption that up to 30 domestic non-
production employees are involved in the R&D, marketing, sales, and 
distribution of CFLs in the United States, which may be eliminated if 
energy conservation standards are set at TSL 2 or higher. Lastly, DOE 
seeks comment on the assumption that GSL manufacturers would not reduce 
or eliminate any domestic production or non-production employees 
involved in manufacturing or selling LED lamps due to any of the 
analyzed TSLs in this NOPR. See section IX.E for a list of issues on 
which DOE seeks comment.
c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
    Based on the NOPR shipments analysis, the quantity of LED lamps 
sold for all product classes reaches approximately 751 million in 2022 
and then declines to approximately 397 million by 2029, the estimated 
first full year of compliance for this NOPR analysis, in the no-new-
standards case. This represents a decrease of approximately 47 percent 
from 2022 to 2029. Based on the NOPR shipments analysis, while all TSLs 
project an increase in number of LED lamps sold in 2029 (in the 
standards cases) compared to the no-new standards case, the number of 
LED lamps sold in 2029 (for all TSLs), is smaller than the number of 
LED lamps sold in the years leading up to 2029. Therefore, DOE assumed 
that GSL manufacturers would be able to maintain their 2028 LED lamp 
production capacity in 2029 and manufactures would be able to meet the 
LED lamp production capacity for all TSLs in 2029.
    DOE does not anticipate that manufacturing the same, or slightly 
fewer, quantity of LED lamps that are more efficacious would impact the 
production capacity for LED manufacturers.
d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers
    Using average cost assumptions to develop an industry cash-flow 
estimate may not be adequate for assessing differential impacts among 
manufacturer subgroups. Small manufacturers, niche manufacturers, and 
manufacturers exhibiting a cost structure substantially different from 
the industry average could be affected disproportionately. DOE used the 
results of the industry characterization to group manufacturers 
exhibiting similar characteristics. Consequently, DOE identified small 
business manufacturers as a subgroup for a separate impact analysis.
    For the small business subgroup analysis, DOE applied the small 
business size standards published by the Small Business Administration 
(SBA) to determine whether a company is considered a small business. 
The size standards are codified at 13 CFR part 121. To be categorized 
as a small business under North American Industry Classification System 
(NAICS) code 335139, ``electric lamp bulb and other lighting equipment 
manufacturing'' a GSL manufacturer and its affiliates may employ a 
maximum of 1,250 employees. The 1,250-employee threshold includes all 
employees in a business's parent company and any other subsidiaries. 
DOE identified more than 300 GSL manufacturers that qualify as small 
businesses.
    The small business subgroup analysis is discussed in more detail in 
section VIII.B and in chapter 11 of the NOPR TSD.
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 or equipment. While any one 
regulation may not impose a significant burden on manufacturers, the 
combined effects of several existing or impending regulations may have 
serious consequences for some manufacturers, groups of manufacturers, 
or an entire industry. In the cumulative regulatory burden (CRB) 
analysis, DOE considers burdens associated with meeting other Federal, 
product-specific regulations that occur within the CRB timeframe. The 
CRB timeframe is the seven-year period that covers the three years 
before the compliance year, the compliance year, and the three years 
after the compliance year of the proposed standard.
    DOE acknowledges that most GSL manufacturers also make other 
lighting products that are subject to energy conservation standards set 
by DOE. Thus, DOE assesses regulations that could affect GSL 
manufacturers that will take effect three years prior to and three 
years after the estimated compliance date of any new GSL standards. For 
this analysis, DOE was not able to identify any potential energy 
conservation standard for other products or equipment manufactured by 
GSL manufacturers that is scheduled to require compliance between 2025 
and 2031. However, DOE has ongoing rulemakings for other products that 
GSL manufacturers produce that could result in amended energy 
conservation standards. These rulemakings include ceiling fans \85\ and 
ceiling fan light kits.\86\ If DOE proposes or finalizes any energy 
conservation standards for these products prior to finalizing energy 
conservation standards for GSLs, DOE will include the energy 
conservation standards for these other products as part of the 
cumulative regulatory burden for the GSL final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2021-BT-STD-0011.
    \86\ www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2019-BT-STD-0040.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE requests information regarding the impact of cumulative 
regulatory burden on manufacturers of GSLs associated with multiple DOE 
standards or product-specific regulatory actions of other Federal 
agencies, specifically if these standards occur within three years 
prior to and after 2028. See section IX.E for a list of issues on which 
DOE seeks comment.

[[Page 1699]]

3. National Impact Analysis
    This section presents DOE's estimates of the national energy 
savings and the NPV of consumer benefits that would result from each of 
the TSLs considered as potential amended standards.
a. Significance of Energy Savings
    To estimate the energy savings attributable to potential amended 
standards for GSLs, DOE compared their energy consumption under the no-
new-standards case to their anticipated energy consumption under each 
TSL. The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of products 
purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the first full year of 
anticipated compliance with amended standards (2029-2058). Table VII.17 
presents DOE's projections of the national energy savings for each TSL 
considered for GSLs. The savings were calculated using the approach 
described in section VI.H of this document.

          Table VII.17--Cumulative National Energy Savings for GSLs; 30 Years of Shipments (2029-2058)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Trial standard level
                                Product class  -----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    1          2          3          4          5          6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              quads
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
Primary Energy Savings.......  Integrated           0.095      0.136      2.336      2.859      3.114      3.114
                                Omnidirectiona
                                l Short.
                               Integrated           0.050      0.113      0.185      0.185      0.185      0.205
                                Omnidirectiona
                                l Long.
                               Integrated           0.004      0.235      0.490      0.490      0.490      0.490
                                Directional.
                               Non-integrated       0.000      0.003      0.003      0.003      0.003      0.003
                                Omnidirectiona
                                l.
                               Non-integrated       0.009      0.009      0.009      0.009      0.020      0.020
                                Directional.
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Total.......      0.159      0.496      3.024      3.546      3.812      3.832
FFC Energy Savings...........  Integrated           0.099      0.141      2.427      2.970      3.236      3.236
                                Omnidirectiona
                                l Short.
                               Integrated           0.052      0.117      0.192      0.192      0.192      0.213
                                Omnidirectiona
                                l Long.
                               Integrated           0.005      0.244      0.510      0.510      0.510      0.510
                                Directional.
                               Non-integrated       0.000      0.003      0.003      0.003      0.003      0.003
                                Omnidirectiona
                                l.
                               Non-integrated       0.010      0.010      0.010      0.010      0.021      0.021
                                Directional.
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Total.......      0.165      0.515      3.141      3.684      3.961      3.981
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OMB Circular A-4 \87\ 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.\88\ The review timeframe established in EPCA is generally 
not synchronized with the product lifetime, product manufacturing 
cycles, or other factors specific to GSLs. Thus, such results are 
presented for informational purposes only and are not indicative of any 
change in DOE's analytical methodology. The NES sensitivity analysis 
results based on a 9-year analytical period are presented in Table 
VII.18. The impacts are counted over the lifetime of GSLs purchased in 
2029-2037.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-4: 
Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 2003. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/legacy_drupal_files/omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf 
(last accessed March 25, 2022).
    \88\ 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.

           Table VII.18--Cumulative National Energy Savings for GSLs; 9 Years of Shipments (2029-2037)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Trial standard level
                                Product class  -----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    1          2          3          4          5          6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              quads
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
Primary Energy Savings.......  Integrated           0.029      0.041      0.343      0.724      0.891      0.981
                                Omnidirectiona
                                l Short.
                               Integrated           0.025      0.055      0.086      0.086      0.086      0.087
                                Omnidirectiona
                                l Long.
                               Integrated           0.001      0.061      0.134      0.134      0.134      0.134
                                Directional.
                               Non-integrated       0.000      0.003      0.003      0.003      0.003      0.003
                                Omnidirectiona
                                l.
                               Non-integrated       0.003      0.003      0.003      0.003      0.003      0.008
                                Directional.
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Total.......      0.059      0.163      0.569      0.950      1.117      1.213
FFC Energy Savings...........  Integrated           0.030      0.043      0.356      0.752      0.926      1.020
                                Omnidirectiona
                                l Short.
                               Integrated           0.026      0.058      0.090      0.090      0.090      0.090
                                Omnidirectiona
                                l Long.
                               Integrated           0.001      0.063      0.139      0.139      0.139      0.139
                                Directional.
                               Non-integrated       0.000      0.003      0.003      0.003      0.003      0.003
                                Omnidirectiona
                                l.
                               Non-integrated       0.004      0.004      0.004      0.004      0.004      0.008
                                Directional.
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 1700]]

 
                                  Total.......      0.061      0.170      0.592      0.988      1.162      1.260
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits
    DOE estimated the cumulative NPV of the total costs and savings for 
consumers that would result from the TSLs considered for GSLs. In 
accordance with OMB's guidelines on regulatory analysis,\89\ DOE 
calculated NPV using both a 7-percent and a 3-percent real discount 
rate. Table VII.19 shows the consumer NPV results with impacts counted 
over the lifetime of products purchased in 2029-2058.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-4: 
Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 2003. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/legacy_drupal_files/omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf 
(last accessed March 25, 2022).

   Table VII.19--Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for GSLs; 30 Years of Shipments (2029-2058)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Trial standard level
        Discount rate           Product class  -----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    1          2          3          4          5          6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Billion $2021
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
3 percent....................  Integrated           0.731      1.062     11.622     13.969     15.141     15.141
                                Omnidirectiona
                                l Short.
                               Integrated           0.179      0.369      0.523      0.523      0.523      0.415
                                Omnidirectiona
                                l Long.
                               Integrated           0.065      2.213      4.737      4.737      4.737      4.737
                                Directional.
                               Non-integrated       0.001      0.017      0.017      0.017      0.017      0.017
                                Omnidirectiona
                                l.
                               Non-integrated       0.034      0.034      0.035      0.035      0.063      0.063
                                Directional.
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Total.......      1.010      3.694     16.937     19.283     20.483     20.373
7 percent....................  Integrated           0.296      0.431      4.031      4.810      5.208      5.208
                                Omnidirectiona
                                l Short.
                               Integrated           0.074      0.143      0.179      0.179      0.179      0.081
                                Omnidirectiona
                                l Long.
                               Integrated           0.029      0.908      1.976      1.976      1.976      1.976
                                Directional.
                               Non-integrated       0.001      0.009      0.009      0.009      0.009      0.009
                                Omnidirectiona
                                l.
                               Non-integrated       0.011      0.011      0.012      0.012      0.018      0.018
                                Directional.
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Total.......      0.411      1.503      6.207      6.986      7.391      7.294
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NPV results based on the aforementioned 9-year analytical 
period are presented in Table VII.20. The impacts are counted over the 
lifetime of products purchased in 2029-2037. As mentioned previously, 
such results are presented for informational purposes only and are not 
indicative of any change in DOE's analytical methodology or decision 
criteria.

    Table VII.20 Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for GSLs; 9 Years of Shipments (2029-2037)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Trial standard level
        Discount rate           Product class  -----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    1          2          3          4          5          6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Billion $2021
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
3 percent....................  Integrated           0.270      0.391      2.218      4.772      5.708      6.216
                                Omnidirectiona
                                l Short.
                               Integrated           0.104      0.205      0.266      0.266      0.266      0.157
                                Omnidirectiona
                                l Long.
                               Integrated           0.023      0.769      1.731      1.731      1.731      1.731
                                Directional.
                               Non-integrated       0.001      0.017      0.017      0.017      0.017      0.017
                                Omnidirectiona
                                l.
                               Non-integrated       0.015      0.015      0.015      0.015      0.015      0.028
                                Directional.
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Total.......      0.414      1.397      4.246      6.801      7.738      8.149
7 percent....................  Integrated           0.143      0.207      1.017      2.196      2.596      2.814
                                Omnidirectiona
                                l Short.
                               Integrated           0.050      0.092      0.102      0.102      0.102      0.015
                                Omnidirectiona
                                l Long.
                               Integrated           0.014      0.424      0.960      0.960      0.960      0.960
                                Directional.
                               Non-integrated       0.001      0.009      0.009      0.009      0.009      0.009
                                Omnidirectiona
                                l.
                               Non-integrated       0.006      0.006      0.006      0.006      0.006      0.010
                                Directional.
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Total.......      0.214      0.739      2.095      3.273      3.674      3.809
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1701]]

    The previous results reflect the use of a default trend to estimate 
the change in price for GSLs over the analysis period (see section 
VI.G, VI.H of this document). As part of the NIA, DOE also analyzed a 
high and low benefits scenarios that use inputs from variants of the 
AEO 2022 Reference case. For the high benefits scenario, DOE uses the 
AEO 2022 High Economic Growth scenario, which has a higher energy price 
trend relative to the Reference case, as well as a lower price learning 
rate. The lower learning rate in this scenario slows down the adoption 
of more efficacious lamp options in the no-new-standards case, 
increasing the available energy savings attributable to a standard. For 
the low benefits scenario, DOE uses the AEO 2022 Low Economic Growth 
scenario, which has a lower energy price trend relative to the 
Reference case, as well as a higher price learning rate. The higher 
learning rate in this scenario accelerates the adoption of more 
efficacious lamp options in the no-new-standards case (relative to the 
reference scenario) decreasing the available energy savings 
attributable to a standard. NIA results based on these cases are 
presented in appendix 9C of the NOPR TSD.
c. Indirect Impacts on Employment
    It is estimated that amended energy conservation standards for GSLs 
would reduce energy expenditures for consumers of those products, with 
the resulting net savings being redirected to other forms of economic 
activity. These expected shifts in spending and economic activity could 
affect the demand for labor. As described in section VI.M of this 
document, DOE used an input/output model of the U.S. economy to 
estimate indirect employment impacts of the TSLs that DOE considered. 
There are uncertainties involved in projecting employment impacts, 
especially changes in the later years of the analysis. Therefore, DOE 
generated results for near-term timeframes (2029-2032), where these 
uncertainties are reduced.
    The results suggest that the proposed standards would be likely to 
have a negligible impact on the net demand for labor in the economy. 
The net change in jobs is so small that it would be imperceptible in 
national labor statistics and might be offset by other, unanticipated 
effects on employment. Chapter 15 of the NOPR TSD presents detailed 
results regarding anticipated indirect employment impacts.
4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products
    As discussed in section IV.C.1.b of this document, DOE has 
tentatively concluded that the standards proposed in this NOPR would 
not lessen the utility or performance of GSLs under consideration in 
this rulemaking. Manufacturers of these products currently offer units 
that meet or exceed the proposed standards.
5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
    DOE considered any lessening of competition that would be likely to 
result from new or amended standards. As discussed in section III.E.1.e 
the Attorney General determines the impact, if any, of any lessening of 
competition likely to result from a proposed standard, and transmits 
such determination in writing to the Secretary, together with an 
analysis of the nature and extent of such impact. To assist the 
Attorney General in making this determination, DOE has provided DOJ 
with copies of this NOPR and the accompanying TSD for review. DOE will 
consider DOJ's comments on the proposed rule in determining whether to 
proceed to a final rule. DOE will publish and respond to DOJ's comments 
in that document. DOE invites comment from the public regarding the 
competitive impacts that are likely to result from this proposed rule. 
In addition, stakeholders may also provide comments separately to DOJ 
regarding these potential impacts. See the ADDRESSES section for 
information to send comments to DOJ.
6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy
    Enhanced energy efficiency, where economically justified, improves 
the Nation's energy security, strengthens the economy, and reduces the 
environmental impacts (costs) of energy production. Reduced electricity 
demand due to energy conservation standards is also likely to reduce 
the cost of maintaining the reliability of the electricity system, 
particularly during peak-load periods. Chapter 14 in the NOPR TSD 
presents the estimated impacts on electricity generating capacity, 
relative to the no-new-standards case, for the TSLs that DOE considered 
in this rulemaking.
    Energy conservation resulting from potential energy conservation 
standards for GSLs is expected to yield environmental benefits in the 
form of reduced emissions of certain air pollutants and greenhouse 
gases. Table VII.21 provides DOE's estimate of cumulative emissions 
reductions expected to result from the TSLs considered in this 
rulemaking. The emissions were calculated using the multipliers 
discussed in section VI.K. DOE reports annual emissions reductions for 
each TSL in chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD.

                                       Table VII.21--Cumulative Emissions Reduction for GSLs Shipped in 2029-2058
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               Trial standard level
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 1               2               3               4               5               6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Power Sector Emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (million metric tons)...............................            5.07           15.72           95.56          112.20          120.70          121.21
SO2 (thousand tons).....................................            2.41            7.54           46.19           54.31           58.44           58.63
NOX (thousand tons).....................................            2.55            7.83           47.36           55.66           59.91           60.11
Hg (tons)...............................................            0.02            0.05            0.31            0.36            0.39            0.40
CH4 (thousand tons).....................................            0.39            1.22            7.43            8.73            9.40            9.43
N2O (thousand tons).....................................           0.066            0.17            1.04            1.22            1.31            1.32
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Upstream Emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (million metric tons)...............................            0.39            1.22            7.44            8.72           9.389            9.43
SO2 (thousand tons).....................................            0.03            0.08            0.50            0.59            0.64            0.65
NOX (thousand tons).....................................            5.96           18.55          112.89          132.30          142.22          142.94
Hg (tons)...............................................            0.00            0.00            0.00            0.00            0.00            0.00
CH4 (thousand tons).....................................           37.19          115.79          705.02          826.81          888.80          893.33

[[Page 1702]]

 
N2O (thousand tons).....................................            0.00            0.01            0.04            0.04            0.05            0.05
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Total FFC Emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (million metric tons)...............................            5.46           16.95         103.011          120.92          130.08          130.63
SO2 (thousand tons).....................................            2.44            7.62           46.70           54.90           59.08           59.27
NOX (thousand tons).....................................            8.50           26.36          160.17          187.96          202.13          203.05
Hg (tons)...............................................            0.02            0.05            0.31            0.36            0.39            0.39
CH4 (thousand tons).....................................           37.58          117.01          712.45          835.54          898.21          902.76
N2O (thousand tons).....................................            0.06            0.18            1.08            1.26            1.36            1.36
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of the analysis for this rulemaking, DOE estimated monetary 
benefits likely to result from the reduced emissions of CO2 
that DOE estimated for each of the considered TSLs for GSLs. Section 
VI.L of this document discusses the SC-CO2 values that DOE 
used. Table VII.22 presents the value of CO2 emissions 
reduction at each TSL for each of the SC-CO2 cases. The 
time-series of annual values is presented for the proposed TSL in 
chapter 13 of the NOPR TSD.

              Table VII.22--Present Value of CO2 Emissions Reduction for GSLs Shipped in 2029-2058
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             SC-CO2 Case discount rate and statistics
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                       TSL                                                                            3% 95th
                                                    5% Average      3% Average     2.5% Average     percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Billion 2021$
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................            0.05            0.21            0.33            0.65
2...............................................            0.14            0.64            1.01            1.94
3...............................................            0.84            3.76            5.94           11.40
4...............................................            0.99            4.42            7.00           13.42
5...............................................            1.07            4.77            7.54           14.47
6...............................................            1.07            4.79            7.57           14.52
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in section VI.L.2, DOE estimated monetary benefits 
likely to result from the reduced emissions of methane and 
N2O that DOE estimated for each of the considered TSLs for 
GSLs. Table VII.23 presents the value of the CH4 emissions 
reduction at each TSL, and Table VII.24 presents the value of the 
N2O emissions reduction at each TSL. The time-series of 
annual values is presented for the proposed TSL in chapter 13 of the 
NOPR TSD.

            Table VII.23--Present Value of Methane Emissions Reduction for GSLs Shipped in 2029-2058
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             SC-CH4 Case discount rate and statistics
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                       TSL                                                                            3% 95th
                                                    5% Average      3% Average     2.5% Average     percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Billion 2021$
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................            0.02            0.05            0.07            0.12
2...............................................            0.05            0.14            0.20            0.38
3...............................................            0.27            0.84            1.19            2.23
4...............................................            0.32            0.99            1.40            2.62
5...............................................            0.34            1.07            1.51            2.83
6...............................................            0.34            1.07            1.51            2.84
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


         Table VII.24--Present Value of Nitrous Oxide Emissions Reduction for GSLs Shipped in 2029-2058
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             SC-N2O Case discount rate and statistics
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                       TSL                                                                            3% 95th
                                                    5% Average      3% Average     2.5% Average     percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Billion 2021$
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................            0.00            0.00            0.00            0.00
2...............................................            0.00            0.00            0.00            0.01
3...............................................            0.00            0.01            0.02            0.04

[[Page 1703]]

 
4...............................................            0.00            0.02            0.03            0.04
5...............................................            0.00            0.02            0.03            0.05
6...............................................            0.00            0.02            0.03            0.05
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE is well aware that scientific and economic knowledge about the 
contribution of CO2 and other GHG emissions to changes in 
the future global climate and the potential resulting damages to the 
world economy continues to evolve rapidly. Thus, any value placed on 
reduced GHG emissions in this rulemaking is subject to change. That 
said, because of omitted damages, DOE agrees with the IWG that these 
estimates most likely underestimate the climate benefits of greenhouse 
gas reductions. DOE, together with other Federal agencies, will 
continue to review methodologies for estimating the monetary value of 
reductions in CO2 and other GHG emissions. This ongoing 
review will consider the comments on this subject that are part of the 
public record for this and other rulemakings, as well as other 
methodological assumptions and issues. DOE notes that the proposed 
standards would be economically justified even without inclusion of 
monetized benefits of reduced GHG emissions.
    DOE also estimated the monetary value of the health benefits 
associated with NOX and SO2 emissions reductions 
anticipated to result from the considered TSLs for GSLs. The dollar-
per-ton values that DOE used are discussed in section VI.L.2 of this 
document. Table VII.25 presents the present value for NOX 
emissions reduction for each TSL calculated using 7-percent and 3-
percent discount rates, and Table VII.26 presents similar results for 
SO2 emissions reductions. The results in these tables 
reflect application of EPA's low dollar-per-ton values, which DOE used 
to be conservative. The time-series of annual values is presented for 
the proposed TSL in chapter 13 of the NOPR TSD.

 Table VII.25--Present Value of NOX Emissions Reduction for GSLs Shipped
                              in 2029-2058
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            3% Discount     7% Discount
                   TSL                         rate            rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Million 2021$
                                         -------------------------------
1.......................................          128.52          328.95
2.......................................          361.78          977.41
3.......................................        1,999.29        5,694.00
4.......................................        2,364.15        6,705.13
5.......................................        2,558.94        7,231.34
6.......................................        2,556.26        7,254.16
------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Table VII.26--Present Value of SO2 Emissions Reduction for GSLs Shipped
                              in 2029-2058
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            3% Discount     7% Discount
                   TSL                         rate            rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Million 2021$
                                         -------------------------------
1.......................................           50.32          127.15
2.......................................          142.19          380.10
3.......................................          793.83        2,235.21
4.......................................          940.53        2,636.87
5.......................................        1,018.93        2,846.03
6.......................................        1,016.18        2,850.98
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE has not considered the monetary benefits of the reduction of Hg 
for this NOPR. Not all the public health and environmental benefits 
from the reduction of greenhouse gases, NOx, and SO2 are 
captured in the values above, and additional unquantified benefits from 
the reductions of those pollutants as well as from the reduction of Hg, 
direct PM, and other co-pollutants may be significant.
    DOE emphasizes that the emissions analysis, including the SC-GHG 
analysis, presented in this NOPR and TSD was performed in support of 
the cost-benefit analyses required by Executive Order 12866, and is 
provided to inform the public of the impacts of emissions reductions 
resulting from this each TSL considered.
7. Other Factors
    The Secretary of Energy, in determining whether a standard is 
economically justified, may consider any other factors that the 
Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C.

[[Page 1704]]

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) No other factors were considered in this 
analysis.
8. Summary of Economic Impacts
    Table VII.27 presents the NPV values that result from adding the 
monetized estimates of the potential economic, climate, and health 
benefits resulting from reduced GHG, SO2, and NOX 
emissions to the NPV of consumer benefits calculated for each TSL 
considered in this rulemaking. The consumer benefits are domestic U.S. 
monetary savings that occur as a result of purchasing the covered GSLs, 
and are measured for the lifetime of products shipped in 2029-2058. The 
climate benefits associated with reduced GHG emissions resulting from 
the adopted standards are global benefits, and are also calculated 
based on the lifetime of GSLs shipped in 2029-2058. The climate 
benefits associated with four SC-GHG estimates are shown. DOE does not 
have a single central SC-GHG point estimate and it emphasizes the 
importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all 
four SC-GHG estimates.

    Table VII.27--Consumer NPV Combined With Monetized Climate and Health Benefits From Emissions Reductions
                                                [Billions 2021$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Category                  TSL 1        TSL 2        TSL 3        TSL 4        TSL 5        TSL 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    3% discount rate for NPV of Consumer and Health Benefits (billion 2021$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% d.r., Average SC-GHG case......         1.53         5.24        25.98        29.94        31.97        31.90
3% d.r., Average SC-GHG case......         1.73         5.84        29.48        34.06        36.42        36.36
2.5% d.r., Average SC-GHG case....         1.87         6.26        32.02        37.05        39.64        39.59
3% d.r., 95th percentile SC-GHG            2.24         7.38        38.53        44.72        47.91        47.89
 case.............................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    7% discount rate for NPV of Consumer and Health Benefits (billion 2021$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% d.r., Average SC-GHG case......         0.65         2.20        10.11        11.60        12.38        12.28
3% d.r., Average SC-GHG case......         0.85         2.79        13.62        15.72        16.83        16.74
2.5% d.r., Average SC-GHG case....         0.99         3.22        16.16        18.71        20.05        19.98
3% d.r., 95th percentile SC-GHG            1.37         4.33        22.67        26.38        28.32        28.28
 case.............................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Conclusion

    When considering new or amended energy conservation standards, the 
standards that DOE adopts for any type (or class) of covered product 
must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy 
efficiency that the Secretary determines is technologically feasible 
and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) In determining 
whether a standard is economically justified, the Secretary must 
determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens by, 
to the greatest extent practicable, considering the seven statutory 
factors discussed previously. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The new or 
amended standard must also result in significant conservation of 
energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
    For this NOPR, DOE considered the impacts of amended standards for 
GSLs at each TSL, beginning with the maximum technologically feasible 
level, to determine whether that level was economically justified and 
resulted in the maximum improvement in energy efficiency. Where the 
max-tech level was not economically justified or did not result in the 
maximum improvement in energy efficiency, DOE then considered the next 
most efficient level and undertook the same evaluation until it reached 
the efficiency level that represented the maximum improvement in energy 
efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified 
and saves a significant amount of energy. DOE refers to this process as 
the ``walk-down'' analysis.
    To aid the reader as DOE discusses the benefits and/or burdens of 
each TSL, tables in this section present a summary of the results of 
DOE's quantitative analysis for each TSL. In addition to the 
quantitative results presented in the tables, DOE also considers other 
burdens and benefits that affect economic justification. These include 
the impacts on identifiable subgroups of consumers who may be 
disproportionately affected by a national standard and impacts on 
employment.
    DOE also notes that the economics literature provides a wide-
ranging discussion of how consumers trade off upfront costs and energy 
savings in the absence of government intervention. Much of this 
literature attempts to explain why consumers appear to undervalue 
energy efficiency improvements. There is evidence that consumers 
undervalue future energy savings as a result of (1) a lack of 
information, (2) a lack of sufficient salience of the long-term or 
aggregate benefits, (3) a lack of sufficient savings to warrant 
delaying or altering purchases, (4) excessive focus on the short term, 
in the form of inconsistent weighting of future energy cost savings 
relative to available returns on other investments, (5) computational 
or other difficulties associated with the evaluation of relevant 
tradeoffs, and (6) a divergence in incentives (for example, between 
renters and owners, or builders and purchasers). Having less than 
perfect foresight and a high degree of uncertainty about the future, 
consumers may trade off these types of investments at a higher than 
expected rate between current consumption and uncertain future energy 
cost savings.
    In DOE's current regulatory analysis, potential changes in the 
benefits and costs of a regulation due to changes in consumer purchase 
decisions are included in two ways. First, if consumers forego the 
purchase of a product in the standards case, this decreases sales for 
product manufacturers, and the impact on manufacturers attributed to 
lost revenue is included in the MIA. Second, DOE accounts for energy 
savings attributable only to products actually used by consumers in the 
standards case; if a standard decreases the number of products 
purchased by consumers, this decreases the potential energy savings 
from an energy conservation standard. DOE provides estimates of 
shipments and changes in the volume of product purchases in chapter 8 
of the NOPR TSD. However, DOE's current analysis does not explicitly 
control for heterogeneity in consumer preferences, preferences across 
subcategories of products or specific features, or

[[Page 1705]]

consumer price sensitivity variation according to household income.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ P.C. Reiss and M.W. White. Household Electricity Demand, 
Revisited. Review of Economic Studies. 2005. 72(3): pp. 853-883. 
doi: 10.1111/0034-6527.00354.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While DOE is not prepared at present to provide a fuller 
quantifiable framework for estimating the benefits and costs of changes 
in consumer purchase decisions due to an energy conservation standard, 
DOE is committed to developing a framework that can support empirical 
quantitative tools for improved assessment of the consumer welfare 
impacts of appliance standards. DOE has posted a paper that discusses 
the issue of consumer welfare impacts of appliance energy conservation 
standards, and potential enhancements to the methodology by which these 
impacts are defined and estimated in the regulatory process.\91\ DOE 
welcomes comments on how to more fully assess the potential impact of 
energy conservation standards on consumer choice and how to quantify 
this impact in its regulatory analysis in future rulemakings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ Sanstad, A.H. Notes on the Economics of Household Energy 
Consumption and Technology Choice. 2010. Lawrence Berkeley National 
Laboratory. www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/pdfs/consumer_ee_theory.pdf (last accessed March 25, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for GSLs Standards
    Table VII.28 and Table VII.29 summarize the quantitative impacts 
estimated for each TSL for GSLs. The national impacts are measured over 
the lifetime of GSLs purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the 
anticipated first full year of compliance with amended standards 2029-
2058. The energy savings, emissions reductions, and value of emissions 
reductions refer to full-fuel-cycle results. DOE exercises its own 
judgment in presenting monetized climate benefits as recommended in 
applicable Executive Orders and DOE would reach the same conclusion 
presented in this rulemaking in the absence of the social cost of 
greenhouse gases, including the February 2021 Interim Estimates 
presented by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of 
Greenhouse Gases. The efficiency levels contained in each TSL are 
described in section VII.A of this document.

                                       Table VII.28--Summary of Analytical Results for GSL TSLs: National Impacts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Category                               TSL 1           TSL 2           TSL 3           TSL 4           TSL 5           TSL 6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Cumulative FFC National Energy Savings
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quads...................................................            0.17            0.52            3.14            3.68            3.96            3.98
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Cumulative FFC Emissions Reduction
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (million metric tons)...............................             5.5            16.9           103.0           120.9           130.1           130.6
CH4 (thousand tons).....................................            37.6           117.0           712.4           835.5           898.2           902.8
N2O (thousand tons).....................................             0.1             0.2             1.1             1.3             1.4             1.4
SO2 (thousand tons).....................................             2.4             7.6            46.7            54.9            59.1            59.3
NOX (thousand tons).....................................             8.5            26.4           160.2           188.0           202.1           203.0
Hg (tons)...............................................             0.0             0.0             0.3             0.4             0.4             0.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Present Value of Benefits and Costs (3% discount rate, billion 2021$)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings.........................             1.0             3.2            19.5            23.1            24.9            25.0
Climate Benefits *......................................             0.3             0.8             4.6             5.4             5.9             5.9
Health Benefits **......................................             0.5             1.4             7.9             9.3            10.1            10.1
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Benefits [dagger].............................             1.8             5.4            32.1            37.9            40.9            41.0
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger].............             0.0            -0.5             2.6             3.8             4.4             4.6
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Consumer Net Benefits...............................             1.0             3.7            16.9            19.3            20.5            20.4
    Total Net Benefits..................................             1.7             5.8            29.5            34.1            36.4            36.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Present Value of Benefits and Costs (7% discount rate, billion 2021$)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings.........................             0.4             1.3             7.5             8.9             9.7             9.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Climate Benefits *......................................             0.3             0.8             4.6             5.4             5.9             5.9
Health Benefits **......................................             0.2             0.5             2.8             3.3             3.6             3.6
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Benefits[dagger]..............................             0.9             2.6            14.9            17.7            19.1            19.1
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger].............             0.0            -0.2             1.3             2.0             2.3             2.4
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Consumer Net Benefits...............................             0.4             1.5             6.2             7.0             7.4             7.3
    Total Net Benefits..................................             0.9             2.8            13.6            15.7            16.8            16.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with GSLs shipped in 2029-2058. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue
  after 2058 from the products shipped in 2029-2058.

[[Page 1706]]

 
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the SC-CO2, SC-CH4 and SC-N2O. Together, these represent the global SC-GHG. For
  presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but the
  Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate. On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-30087) granted the
  federal government's emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-
  1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit's order, the preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the federal
  government's appeal of that injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that case
  from ``adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon'' the interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases--which were issued by
  the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021--to monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas
  emissions As reflected in this proposed rule, DOE has reverted to its approach prior to the injunction and presents monetized greenhouse gas abatement
  benefits where appropriate and permissible under law.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing (for NOX and SO2) PM2.5 precursor
  health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health
  benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions. See section VI.L of this document for more details.
[dagger] Total benefits include consumer, climate, and health benefits. Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using
  the average SC-GHG with 3-percent discount rate, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate. DOE emphasizes the
  importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SC-GHG estimates. See Table VII.27 for net benefits using all four SC-GHG
  estimates.
[Dagger] Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs. Negative increment cost increases reflect a lower total first cost
  under a particular standard for GSLs shipped in 2029-2058. Several factors contribute to this, including that certain lamp option at higher ELs are
  less expensive than certain lamp options at lower ELs that would be eliminated under a particular standard level, the relative decrease in price of
  LED lamp options compared to less efficient CFL options due to price learning, and the longer lifetime of LED lamp options resulting in fewer
  purchases over the analysis period.


                               Table VII.29--Summary of Analytical Results for GSL TSLs: Manufacturer and Consumer Impacts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Category                               TSL 1           TSL 2           TSL 3           TSL 4           TSL 5           TSL 6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Manufacturer Impacts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry NPV (million 2021$) (No-new-standards case INPV     1,964-1,968     1,880-1,874     1,838-1,868     1,821-1,873     1,745-1,868     1,741-1,867
 = 2,014)...............................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry NPV (% change).................................     (2.5)-(2.3)     (6.6)-(6.9)     (8.6)-(7.1)     (9.5)-(6.9)    (13.2)-(7.2)    (13.5)-(7.2)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Consumer Average LCC Savings (2021$)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Omnidirectional Short........................            1.95            2.42            0.55            0.62            0.66            0.66
Integrated Omnidirectional Long.........................            1.35            2.27            3.63            3.63            3.63            4.53
Integrated Directional..................................            8.92            1.65            3.09            3.09            3.09            3.09
Non-integrated Omnidirectional..........................            4.93            6.62            6.62            6.62            6.62            6.62
Non-integrated Directional..............................            0.48            0.48            0.48            0.48            0.52            0.52
Shipment-Weighted Average \*\...........................            2.77            2.30            1.18            1.24            1.26            1.32
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Consumer Simple PBP (years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Omnidirectional Short........................             0.5             0.2             0.5             0.7             0.8             0.8
Integrated Omnidirectional Long.........................             3.4             2.5             2.8             2.8             2.8             3.0
Integrated Directional..................................             0.0             0.0             0.0             0.0             0.0             0.0
Non-integrated Omnidirectional..........................          **>6.6             2.1             2.1             2.1             2.1             2.1
Non-integrated Directional..............................             2.5             2.5             2.5             2.5             3.4             3.4
Shipment-Weighted Average \*\...........................             0.8             0.4             0.7             0.8             0.9             0.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Percent of Consumers that Experience a Net Cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Omnidirectional Short........................            0.8%            1.2%           18.0%           19.0%           19.8%           19.8%
Integrated Omnidirectional Long.........................            4.2%            6.6%            4.9%            4.9%            4.9%            5.1%
Integrated Directional..................................            0.0%            0.0%            0.0%            0.0%            0.0%            0.0%
Non-integrated Omnidirectional..........................            9.4%            0.2%            0.2%            0.2%            0.2%            0.2%
Non-integrated Directional..............................           14.6%           14.6%           14.6%           14.6%           24.2%           24.2%
Shipment-Weighted Average \*\...........................            1.2%            1.7%           14.4%           15.1%           15.8%           15.9%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parentheses indicate negative (-) values.
* Weighted by shares of each product class in total projected shipments in 2029.
** Two lamp options exist at the minimum EL for TSL 1. One lamp option has a simple payback period of 6.6 years, and the other lamp has an infinite
  simple payback period. The aggregated simple payback period is therefore reported as greater than 6.6 years. Note that the shipment-weighted average
  (two rows below) assumes a defined value of 6.6 years for Non-integrated Omnidirectional lamps at TSL 1.

    DOE first considered TSL 6, which represents the max-tech 
efficiency levels for all product classes. At this level, DOE expects 
that all product classes would require the most efficacious LED 
technology current available on the market. DOE estimates that 
approximately 17 percent of annual shipments across all GSL product 
classes currently meet the max-tech efficiencies required. TSL 6 would 
save an estimated 3.98 quads of energy, an amount DOE considers 
significant. Under TSL 6, the NPV of consumer benefit would be $7.3 
billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $20.4 billion using a 
discount rate of 3 percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 6 are 130.6 Mt of 
CO2, 59.3 thousand tons of SO2, 203.0 thousand 
tons of NOX, 0.4 tons of Hg, 902.8 thousand tons of 
CH4, and 1.4 thousand tons of N2O. The estimated 
monetary value of the climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions 
(associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate) at 
TSL 6 is $5.9 billion. The estimated monetary value of the health 
benefits from reduced SO2 and

[[Page 1707]]

NOX emissions at TSL 6 is $3.6 billion using a 7-percent 
discount rate and $10.1 billion using a 3-percent discount rate.
    Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs, 
health benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX 
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits 
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated total NPV at TSL 6 is $16.7 
billion. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, 
the estimated total NPV at TSL 6 is $36.4 billion. The estimated total 
NPV is provided for additional information, however DOE primarily 
relies upon the NPV of consumer benefits when determining whether a 
proposed standard level is economically justified.
    At TSL 6 in the residential sector, the largest product classes are 
Integrated Omnidirectional Short GSLs, including traditional pear-
shaped, candle-shaped, and globe-shaped GSLs, and Integrated 
Directional GSLs, including reflector lamps commonly used in recessed 
cans, which together account for 99 percent of annual shipments. The 
average LCC impact is a savings of $0.59 and $3.01 and a simple payback 
period of 0.8 years, and 0.0 years, respectively, for those product 
classes. The fraction of purchases associated with a net LCC cost is 
22.0 percent and 0.0 percent, respectively. In the commercial sector, 
the largest product classes are Integrated Omnidirectional Short GSLs 
and Integrated Omnidirectional Long GSLs, including tubular LED GSLs 
often referred to as TLEDs, which together account for 91 percent of 
annual shipments. The average LCC impact is a savings of $1.11 and 
$4.74 and a simple payback period of 0.5 years and 2.9 years, 
respectively, for those product classes. The fraction of purchases 
associated with a net LCC cost is 4.8 and 2.3 percent, respectively. 
Overall, 15.9 percent of GSL purchases are associated with a net cost 
and the average LCC savings are positive for all product classes.
    At TSL 6, an estimated 21.0 percent of purchases of Integrated 
Omnidirectional Short GSLs and 0.0 percent of purchases of Integrated 
Directional GSLs by low-income households are associated with a net 
cost. While 21.0 percent of purchases of Integrated Omnidirectional 
Short GSLs by low-income households would be associated with a net 
cost, DOE notes that a third of those purchases have a net cost of no 
more than $0.25 and over 75 percent of those purchases have a net cost 
of no more than $1.00. Moreover, DOE notes that the typical low-income 
household has multiple Integrated Omnidirectional Short GSLs. Based on 
the average total number of lamps in a low-income household (23, based 
on RECS 2015) and the average fraction of lamps in the residential 
sector that are Integrated Omnidirectional Short GSLs (84 percent, 
based on DOE's shipments analysis), DOE estimates that low-income 
households would have approximately 19 Integrated Omnidirectional Short 
GSLs, on average. An analysis accounting for multiple lamp purchases 
would show significantly fewer low-income consumers experience a net 
cost at the household level than on a per-purchase basis. For example, 
assuming low-income households purchase two lamps per year over a 
period of seven years (corresponding to the average service life of the 
baseline Integrated Omnidirectional Short lamp), DOE estimates that 
only 6.0 percent of low-income households would experience a net cost 
and 94.0 percent would experience a net benefit.
    At TSL 6, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of 
$271 million to a decrease of $145 million, which corresponds to 
decreases of 13.5 percent and 7.2 percent, respectively. DOE estimates 
that approximately 83 percent of Integrated Omnidirectional Short 
shipments; approximately 86 percent of the Integrated Omnidirectional 
Long shipments; approximately 66 percent of the Integrated Directional 
shipments; approximately 45 percent of the Non-Integrated 
Omnidirectional-Short shipments; approximately 73 percent Non-
Integrated Directional shipments are estimated to not meet the ELs 
analyzed at TSL 6 by 2029, the estimated first full year of compliance.
    DOE estimates that industry must invest approximately $407 million 
to redesign these non-compliant models into compliant models in order 
to meet the ELs analyzed at TSL 6. DOE assumed that most, if not all, 
LED lamp models would be remodeled between the estimated publication of 
this rulemaking's final rule and the estimated date which energy 
conservation standards are required, even in the absence of DOE energy 
conservation standards for GSLs. Therefore, GSL energy conservation 
standards set at TSL 6 would require GSL manufacturers to remodel their 
GSL models to a higher efficacy level during their regularly scheduled 
remodel cycle, due to energy conservation standards. GSL manufacturers 
would incur additional engineering resources to redesign their LED 
lamps to meet this higher efficacy requirement. DOE did not estimate 
that GSL manufacturers would incur any capital conversion costs as the 
volume of LED lamps manufactured in 2029 would be fewer than the volume 
of LED lamps manufactured in the previous year, 2028, even at TSL 6. 
Additionally, DOE did not estimate that manufacturing more efficacious 
LED lamps would require additional or different capital equipment or 
tooling.
    After considering the analysis and weighing the benefits and 
burdens, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that a standard set at 
TSL 6 for GSLs would result in the maximum improvement in energy 
efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. 
At this TSL, the average LCC savings for all product classes is 
positive. An estimated 15.9 percent of all GSL purchases are associated 
with a net cost. While 21.0 percent of purchases of Integrated 
Omnidirectional Short GSLs by low-income households would be associated 
with a net cost, a third of those purchases have a net cost of no more 
than $0.25 and over 75 percent of those purchases have a net cost of no 
more than $1.00. And significantly fewer low-income consumers 
experience a net cost at the household level after accounting for 
multiple lamp purchases. The FFC national energy savings of 3.98 quads 
are significant and the NPV of consumer benefits is positive using both 
a 3-percent and 7-percent discount rate. Notably, the benefits to 
consumers vastly outweigh the decrease in manufacturers' INPV. At TSL 
6, the NPV of consumer benefits, even measured at the more conservative 
discount rate of 7 percent is over 26 times higher than the maximum 
estimated manufacturers' loss in INPV. The standard levels at TSL 6 are 
economically justified even without weighing the estimated monetary 
value of emissions reductions. When those emissions reductions are 
included--representing $5.9 billion in climate benefits (associated 
with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate), and $10.1 
billion (using a 3-percent discount rate) or $3.6 billion (using a 7-
percent discount rate) in health benefits--the rationale becomes 
stronger still.
    As stated, DOE conducts the walk-down analysis to determine the TSL 
that represents the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is 
technologically feasible and economically justified as required under 
EPCA. 86 FR 70892, 70908. Although DOE has not conducted a comparative 
economic analysis to select the proposed energy conservation standards, 
DOE notes that the proposed standard level represents the maximum

[[Page 1708]]

improvement in energy efficiency for all product classes and is only 
$0.1 billion less that the maximum consumer NPV, represented by TSL 5, 
at both 3 and 7 percent discount rates. Compared to TSL 4, Integrated 
Omnidirectional Short purchases at TSL 6 are approximately 1 percent 
more likely to be associated with a net cost, but NES is an additional 
0.3 quads and NPV is an additional $1.1 billion at 3 percent discount 
rate and $0.3 billion at 7 percent discount rate. Compared to TSL 1 or 
2, while 18 percent of Integrated Omnidirectional Short purchases at 
TSL 6 are associated with a net cost, compared to 1 percent at TSL 1 or 
2, NES is more than 3 quads larger at TSL 6 and NPV is greater by more 
than $16 billion at 3 percent discount rate and more than $5 billion at 
7 percent discount rate. These additional savings and benefits at TSL 6 
are significant. DOE considers the impacts to be, as a whole, 
economically justified at TSL 6.
    DOE acknowledges that TSL 6 is estimated to result in 0.02 quads of 
additional FFC national energy savings compared to TSL 5. The national 
consumer NPV is larger at TSL 5, compared to TSL 6, by $0.1 billion 
using either a 7-percent discount rate or a 3-percent discount rate. 
However, as noted previously, EPCA requires DOE to adopt the standard 
that would represent the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that 
is technically feasible and economically justified. DOE seeks comment 
on the merits of adopting TSL 5 as an alternative for the final rule. 
DOE could consider TSL 5, among others, in the final rule based on 
comments received. Additionally, given the relatively modest 
differences, DOE requests comment on the relative estimates of energy 
savings and net benefits for TSLs 6 and 5 and whether there are 
additional sensitivities to consider beyond the equipment switching for 
TLEDs.
    Although DOE considered proposed amended standard levels for GSLs 
by grouping the efficiency levels for each product class into TSLs, DOE 
evaluates all analyzed efficiency levels in its analysis. DOE notes 
that among all possible combinations of ELs, the proposed standard 
level represents the max NES and differs from max NPV by only $0.1 
billion.
    Therefore, based on the previous considerations, DOE proposes to 
adopt the energy conservation standards for GSLs at TSL 6. The proposed 
amended energy conservation standards for GSLs, which are expressed as 
lamp efficacy or lumens per watt (lm/W), are shown in Table VII.30.

                      Table VII.30--Proposed Amended Energy Conservation Standards for GSLs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Representative product class                                    Efficacy (lm/W)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Omnidirectional Short (Not Capable of Operating in            123/(1.2+e-0.005*(Lumens-200))) + 25.9
 Standby Mode)......................................................
Integrated Omnidirectional Long (Not Capable of Operating in Standby    123/(1.2+e(-0.005*(Lumens-200))) + 74.1
 Mode)..............................................................
Integrated Directional (Not Capable of Operating in Standby Mode)...     73/(0.5+e(-0.0021*(Lumens+1000)))-47.2
Non-integrated Omnidirectional Short................................     122/(0.55+e(-0.003*(Lumens+250)))-83.4
Non-integrated Directional..........................................   67/(0.45+e(-0.00176*(Lumens+1310)))-53.1
Integrated Omnidirectional Short (Capable of Operating in Standby       123/(1.2+e(-0.005*(Lumens-200))) + 17.1
 Mode)..............................................................
Integrated Directional (Capable of Operating in Standby Mode).......      73/(0.5+e(-0.0021*(Lumens+1000))-50.9
Non-integrated Omnidirectional Long.................................    123/(1.2+e(-0.005*(Lumens-200))) + 93.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Standards
    The benefits and costs of the proposed standards can also be 
expressed in terms of annualized values. The annualized net benefit is 
(1) the annualized national economic value (expressed in 2021$) of the 
benefits from operating products that meet the proposed standards 
(consisting primarily of operating cost savings from using less 
energy), minus increases in product purchase costs, and (2) the 
annualized monetary value of the climate and health benefits from 
emission reductions.
    Table VII.31 shows the annualized values for GSLs under TSL 6, 
expressed in 2021$. The results under the primary estimate are as 
follows.
    Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and 
NOX and SO2 reduction benefits, and a 3-percent 
discount rate case for GHG social costs, the estimated cost of the 
proposed standards for GSLs is $289.4 million per year in increased 
equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $1,171.5 
million from reduced equipment operating costs, $358.1 million from GHG 
reductions, and $432.0 million from reduced NOX and 
SO2 emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to 
$1,672.2 million per year.
    Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the 
estimated cost of the proposed standards for GSLs is $280.3 million per 
year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits 
are $1,521.4 million in reduced operating costs, $358.1 million from 
GHG reductions, and $615.6 million from reduced NOX and 
SO2 emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to 
$2,214.8 million per year.

     Table VII.31--Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for GSLs (TSL 6)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Million 2021$/year
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Low-net-benefits  High-net-benefits
                                                          Primary estimate       estimate           estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                3% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings........................            1,521.4            1,469.8            1,586.0
Climate Benefits *.....................................              358.1              357.7              358.5
Health Benefits **.....................................              615.6              615.0              616.3
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
    Total Benefits [dagger]............................             2495.1            2,442.5            2,560.8

[[Page 1709]]

 
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger]............              280.3              291.0              270.0
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
    Net Benefits.......................................            2,214.8            2,151.6            2,290.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                7% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings........................            1,171.5            1,135.9            1,215.2
Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)..................              358.1              357.7              358.5
Health Benefits **.....................................              432.0              431.7              432.4
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
    Total Benefits [dagger]............................            1,961.6            1,925.3            2,006.1
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger]............              289.4              299.4              279.8
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
    Net Benefits.......................................            1,672.2            1,625.9            1,726.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with GSLs shipped in 2029-2058. These results
  include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2058 from the products shipped in 2029-2058.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC-GHG (see section VI.L of this
  erulemaking). For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-
  GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point
  estimate, and it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SC-
  GHG estimates. On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-30087) granted the federal
  government's emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued
  in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit's order, the
  preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the federal government's appeal of that
  injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in
  that case from ``adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon'' the interim estimates of the
  social cost of greenhouse gases--which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of
  Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021--to monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As
  reflected in this proposed rule, DOE has reverted to its approach prior to the injunction and presents
  monetized greenhouse gas abatement benefits where appropriate and permissible under law.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing
  (for NOX and SO2) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will
  continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct
  PM2.5 emissions. See section VI.L of this document for more details.
[dagger] Total benefits include consumer, climate, and health benefits. Total benefits for both the 3-percent
  and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-percent discount rate, but the Department
  does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate. DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering
  the benefits calculated using all four SC-GHG estimates.
[Dagger] Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs.

D. Reporting, Certification, and Sampling Plan

    Manufacturers, including importers, must use product-specific 
certification templates to certify compliance to DOE. For GSLs, the 
certification template reflects the general certification requirements 
specified at 10 CFR 429.12 and the product-specific requirements 
specified at 10 CFR 429.57. As discussed in the previous paragraphs, 
DOE is not proposing to amend the product-specific certification 
requirements for these products.

VIII. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' 
as supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O. 13563, ``Improving Regulation 
and Regulatory Review, 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011), requires agencies, 
to the extent permitted by law, to (1) propose or adopt a regulation 
only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs 
(recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); 
(2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on society, 
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, 
among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of 
cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative 
regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits 
(including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, 
and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the 
extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying 
the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must 
adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct 
regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the 
desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing 
information upon which choices can be made by the public. DOE 
emphasizes as well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to use the best 
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future 
benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its guidance, the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) has emphasized that such techniques may 
include identifying changing future compliance costs that might result 
from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes. For 
the reasons stated in the preamble, this proposed regulatory action is 
consistent with these principles.
    Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit 
``significant regulatory actions'' to OIRA for review. OIRA has 
determined that this proposed regulatory action constitutes an 
``economically significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of 
E.O. 12866. Accordingly, pursuant to section 6(a)(3)(C) of E.O. 12866, 
DOE has provided to OIRA an assessment, including the underlying 
analysis, of benefits and costs anticipated from the proposed 
regulatory action, together with, to the extent feasible, a 
quantification of those costs; and an assessment, including the 
underlying analysis, of costs and benefits of potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives to the planned

[[Page 1710]]

regulation, and an explanation why the planned regulatory action is 
preferable to the identified potential alternatives. These assessments 
are summarized in this preamble and further detail can be found in the 
technical support document for this rulemaking.

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires 
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for 
any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the 
agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
As required by E.O. 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in 
Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published 
procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the 
potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly 
considered during the rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its 
procedures and policies available on the Office of the General 
Counsel's website (www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel). DOE has 
prepared the following IRFA for the products that are the subject of 
this rulemaking.
1. Description on Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
    For manufacturers of GSLs, the SBA has set a size threshold, which 
defines those entities classified as ``small businesses'' for the 
purposes of the statute. DOE used the SBA's small business size 
standards to determine whether any small entities would be subject to 
the requirements of the rule. (See 13 CFR part 121.) The size standards 
are listed by NAICS code and industry description and are available at 
www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards. Manufacturing of 
GSLs is classified under NAICS 335139, ``electric lamp bulb and other 
lighting equipment manufacturing.'' The SBA sets a threshold of 1,250 
employees or less for an entity to be considered as a small business 
for this category.
    DOE created a database of GSLs covered by this rulemaking using 
publicly available information. DOE's research involved information 
from DOE's compliance certification database,\92\ EPA's ENERGY STAR 
Certified Light Bulbs Database,\93\ manufacturers' websites, and 
retailer websites. DOE found over 800 companies that sell or 
manufacture GSLs covered in this rulemaking. Using information from D&B 
Hoovers, DOE screened out companies that have more than 1,250 employees 
or are completely foreign owned and operated. Based on the results of 
this analysis, DOE estimates there are approximately 347 small 
businesses that sell or manufacture GSLs covered by this rulemaking. 
Based on DOE's database, 326 of these potential small businesses 
exclusively sell or manufacture LED lamps and do not sell lamps using 
other technologies (i.e., CFLs), while 21 potential small businesses 
sell or manufacture some CFLs covered by this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data.
    \93\ ENERGY STAR Qualified Lamps Product List, https://www.energystar.gov/productfinder/product/certified-light-bulbs/results (last accessed May 2, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements Including 
Differences in Cost, if Any, for Different Groups of Small Entities
    For the 326 small businesses that exclusively sell or manufacture 
LED lamps, these small businesses will be required to remodel many of 
the LED lamps they sell or manufacture if the proposed standards are 
adopted. However, GSL manufacturers stated during manufacturer 
interviews conducted prior to the March 2016 NOPR that their normal 
redesign cycle for an LED lamp model is between 18 months to 24 
months.\94\ DOE assumed that most, if not all, LED lamp models would be 
remodeled between the estimated publication of this rulemaking's final 
rule and the estimated date which energy conservation standards are 
required, even in the absence of DOE energy conservation standards for 
GSLs. However, small businesses exclusively selling or manufacturing 
LED lamps would be required to spend additional engineering time to 
remodel all LED lamp models that would not meet the proposed energy 
conservation standards, since these LED lamp models would be required 
to be more efficacious than originally planned, in the no-new-standards 
case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ Redesign cycle refers to the time a specific LED lamp is on 
the market before it is redesigned and a newer model is introduced 
to the market to replace the existing model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The methodology DOE used to estimate product conversion costs for 
this NOPR analysis is described in section VI.J.2.c of this document. 
At the proposed standards, TSL 6, DOE estimates that all manufacturers 
would incur approximately $407 million in product conversion costs. 
These estimated product conversion costs, at TSL 6, represent 
approximately 6.6 percent of annual revenue over the estimated five-
year compliance period.\95\ While small manufacturers are likely to 
have lower per-model sales volumes than larger manufacturers, GSL 
manufacturer revenue from LED lamps is estimated to be approximately 
$1,503 million in 2029, the estimated first full year of compliance, at 
TSL 6 compared to $1,340 million in the no-new-standards case. This 
represents an increase of approximately 12 percent in annual revenue 
generated from the sales of LED lamps, since LED lamps will be the only 
technology capable of meeting the proposed standard.\96\ DOE estimates 
that small GSL manufacturers exclusively selling LED lamps would incur 
no more than 4.5 percent of their annual revenue over the estimated 
five-year compliance period to redesign non-compliant LED lamps into 
compliant LED lamps meeting the proposed standards (i.e., TSL 6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ The total estimated revenue between 2024, the estimated 
announcement year, and 2028, the year prior to the compliance year 
is approximately, $9,078 million. $407 / $9,078 = 4.5%.
    \96\ In the no-new-standards case, the revenue in 2029 includes 
revenue from the sale of CFLs in addition to the revenue from LED 
lamps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the 21 small businesses that sell some CFLs covered by this 
rulemaking, the impact of these proposed standards for each small 
business depends on the number of CFLs a small business sells or 
manufacturers, and if they also sell LED lamps to replace these non-
compliant CFLs. The 21 potential small businesses that DOE identified 
range in the number of covered CFLs they sell or manufacture from just 
one CFL model to 533 CFL models.

[[Page 1711]]



                  Table VIII.1--Number of Small Businesses by Number of Covered CFL Models Sold
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Number of covered CFL models sold by a small business
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   21-60 CFL        61-533 CFL
                               1-5 CFL models  6-20 CFL models       models           models           Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Small Businesses..  8..............  4..............  4..............  5..............              21
Revenue from Small Business   $68 million....  $68 million....  $31 million....  $216 million...
 (Upper).
Revenue from Small Business   $0.4 million...  $28 million....  $1.8 million...  $7.1 million...
 (Lower).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on data from D&B Hoovers, DOE collected estimates of the 
range of annual revenue for small businesses based on the number of 
covered CFL models each small business sells or manufactures.
    For the eight small businesses that sell or manufacture five or 
fewer covered CFLs, DOE does not anticipate these proposed standards 
would significantly impact these small businesses. All of the small 
businesses sell other products not covered by this rulemaking and would 
either continue to sell LED lamps covered by this rulemaking or exit 
the GSL market and would not recover any of the revenue previously 
earned from the sale of their five or fewer CFL models.
    For the four small businesses that sell or manufacture between six 
and 20 CFL models, DOE also does not anticipate these proposed 
standards would significantly impact these small businesses. All these 
small businesses have annual revenue over $28 million. The loss of 
sales from up to 20 CFL models is not likely to be a significant impact 
to a company with annual sales of $28 million.
    Some small businesses that sell or manufacture between 21 and 60 
CFL models, could be potentially impacted by the proposed standards. 
Specifically, one small business has an annual revenue of $1.8 million 
and sells approximately 41 CFL models (compared to 264 LED lamp models) 
covered by this rulemaking and another small business has an annual 
revenue of $3.2 million and sells approximately 59 CFL models (compared 
to 557 LED lamp models) covered by this rulemaking. These two small 
businesses could be significantly impacted by the potential loss of CFL 
sales if these manufacturers are not able to replace these lost CFL 
sales with LED lamp sales.
    For the five small businesses that manufacture between 61 and 533 
CFL models, four of them have annual revenue of more than $50 million. 
All of these four manufacturers also offer more than 1,000 LED lamps 
that are covered by this rulemaking. The loss of sales from these CLFs 
models, between 61 and 533 CFL models, is not likely to be a 
significant impact to a company with annual sales of more than $50 
million, especially since all of these small manufacturers have more 
than 1,000 LED lamp models in addition to their CFL models. The last 
small business sells approximately 336 CFL models (compared to 925 LED 
lamp models) covered by this rulemaking and has an annual revenue of 
approximately $7.1 million. This small business could be significantly 
impacted by the potential loss of CFL sales if this manufacturer is not 
able to replace their lost CFL sales with LED lamp sales.
    Lastly, these CFL model counts represent the current market 
offerings of the identified small businesses. The shipment analysis 
projects a significant decline in CFL shipments from the reference year 
of the analysis (in 2022 CFL shipments are estimated to be 
approximately 33 million) compared to the CFL shipments in the 
estimated first full year of compliance (in 2029 CFL shipments are 
estimated to be approximately 6.6 million). Many of these small 
businesses will continue to replace CFL models with LED lamp models 
between now and the estimated compliance date even in the absence of 
energy conservation standards.
3. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and Regulations
    DOE is not aware of any rules or regulations that duplicate, 
overlap, or conflict with the proposed new and amended standards. As 
discussed in this NOPR, the May 2022 Backstop Rule and May 2022 
Definition Rule were recently issued under the first cycle of GSL 
rulemaking under 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A). Effective July 2022, these 
rules expanded the definition of GSL and codified a statutorily 
prescribed backstop sales prohibition for the sale of any GSL that does 
not meet a minimum efficacy standard of 45 lm/W. Pursuant to statutory 
direction in 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(B), DOE is initiating this second 
cycle of rulemaking for GSLs to determine whether standards for GSLs 
should be further amended. While the statute directs DOE to begin this 
second cycle no later than January 1, 2020, DOE is delayed in 
initiating this rulemaking for the reasons previously discussed in this 
NOPR. DOE is proposing an effective date for this NOPR consistent with 
statutory requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(B)(iii) that the 
Secretary publish a final rule with an effective date that is not 
earlier than 3 years after the date on which the final rule under this 
second cycle of rulemaking is published. DOE seeks comment on any rules 
or regulations that could potentially duplicate, overlap, or conflict 
with the proposed new and amended standards.
4. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
    The discussion in the previous section analyzes impacts on small 
businesses that would result from DOE's proposed rule, represented by 
TSL 6. In reviewing alternatives to the proposed rule, DOE examined 
energy conservation standards set at lower efficiency levels. While TSL 
1, TSL 2, TSL 3, TSL 4, and TSL 5 would reduce the impacts on small 
business manufacturers, it would come at the expense of a reduction in 
energy savings and consumer NPV. TSL 1 achieves 95.9 percent lower 
energy savings and a 95.0 percent lower consumer NPV compared to the 
energy savings and consumer NPV at TSL 6. TSL 2 achieves 87.1 percent 
lower energy savings and a 81.9 percent lower consumer NPV compared to 
the energy savings and consumer NPV at TSL 6. TSL 3 achieves 21.1 
percent lower energy savings and a 16.9 percent lower consumer NPV 
compared to the energy savings and consumer NPV at TSL 6. TSL 4 
achieves 7.5 percent lower energy savings and 5.5 percent lower 
consumer NPV compared to the energy savings and consumer NPV at TSL 6. 
TSL 5 achieves 0.5 percent lower energy savings compared to the energy 
savings at TSL 6.
    Based on the presented discussion, establishing standards at TSL 6 
balances the benefits of the energy savings at TSL 6 with the potential 
burdens placed on GSL manufacturers, including small business 
manufacturers. Moreover, establishing standards at TSL 6 represents the 
maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically 
feasible and

[[Page 1712]]

economically justified as required under EPCA. Accordingly, DOE 
declines to propose one of the other TSLs considered in the analysis, 
or the other policy alternatives examined as part of the regulatory 
impact analysis included in chapter 16 of the NOPR TSD.
    Additional compliance flexibilities may be available through other 
means. EPCA provides that a manufacturer whose annual gross revenue 
from all of its operations does not exceed $8 million may apply for an 
exemption from all or part of an energy conservation standard for a 
period not longer than 24 months after the effective date of a final 
rule establishing the standard. Additionally, section 504 of the 
Department of Energy Organization Act, 42 U.S.C. 7194, provides 
authority for the Secretary to adjust a rule issued under EPCA in order 
to prevent ``special hardship, inequity, or unfair distribution of 
burdens'' that may be imposed on that manufacturer as a result of such 
rule. Manufacturers should refer to 10 CFR part 430, subpart E, and 
part 1003 for additional details.

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

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

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

    DOE is analyzing this proposed regulation in accordance with the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and DOE's NEPA 
implementing regulations (10 CFR part 1021). DOE's regulations include 
a categorical exclusion for rulemakings that establish energy 
conservation standards for consumer products or industrial equipment. 
10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, appendix B5.1. DOE anticipates that this 
rulemaking qualifies for categorical exclusion B5.1 because it is a 
rulemaking that establishes energy conservation standards for consumer 
products or industrial equipment, none of the exceptions identified in 
categorical exclusion B5.1(b) apply, no extraordinary circumstances 
exist that require further environmental analysis, and it otherwise 
meets the requirements for application of a categorical exclusion. See 
10 CFR 1021.410. DOE will complete its NEPA review before issuing the 
final rule.

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    E.O. 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), imposes 
certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and implementing 
policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism 
implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the 
constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would 
limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess 
the necessity for such actions. The Executive order also requires 
agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely 
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have Federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE 
published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental 
consultation process it will follow in the development of such 
regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has examined this proposed rule and has 
tentatively determined that it would not have a substantial direct 
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government. EPCA governs 
and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to energy 
conservation for the products that are the subject of this proposed 
rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the 
extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297) 
Therefore, no further action is required by Executive Order 13132.

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

    With respect to the review of existing regulations and the 
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 12988, ``Civil 
Justice Reform,'' imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to 
adhere to the following requirements: (1) eliminate drafting errors and 
ambiguity, (2) write regulations to minimize litigation, (3) provide a 
clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general 
standard, and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. 61 FR 
4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). Regarding the review required by section 3(a), 
section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 specifically requires that Executive 
agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: 
(1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any, (2) clearly 
specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation, (3) 
provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting 
simplification and burden reduction, (4) specifies the retroactive 
effect, if any, (5) adequately defines key terms, and (6) addresses 
other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship 
under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of 
Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations 
in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to 
determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or 
more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined 
that, to the extent permitted by law, this proposed rule meets the 
relevant standards of E.O. 12988.

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal 
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the 
private sector. Public Law 104-4, section 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 
1531). For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that 
may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any 
one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA 
requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates 
the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national 
economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal 
agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by 
elected

[[Page 1713]]

officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed 
``significant intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan 
for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially 
affected small governments before establishing any requirements that 
might significantly or uniquely affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE 
published a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental 
consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE's policy statement is also 
available at https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf.
    Although this proposed rule does not contain a Federal 
intergovernmental mandate, it may require expenditures of $100 million 
or more in any one year by the private sector. Such expenditures may 
include: (1) investment in research and development and in capital 
expenditures by GSL manufacturers in the years between the final rule 
and the compliance date for the new standards and (2) incremental 
additional expenditures by consumers to purchase higher-efficiency 
GSLs, starting at the compliance date for the applicable standard.
    Section 202 of UMRA authorizes a Federal agency to respond to the 
content requirements of UMRA in any other statement or analysis that 
accompanies the proposed rule. (2 U.S.C. 1532(c)) The content 
requirements of section 202(b) of UMRA relevant to a private sector 
mandate substantially overlap the economic analysis requirements that 
apply under section 325(o) of EPCA and Executive Order 12866. The 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this NOPR and the TSD for this 
proposed rule respond to those requirements.
    Under section 205 of UMRA, the Department is obligated to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before 
promulgating a rule for which a written statement under section 202 is 
required. (2 U.S.C. 1535(a)) DOE is required to select from those 
alternatives the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the proposed rule unless DOE publishes 
an explanation for doing otherwise, or the selection of such an 
alternative is inconsistent with law. As required by 42 U.S.C. 
6295(i)(6)(A)-(B)), this proposed rule would establish amended energy 
conservation standards for GSLs that are designed to achieve the 
maximum improvement in energy efficiency that DOE has determined to be 
both technologically feasible and economically justified, as required 
by 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 6295(o)(3)(B). A full discussion of the 
alternatives considered by DOE is presented in chapter 16 of the TSD 
for this proposed rule.

H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
1999

    Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family 
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. 
This proposed rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or 
integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has 
concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking 
Assessment.

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

    Pursuant to E.O. 12630, ``Governmental Actions and Interference 
with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,'' 53 FR 8859 (Mar. 15, 
1988), DOE has determined that this proposed rule would not result in 
any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment 
to the U.S. Constitution.

J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
2001

    Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for Federal agencies to review 
most disseminations of information to the public under information 
quality guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general 
guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 
(Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 
(Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to OMB Memorandum M-19-15, Improving 
Implementation of the Information Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE 
published updated guidelines which are available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final%20Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%20Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has 
reviewed this NOPR under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded 
that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

    E.O. 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly 
Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 
2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OIRA at OMB, 
a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy 
action. A ``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an 
agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a 
final rule, and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under 
Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to 
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use 
of energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a 
significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, 
the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on 
energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, 
and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected 
benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
    DOE has tentatively concluded that this regulatory action, which 
proposes amended energy conservation standards for GSLs, is not a 
significant energy action because the proposed standards are not likely 
to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or 
use of energy, nor has it been designated as such by the Administrator 
at OIRA. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy 
Effects on this proposed rule.

L. Information Quality

    On December 16, 2004, OMB, in consultation with the Office of 
Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), issued its Final Information 
Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (the Bulletin). 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 14, 
2005). The Bulletin establishes that certain scientific information 
shall be peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is 
disseminated by the Federal Government, including influential 
scientific information related to agency 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 has prepared a report describing that peer 
review.\97\

[[Page 1714]]

Generation of this report involved a rigorous, formal, and documented 
evaluation using objective criteria and qualified and independent 
reviewers to make a judgment as to the technical/scientific/business 
merit, the actual or anticipated results, and the productivity and 
management effectiveness of programs and/or projects. Because available 
data, models, and technological understanding have changed since 2007, 
DOE has engaged with the National Academy of Sciences to review DOE's 
analytical methodologies to ascertain whether modifications are needed 
to improve the Department's analyses. DOE is in the process of 
evaluating the resulting report.\98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ 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. (last accessed 3/24/2022)
    \98\ The report is available at www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/review-of-methods-for-setting-building-and-equipment-performance-standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference

    UL 1598C is an industry accepted test standard that provides 
requirements for LED downlight retrofit kits. To clarify the scope of 
the standard proposed in this NOPR, DOE is updating the definition for 
``LED Downlight Retrofit Kit'' to reference UL 1598C in the definition. 
UL 1598C is reasonably available on UL's website at https://www.shopulstandards.com/Default.aspx.
    The following standards have already been approved for 
incorporation by reference in their respective locations in the 
regulatory text: ANSI C78.79-2014 (R2020); ANSI C81.61-2006.

IX. Public Participation

A. Participation in the Webinar

    The time and date of the webinar meeting are listed in the DATES 
section at the beginning of this document. Webinar registration 
information, participant instructions, and information about the 
capabilities available to webinar participants will be published on 
DOE's website: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=4. Participants are 
responsible for ensuring their systems are compatible with the webinar 
software.

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for 
Distribution

    Any person who has an interest in the topics addressed in this 
rulemaking, or who is representative of a group or class of persons 
that has an interest in these issues, may request an opportunity to 
make an oral presentation at the webinar. Such persons may submit to 
[email protected]. Persons who wish to speak 
should include with their request a computer file in WordPerfect, 
Microsoft Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file format that briefly describes 
the nature of their interest in this rulemaking and the topics they 
wish to discuss. Such persons should also provide a daytime telephone 
number where they can be reached.
    Persons requesting to speak should briefly describe the nature of 
their interest in this rulemaking and provide a telephone number for 
contact. DOE requests persons selected to make an oral presentation to 
submit an advance copy of their statements at least two weeks before 
the webinar. At its discretion, DOE may permit persons who cannot 
supply an advance copy of their statement to participate, if those 
persons have made advance alternative arrangements with the Building 
Technologies Office. As necessary, requests to give an oral 
presentation should ask for such alternative arrangements.

C. Conduct of the Webinar

    DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the webinar and may 
also use a professional facilitator to aid discussion. The meeting will 
not be a judicial or evidentiary-type public hearing, but DOE will 
conduct it in accordance with section 336 of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6306). A 
court reporter will be present to record the proceedings and prepare a 
transcript. DOE reserves the right to schedule the order of 
presentations and to establish the procedures governing the conduct of 
the webinar/public meeting. There shall not be discussion of 
proprietary information, costs or prices, market share, or other 
commercial matters regulated by U.S. anti-trust laws. After the 
webinar/public meeting and until the end of the comment period, 
interested parties may submit further comments on the proceedings and 
any aspect of the rulemaking.
    The webinar will be conducted in an informal, conference style. DOE 
will present summaries of comments received before the webinar/public 
meeting, allow time for prepared general statements by participants, 
and encourage all interested parties to share their views on issues 
affecting this proposed rule. Each participant will be allowed to make 
a general statement (within time limits determined by DOE), before the 
discussion of specific topics. DOE will permit, as time permits, other 
participants to comment briefly on any general statements.
    At the end of all prepared statements on a topic, DOE will permit 
participants to clarify their statements briefly. Participants should 
be prepared to answer questions by DOE and by other participants 
concerning these issues. DOE representatives may also ask questions of 
participants concerning other matters relevant to this rulemaking. The 
official conducting the webinar/public meeting will accept additional 
comments or questions from those attending, as time permits. The 
presiding official will announce any further procedural rules or 
modification of the above procedures that may be needed for the proper 
conduct of the webinar/public meeting.
    A transcript of the webinar meeting will be included in the docket, 
which can be viewed as described in the Docket section at the beginning 
of this proposed rule. In addition, any person may buy a copy of the 
transcript from the transcribing reporter.

D. Submission of Comments

    DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this 
proposed rule before or after the public meeting, but no later than the 
date provided in the DATES section at the beginning of this proposed 
rule. Interested parties may submit comments, data, and other 
information using any of the methods described in the ADDRESSES section 
at the beginning of this document.
    Submitting comments via www.regulations.gov. The 
www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and 
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE 
Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be 
publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization 
name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your 
comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties, 
DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.
    However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you 
include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your 
comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable 
should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to 
your comment. Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see only first 
and last names, organization names, correspondence

[[Page 1715]]

containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments.
    Do not submit to www.regulations.gov information for which 
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and 
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as 
Confidential Business Information (CBI)). Comments submitted through 
www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received through 
the website will waive any CBI claims for the information submitted. 
For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential Business 
Information section.
    DOE processes submissions made through www.regulations.gov before 
posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being 
submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed 
simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several 
weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that www.regulations.gov 
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
    Submitting comments via email. Comments and documents submitted via 
email also will be posted to www.regulations.gov. If you do not want 
your personal contact information to be publicly viewable, do not 
include it in your comment or any accompanying documents. Instead, 
provide your contact information in a cover letter. Include your first 
and last names, email address, telephone number, and optional mailing 
address. The cover letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it 
does not include any comments.
    Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, 
documents, and other information to DOE. No telefacsimiles (faxes) will 
be accepted.
    Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE 
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that 
are not secured, that are written in English, and that are free of any 
defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or 
any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the 
electronic signature of the author.
    Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the 
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters 
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled 
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting 
time.
    Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 
person submitting information that he or she believes to be 
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via 
email two well-marked copies: one copy of the document marked 
``confidential'' including all the information believed to be 
confidential, and one copy of the document marked ``non-confidential'' 
with the information believed to be confidential deleted. DOE will make 
its own determination about the confidential status of the information 
and treat it according to its determination.
    It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public 
docket, without change and as received, including any personal 
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be 
exempt from public disclosure).

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment

    Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, DOE 
is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of 
interested parties concerning the following issues:

    (1) DOE requests comments on the proposed updates to the 
definitions of ``General service incandescent lamp,'' ``General 
service lamp,'' ``LED downlight retrofit kit'', ``Reflector lamp,'' 
``Showcase lamp,'' and Specialty MR lamp.'' See section IV.B of this 
document.
    (2) DOE requests comments on the proposed definition for 
``Circadian-friendly integrated LED lamp.'' DOE also requests 
comments on the consumer utility and efficacy potential of lamps 
marketed to improve the sleep-wake cycle. See section IV.B of this 
document.
    (3) DOE requests comments on the non-efficacy metrics proposed 
for GSLs. See section V of this document.
    (4) DOE requests comments on whether or not phased-in effective 
dates are necessary for this rulemaking. See section VI of this 
document.
    (5) DOE requests comments and data on the impact of diameter on 
efficacy for linear LED lamps. See section of this document.
    (6) DOE requests comments on all attributes the same, how the 
efficacy of pin base LED lamp replacements and linear LED lamps 
compare. See section VI.A.1 of this document.
    (7) DOE requests comments on the proposed product classes. See 
section VI.A.1 of this document.
    (8) DOE requests comments on the proposed technology options. 
See section VI.A.2 of this document.
    (9) DOE requests comments on the design options it has 
identified. See section VI.B of this document.
    (10) DOE requests comments on the representative product classes 
(i.e., product classes directly analyzed) identified for this 
analysis. See section VI.C.2 of this document.
    (11) DOE requests comments on the baseline lamps selected for 
each representative product class (i.e., Integrated Omnidirectional 
Short Non-standby Mode, Integrated Directional Non-standby Mode, 
Integrated Omnidirectional Long, Non-integrated Omnidirectional 
Short, and Non-integrated Directional). See section VI.C.3 of this 
document.
    (12) DOE requests comments on the more efficacious substitutes 
selected for each representative product class (i.e., Integrated 
Omnidirectional Short Non-standby Mode, Integrated Directional Non-
standby Mode, Integrated Omnidirectional Long, Non-integrated 
Omnidirectional Short, and Non-integrated Directional). See section 
VI.C.4 of this document.
    (13) DOE requests comments on whether any characteristics (e.g., 
diameter [T5, T8]) may prevent or allow a linear LED lamp to achieve 
high efficacies. See section VI.C.4 of this document.
    (14) DOE requests comments on the ELs analyzed for each 
representative product class (i.e., Integrated Omnidirectional Short 
Non-standby Mode, Integrated Directional Non-standby Mode, 
Integrated Omnidirectional Long, Non-integrated Omnidirectional 
Short, and Non-integrated Directional). See section VI.C.5 of this 
document.
    (15) DOE requests comment on its approach to scaling non-
representative product classes in this NOPR. See section IX.E for a 
list of issues on which DOE seeks comment.
    (16) DOE requests comments on its tentative determination that 
lamps such as Type B or Type A/B linear LED lamps do not have 
standby mode functionality. See section VI.C.6.a of this document.
    (17) DOE requests comments on its methodology for determining 
end-user prices and the resulting prices. See section VI.D of this 
document.
    (18) DOE requests comment on the data and methodology used to 
estimate operating hours for GSLs in the residential sector. See 
section VI.E.1 of this document.
    (19) DOE requests comment on the data and methodology used to 
estimate operating hours for GSLs in the commercial sector. See 
section VI.E.1 of this document.
    (20) DOE requests any relevant data and comment on the energy 
use analysis methodology. See section VI.E.3 of this document.
    (21) DOE requests comment on the installation cost assumptions 
used in its analyses. See section VI.F.2 of this document.
    (22) DOE requests comment on the GSL service lifetime model used 
in its analyses. In particular, DOE seeks information about the rate 
of premature failures for LED lamps analyzed in this NOPR and 
whether or not this rate differs from that of comparable CFLs or 
general service fluorescent lamps. DOE also seeks feedback or data 
that would inform the modeling of Integrated Omnidirectional Long 
lamp lifetimes, which have a longer rated lifetime than LED lamps in 
the other analyzed product classes. See section VI.F.5 of this 
document.
    (23) DOE requests comment and relevant data on the disposal cost 
assumptions used

[[Page 1716]]

in its analyses. See section VI.F.7 of this document.
    (24) DOE requests any relevant data and comment on the LCC and 
PBP analysis methodology. See section VI.F.11 of this document.
    (25) DOE requests comment on the assumption that 15 percent of 
demand will be met by integral LED luminaires. See section VI.G.1.a 
of this document.
    (26) DOE requests any relevant data and comment on the shipment 
analysis methodology. See section VI.G.1 of this document.
    (27) DOE requests data or feedback that might inform the 
assumption that linear lamps (regardless of technology type) are 
increasingly absent from new construction. See section VI.G.1.a of 
this document.
    (28) DOE requests input on the described method of accounting 
for demand lost to integral LED fixtures. In particular, DOE seeks 
information about the rate at which linear lamp stock is converted 
to integrated LED fixtures via retrofit or renovation. See section 
VI.G.1.a of this document.
    (29) DOE also used a Bass adoption model to estimate the 
diffusion of LED lamp technologies into the non-integrated product 
class and requests feedback on its assumption that non-integrated 
LED lamp options became available starting in 2015. See section 
VI.G.1.c of this document.
    (30) DOE requests relevant historical data on GSL shipments, 
disaggregated by product class and lamp technology, as they become 
available in order to improve the accuracy of the shipments 
analysis. See section VI.G.1.c of this document.
    (31) DOE requests comment on the assumption that smart lamps 
will reach 50 percent market penetration by 2058. See section 
VI.H.1.a of this document.
    (32) DOE requests comment on the methodology and assumptions 
used to determine the market share of the lumen range distributions. 
See section VI.H.1.b of this document.
    (33) DOE requests information on market share by lamp type and 
the composition of stock by type for Type A and Type B linear LED 
lamps in order to help refine the applied scaling. See section 
VI.H.1.c of this document.
    (34) DOE requests comment on the use of 1.52 as the average 
distribution chain markup for all GSLs and the use of 1.55 as the 
average manufacturer markup for all GSLs. See section VI.J.2.a of 
this document.
    (35) DOE requests comment on the methodology used to calculate 
product and capital conversion costs for GSLs in this NOPR. 
Specifically, DOE requests comment on whether GSL manufacturers 
would incur any capital conversion costs, given the decline in LED 
lamps sales in the first full year of compliance for all TSLs. If 
capital conversion costs would be incurred, DOE requests these costs 
be quantified, if possible. Additionally, DOE requests comment on 
the estimated product conversion costs; the assumption that most LED 
lamp models would be remodeled between the estimated publication of 
this rulemaking's final rule and the estimated date which energy 
conservation standards are required, even in the no-new-standards 
case; and the estimated additional engineering time to remodel LED 
lamp models to comply with the analyzed TSLs. See section VI.J.2.c 
of this document.
    (36) DOE requests comment on how to address the climate benefits 
and other effects of the proposal. See section VI.L of this 
document.
    (37) DOE seeks comment on the assumption that there are no GSL 
manufacturers manufacturing CFLs in the United States. Additionally, 
DOE requests comment on the assumption that up to 30 domestic non-
production employees are involved in the R&D, marketing, sales, and 
distribution of CFLs in the United States, which may be eliminated 
if energy conservation standards are set at TSL 2 or higher. Lastly, 
DOE seeks comment on the assumption that GSL manufacturers would not 
reduce or eliminate any domestic production or non-production 
employees involved in manufacturing or selling LED lamps due to any 
of the analyzed TSLs in this NOPR. See section VII.B.2.b of this 
document.
    (38) DOE requests information regarding the impact of cumulative 
regulatory burden on manufacturers of GSLs associated with multiple 
DOE standards or product-specific regulatory actions of other 
Federal agencies, specifically if these standards occur within three 
years prior to and after 2028. See section VII.B.2.e of this 
document.
    (39) DOE welcomes comments on how to more fully assess the 
potential impact of energy conservation standards on consumer choice 
and how to quantify this impact in its regulatory analysis in future 
rulemakings. See section VII.C of this document.
    (40) DOE seeks comment on the merits of adopting TSL 5 as an 
alternative. See section VII.C.1 of this document.
    (41) DOE requests comment on the relative estimates of energy 
savings and net benefits for TSLs 6 and 5 and whether there are 
additional sensitivities to consider. See section VII.C.1 of this 
document.
    (42) Additionally, DOE welcomes comments on other issues 
relevant to the conduct of this rulemaking that may not specifically 
be identified in this document. See section IX.E of this document.

X. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this notice of 
proposed rulemaking and announcement of public meeting.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430

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

Signing Authority

    This document of the Department of Energy was signed on December 
16, 2022, by Francisco Alejandro Moreno, Acting Assistant Secretary for 
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority 
from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature 
and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in 
compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the 
undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to 
sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as 
an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative 
process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon 
publication in the Federal Register.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on December 20, 2022.
Treena V. Garrett
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE proposes to amend 
430 of chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS

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

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

0
2. Section 430.2 is amended by:
0
a. Adding, in alphabetical order, the definition for ``Circadian-
friendly integrated LED lamp''; and
0
b. Revising the definitions for ``General service incandescent lamp'', 
``General service lamp'', ``LED downlight retrofit kit'', ``Reflector 
lamp'', ``Showcase Lamp'', and ``Specialty MR Lamp''.
    The addition and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  430.2   Definitions.

* * * * *
    Circadian-friendly integrated LED lamp means an integrated LED lamp 
that--
    (1) Is designed and marketed for use in the human sleep-wake 
(circadian) cycle;
    (2) Is designed and marketed as an equivalent replacement for a 40 
W or 60 W incandescent lamp;
    (3) Has at least one setting that decreases or removes standard 
spectrum radiation emission in the 440 nm to 490 nm range; and
    (4) Is sold in packages of two lamps or less.
* * * * *
    General service incandescent lamp means a standard incandescent or

[[Page 1717]]

halogen type lamp that is intended for general service applications; 
has a medium screw base; has a lumen range of not less than 310 lumens 
and not more than 2,600 lumens or, in the case of a modified spectrum 
lamp, not less than 232 lumens and not more than 1,950 lumens; and is 
capable of being operated at a voltage range at least partially within 
110 and 130 volts; however, this definition does not apply to the 
following incandescent lamps--
    (1) An appliance lamp;
    (2) A black light lamp;
    (3) A bug lamp;
    (4) A colored lamp;
    (5) A G shape lamp with a diameter of 5 inches or more as defined 
in ANSI C78.79-2014 (R2020) (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  
430.3);
    (6) An infrared lamp;
    (7) A left-hand thread lamp;
    (8) A marine lamp;
    (9) A marine signal service lamp;
    (10) A mine service lamp;
    (11) A plant light lamp;
    (12) An R20 short lamp;
    (13) A sign service lamp;
    (14) A silver bowl lamp;
    (15) A showcase lamp; and
    (16) A traffic signal lamp.
* * * * *
    General service lamp means a lamp that has an ANSI base; is able to 
operate at a voltage of 12 volts or 24 volts, at or between 100 to 130 
volts, at or between 220 to 240 volts, or of 277 volts for integrated 
lamps (as defined in this section), or is able to operate at any 
voltage for non-integrated lamps (as defined in this section); has an 
initial lumen output of greater than or equal to 310 lumens (or 232 
lumens for modified spectrum general service incandescent lamps) and 
less than or equal to 3,300 lumens; is not a light fixture; is not an 
LED downlight retrofit kit; and is used in general lighting 
applications. General service lamps include, but are not limited to, 
general service incandescent lamps, compact fluorescent lamps, general 
service light-emitting diode lamps, and general service organic light 
emitting diode lamps. General service lamps do not include:
    (1) Appliance lamps;
    (2) Black light lamps;
    (3) Bug lamps;
    (4) Colored lamps;
    (5) G shape lamps with a diameter of 5 inches or more as defined in 
ANSI C78.79-2014 (R2020) (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3);
    (6) General service fluorescent lamps;
    (7) High intensity discharge lamps;
    (8) Infrared lamps;
    (9) J, JC, JCD, JCS, JCV, JCX, JD, JS, and JT shape lamps that do 
not have Edison screw bases;
    (10) Lamps that have a wedge base or prefocus base;
    (11) Left-hand thread lamps;
    (12) Marine lamps;
    (13) Marine signal service lamps;
    (14) Mine service lamps;
    (15) MR shape lamps that have a first number symbol equal to 16 
(diameter equal to 2 inches) as defined in ANSI C78.79-2014 (R2020) 
(incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3), operate at 12 volts, and 
have a lumen output greater than or equal to 800;
    (16) Other fluorescent lamps;
    (17) Plant light lamps;
    (18) R20 short lamps;
    (19) Reflector lamps (as defined in this section) that have a first 
number symbol less than 16 (diameter less than 2 inches) as defined in 
ANSI C78.79-2014 (R2020) (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3) 
and that do not have E26/E24, E26d, E26/50x39, E26/53x39, E29/28, E29/
53x39, E39, E39d, EP39, or EX39 bases;
    (20) S shape or G shape lamps that have a first number symbol less 
than or equal to 12.5 (diameter less than or equal to 1.5625 inches) as 
defined in ANSI C78.79-2014 (R2020) (incorporated by reference; see 
Sec.  430.3);
    (21) Sign service lamps;
    (22) Silver bowl lamps;
    (23) Showcase lamps;
    (24) Specialty MR lamps;
    (25) T-shape lamps that have a first number symbol less than or 
equal to 8 (diameter less than or equal to 1 inch) as defined in ANSI 
C78.79-2014 (R2020) (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3), 
nominal overall length less than 12 inches, and that are not compact 
fluorescent lamps (as defined in this section);
    (26) Traffic signal lamps.
* * * * *
    LED downlight retrofit kit means a product designed and marketed to 
install into an existing downlight, replacing the existing light source 
and related electrical components, typically employing an ANSI standard 
lamp base, either integrated or connected to the downlight retrofit by 
wire leads, and is a retrofit kit classified or certified to UL 1598C 
(incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3). LED downlight retrofit 
kit does not include integrated lamps or non-integrated lamps.
* * * * *
    Reflector lamp means a lamp that has an R, PAR, BPAR, BR, ER, MR, 
or similar bulb shape as defined in ANSI C78.79-2014 (R2020) 
(incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3) and is used to provide 
directional light.
* * * * *
    Showcase lamp means a lamp that has a T-shape as specified in ANSI 
C78.79-2014 (R2020) (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3), is 
designed and marketed as a showcase lamp, and has a maximum rated 
wattage of 75 watts.
* * * * *
    Specialty MR lamp means a lamp that has an MR shape as defined in 
ANSI C78.79-2014 (R2020) (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3), 
a diameter of less than or equal to 2.25 inches, a lifetime of less 
than or equal to 300 hours, and that is designed and marketed for a 
specialty application.
* * * * *
0
4. Section 430.3 is amended by adding paragraph (w)(4) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  430.3   Materials incorporated by reference.

* * * * *
    (w) * * *
    (4) UL 1598C, Standard for Light-Emitting Diode (LED) Retrofit 
Luminaire Conversion Kits, approved January 12, 2017, IBR approved for 
Sec.  430.2.
0
5. Section 430.32 is amended by:
0
a. Removing and reserving paragraph (u); and
0
b. Revising paragraphs (x) and (dd)

    The revisions read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (x) Intermediate base incandescent lamps and candelabra base 
incandescent lamps. (1) Each candelabra base incandescent lamp shall 
not exceed 60 rated watts.
    (2) Each intermediate base incandescent lamp shall not exceed 40 
rated watts.
* * * * *
    (dd) General service lamps. (1) Energy conservation standards for 
general service lamps:
    (i) General service incandescent lamps manufactured after the dates 
specified in the tables below, except as described in paragraph 
(dd)(1)(ii) of this section, shall have a color rendering index greater 
than or equal to 80 and shall have a rated wattage no greater than, and 
a lifetime no less than the values shown in the table as follows:

[[Page 1718]]



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

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

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

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

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

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Standby mode
            Lamp type                   Length             operation                  Efficacy (lm/W)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Integrated Omnidirectional..  Short (<45 inches)  No Standby Mode...  123/(1.2+e-0.005*(Lumens-200))) + 25.9
(2) Integrated Omnidirectional..  Long (>=45 inches)  No Standby Mode...     123/(1.2+e(-0.005*(Lumens-200))) +
                                                                                                           74.1
(3) Integrated Directional......  All Lengths.......  No Standby Mode...    73/(0.5+e(-0.0021*(Lumens+1000))) -
                                                                                                           47.2
(4) Non-integrated                Short (<45 inches)  No Standby Mode...    122/(0.55+e(-0.003*(Lumens+250))) -
 Omnidirectional.                                                                                          83.4
(5) Non-integrated Directional..  All Lengths.......  No Standby Mode...  67/(0.45+e(-0.00176*(Lumens+1310))) -
                                                                                                           53.1
(6) Integrated Omnidirectional..  Short (<45 inches)  Standby Mode......     123/(1.2+e(-0.005*(Lumens-200))) +
                                                                                                           17.1
(7) Integrated Directional......  All Lengths.......  Standby Mode......    73/(0.5+e(-0.0021*(Lumens+1000))) -
                                                                                                           50.9
(8) Non-integrated                Long (>=45 inches)  No Standby Mode...     123/(1.2+e(-0.005*(Lumens-200))) +
 Omnidirectional.                                                                                          93.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Medium base CFLs (as defined in Sec.  430.2) manufactured on or 
after the dates specified in the table shall meet or exceed the 
following standards as follows:

[[Page 1719]]



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

    (3) Lamps with a medium screw base or any other screw base not 
defined in ANSI C81.61-2006 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
430.3); intended for a general service or general illumination 
application (whether incandescent or not); capable of being operated at 
a voltage at least partially within the range of 110 to 130 volts; and 
manufactured or imported after the dates specified in the table must 
meet or exceed the following standards:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Color Rendering Index
                  Lamp type                      (CRI) requirement                  Compliance date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-modified spectrum.......................                       80  July 25, 2028.
Modified spectrum...........................                       70  July 25, 2028.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (4) The standards described in paragraph (dd)(3) of this section do 
not apply to lamps exempted from the definition of general service 
lamps.

[FR Doc. 2022-28072 Filed 1-10-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P