[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 80 (Tuesday, April 27, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22031-22043]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-9714]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[Docket No. EE-DET-03-001]
RIN 1904-AA86
Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products and Certain
Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Proposed Determination Concerning
the Potential for Energy Conservation Standards for High-Intensity
Discharge (HID) Lamps
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Proposed determination.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA or the Act), as
amended, requires the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to issue a final
determination by June 30, 2010, as to whether energy conservation
standards for HID lamps are warranted. Pursuant to court order, this
final determination must be made by June 30, 2010. This document
informs interested parties of the analysis underlying this proposal,
which examines the potential energy savings and whether a future energy
conservation standard for this equipment would be technologically
feasible and economically justified. In this document, DOE also
announces the availability of a preliminary technical support document
(TSD), which provides additional analysis in support of the
determination. The preliminary TSD is available from the Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's Web site at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/high_intensity_lamps.html.
DATES: Written comments on this document and the preliminary TSD are
welcome and must be submitted no later than May 27, 2010. For detailed
instructions, see section IV ``Public Participation.''
ADDRESSES: Interested parties may submit comments, identified by docket
number EE-DET-03-001 and/or Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 1904-
AA86, by any of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
2. E-mail: [email protected]. Include docket number EE-
DET-03-001 and/or RIN 1904-AA86 in the subject line of the message.
3. Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building
Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J, Technical Support Document for
High-Intensity Discharge (HID) Lamps, docket number EE-DET-03-001 and/
or RIN 1904-AA86, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-
0121. Please submit one signed paper original.
4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of
Energy, Building Technologies Program, 6th Floor, 950 L'Enfant Plaza,
SW., Washington, DC 20024. Please submit one signed paper original.
For additional instruction on submitting comments, see section IV,
``Public Participation.''
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents, the
preliminary TSD, or comments received, go to the U.S. Department of
Energy, Resource Room of the Building Technologies Program, Sixth
Floor, 950 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC
[[Page 22032]]
20024, (202) 586-2945, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. Please call Ms. Brenda Edwards at the
above telephone number for additional information about visiting the
Resource Room. You may also obtain copies of certain documents in this
proceeding from the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's
Web site at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/high_intensity_lamps.html.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Linda Graves, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-1851. E-mail: [email protected].
Ms. Jennifer Tiedeman, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the
General Counsel, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-6111. E-mail:
[email protected].
For further information on how to submit or review public comments,
contact Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-2J,
1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone
(202) 586-2945. E-mail: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Summary of the Proposed Determination
A. Legal Authority
B. Background
1. Definitions
2. 2003 Draft Report
3. 2004 Draft Report
II. Discussion of the Analysis of High-Intensity Discharge Lamps
A. Purpose and Content
B. Methodology
1. Market and Technology Assessment
2. Engineering Analysis
3. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis
4. National Energy Savings Analysis
5. National Consumer Impacts Analysis
C. Analysis Results
1. Engineering Analysis
2. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
3. National Energy Savings and Consumer Impacts
D. Discussion
1. Technological Feasibility
2. Significance of Energy Savings
3. Economic Justification
III. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
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 of 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act of 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
IV. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comments
V. Approval of the Office of the Assistant Secretary
I. Summary of the Proposed Determination
EPCA requires DOE to issue a final determination whether energy
conservation standards for HID lamps would be technologically feasible,
economically justified, and would result in significant energy savings.
DOE has tentatively determined that such standards are technologically
feasible, economically justified, and would result in significant
energy savings. Thus, DOE proposes to issue a positive determination.
In its analysis for this proposed determination, DOE evaluated
potential standards for HID that would lead to a migration from less
efficient probe-start metal halide (MH) lamps to more efficient pulse-
start MH lamps and high-pressure sodium (HPS) lamps. Both pulse-start
MH and HPS lamps are existing HID technologies that are technically
feasible. DOE's analysis determined whether a potential standard that
sets a level that eliminates inefficient probe-start MH lamps would be
economically justified and would result in significant energy savings.
DOE has tentatively determined that standards for HID lamps would
be expected to be economically justified from the perspective of an
individual consumer. According to DOE's analysis, there is at least one
set of standard levels for HID lamps which could be set that would
reduce the life-cycle cost (LCC) of ownership for the typical consumer;
that is, the increase in equipment cost resulting from a standard would
be more than offset by energy cost savings over the life of the system.
Standards would also be cost-effective from a national perspective.
The national net present value (NPV) from standards could be as much as
$15.0 billion in 2009$ for products purchased from 2017 to 2046,
assuming an annual real discount rate of 3 percent. This forecast
considers only the direct financial costs and benefits of standards to
consumers, specifically the increased equipment costs of HID lamps and
the associated energy cost savings. In its proposed determination
analysis, DOE did not monetize or otherwise characterize any other
potential costs and benefits of standards such as manufacturer impacts
or power plant emission reductions. If the final determination is
positive, then such additional impacts would be examined in a future
analysis of the economic justification of particular standard levels in
the context of a standards rulemaking that would set specific energy
conservation requirements.
DOE's analysis also indicates that standards would result in
significant cumulative energy savings over the analysis period (2017 to
2046)--at least 2.8 quads. This is equivalent to the annual electricity
consumption of approximately 14 million U.S. homes.
Further documentation supporting the analyses described in this
notice is contained in a separate preliminary TSD, available from the
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's Web site at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/high_intensity_lamps.html.
A. Legal Authority
The National Energy Conservation Policy Act of 1978 amended EPCA to
add a part C to title III of EPCA \1\ establishing an energy
conservation program for certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311-
6317) The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT), Public Law 102-486, 106
Stat. 2776 also amended EPCA, and included amendments that expanded
title III to include HID lamps. Specifically, EPACT amended section 346
of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6317) to provide in paragraph (a) that the Secretary
of Energy (Secretary) must prescribe testing requirements and energy
conservation standards for those HID lamps for which the Secretary
determines that energy conservation standards ``would be
technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result
in significant energy savings.'' (42 U.S.C. 6317(a)(1))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For editorial reasons, Part C, Certain Industrial Equipment,
was redesignated as Part A-1 in the United States Code.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under EPCA, if DOE makes a positive determination, then it must
proceed to establish testing requirements for those HID lamps to which
the determination applies. (42 U.S.C. 6317(a)(1)) Subsequently, DOE
will conduct a rulemaking to establish appropriate energy conservation
standards. During the standards rulemaking, DOE would decide whether,
and at what level(s), to
[[Page 22033]]
promulgate energy conservation standards. This decision would be based
on an in-depth consideration, with public participation, of the
technological feasibility, economic justification, and energy savings
of potential standard levels in the context of the criteria and
procedures for prescribing new or amended standards established by
section 325(o) and (p). (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(p).)
B. Background
DOE conducted previous analyses estimating the likely range of
energy savings and economic benefits that would result from energy
conservation standards for HID lamps, and prepared reports describing
its analyses. DOE published these draft reports in June 2003 and
December 2004, and made them available for public comment on the Office
of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's Web site at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/high_intensity_lamps.html. The reports made no recommendation concerning
the determination that DOE should make.
After the 2003 report, DOE received comments. The National
Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) encouraged DOE to extend
coverage to HID lamps even if no energy conservation standard were set.
(NEMA, No. 6 at pp. 1-2) \2\ Again after the 2004 report, NEMA made a
similar comment. NEMA also emphasized that ``it is incumbent on DOE to
state clearly in a forthcoming determination that HID lamps are
`covered products' and thus Federal law preempts State regulation of
all HID lamps.'' (NEMA, No. 15 at p. 1.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ A notation in the form ``NEMA, No. 6 at pp. 1-2'' identifies
a written comment (1) made by NEMA; (2) recorded in document number
6 that is filed in the docket of the HID lamp energy conservation
standards rulemaking EE-DET-03-001 and maintained in the Resource
Room of the Building Technologies Program; and (3) which appears on
pages 1-2 of document number 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2002, DOE began the analysis in preparation for a proposed
determination. DOE conducted initial analyses and shared its initial
findings regarding efficiency improvement in HID lamps in the June 2003
draft report. Subsequently, DOE received additional data and
information provided by NEMA. More recently, NEMA provided HID lamp
shipments by lamp type for 2003 to 2008, and shipments by wattage
grouping (i.e., low, medium, and high) for 2008 that was used in the
analysis for today's proposed determination.
1. Definitions
DOE reviewed the relevant portions of the Energy Independence
Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007), and 10 CFR part 431 for applicable
existing definitions for use in conducting a determination for energy
conservation standards for HID lamps. EISA 2007 amended EPCA, in part
by adding key terms that are applicable to the HID determination,
including ``high intensity discharge lamp,'' ``mercury vapor lamp,''
and ``metal halide lamp.'' (42 U.S.C. 6291) These terms are defined as
follows:
``High intensity discharge lamp'' means an electric-discharge lamp
in which--
(1) The light-producing arc is stabilized by the arc tube wall
temperature; and
(2) The arc tube wall loading is in excess of 3 watts (W)/
centimeters squared (cm\2\), including such lamps that are mercury
vapor, metal halide, and high-pressure sodium lamps. (42 U.S.C.
6291(46)(A).)
``Mercury vapor lamp'' means a high intensity discharge lamp in
which the major portion of the light is produced by radiation from
mercury typically operating at a partial vapor pressure in excess of
100,000 pascals (Pa) (approximately 1 standard atmosphere). It includes
clear, phosphor-coated, and self-ballasted screw-base lamps. (42 U.S.C.
6291(47)(A).)
``Metal halide lamp'' means a high-intensity discharge lamp in
which the major portion of the light is produced by radiation of metal
halides and their product of dissociation, possibly in combination with
metallic vapors. (42 U.S.C. 6291(63).)
Although current statutory definitions pertaining to HID lamps are
relatively comprehensive, DOE believes that an additional definition
will be necessary should DOE begin a test procedure rulemaking for HID
lamps. Therefore, in the future, DOE will propose inserting a
definition for ``high pressure sodium lamp'' into 10 CFR 431.452,
``Definitions concerning high-intensity discharge lamps.''
Although low-pressure sodium (LPS) lamps are often classified as
HID lamps in catalogues, they do not meet the definition of an HID lamp
pursuant to EPCA, as amended. The arc tube wall loading for LPS lamps
is lower than the statutorily defined 3 W/cm\2\ threshold; therefore,
LPS lamps are not HID lamps for purposes of today's proposed
determination.
2. 2003 Draft Report
DOE received comments on the June 2003 draft report from Allegheny
Power; the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE);
the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans); Delta Power
Supply (Delta); EEI; NEMA; the Pennsylvania Department of
Transportation (PennDOT); and Ms. Lucinda Seigel. Unlike today's
proposed determination, DOE's previous reports focused primarily on MV
lamps rather than all HID lamp technologies. The following is a
discussion of general comments received in response to the 2003 draft
report, and a limited review of specific technical comments.
Comments responding to the 2003 Draft Report were generally
supportive of a positive determination, and indicated that substantial
benefits could be obtained from a standard that eliminated less
efficient MV lamps. Delta stated that it wanted its comment to be
considered an ``emphatic YES'' to an HID lamp standard. (Delta, No. 9
at p. 2) Many interested parties were in favor of restrictions on MV
lamps. Caltrans commented that a possible rule eliminating MV would not
affect it because it had stopped installing MV products and replaced
most MV fixtures with HPS. (Caltrans, No. 8 at p. 1) ACEEE commented on
the 2003 draft report that ``ACEEE agrees that it makes sense to
establish a minimum efficacy standard that eliminates mercury vapor
lamps for many, if not all, applications.'' (ACEEE, No. 11 at p. 1)
NEMA commented that MV lamps will have been in the marketplace for over
80 years, and energy efficient replacements in the form of HPS and MH
lamps have been generally available for 40 years.
DOE also received specific technical comments regarding possible
lamp efficacy (i.e., a measure of the conversion of power into visible
light which is the technical term for lamp efficiency in the lighting
industry and which is expressed in units of lumens/W). ACEEE referenced
the minimum lamp efficacy of 60 lumens/W permitted in exterior lighting
by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning
Engineers/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999. ACEEE further recommended that DOE
set minimum efficacy requirements that would eliminate probe-start MH
lamps greater than 150 W. (ACEEE, No. 11 at p. 2)
DOE received many comments regarding alternative, non-HID
technologies, including induction and fluorescent. Non-HID technologies
are achieving market penetration in lighting applications traditionally
dominated by HID; however, a detailed evaluation of these non-HID
technologies falls outside of the scope of today's proposed
determination. DOE will more fully
[[Page 22034]]
consider other non-HID sources as part of a full standards rulemaking.
A comment was also received regarding the potential effect of
standards on small businesses. Caltrans stated that small businesses
usually are not manufacturers of lamps and ballasts and believed that
the potential impact on small businesses would be minimal. (Caltrans,
No. 8 at p. 1) In its technology and market assessments, DOE found that
the majority of HID lamps are manufactured by a limited number of large
companies. However, if DOE makes a positive determination, it will
evaluate the potential effects of energy conservation standards on
small businesses in subsequent HID lamp rulemakings.
3. 2004 Draft Report
DOE received additional comments on the December 2004 draft report
from ACEEE, Benya Lighting Design (Benya), and NEMA. These comments are
discussed in detail in the ``Methodology'' section of this notice.
II. Discussion of the Analysis of High-Intensity Discharge Lamps
A. Purpose and Content
DOE performed an analysis of the feasibility of achieving
significant energy savings as a result of energy conservation standards
for HID lamps. DOE presents the results of this analysis in a
preliminary TSD for this proposed determination. In subsequent analyses
for the standards preliminary analysis, NOPR, and final rule, DOE will
perform the analyses required by EPCA. These analyses will involve more
precise and detailed information that DOE will develop during the
standards rulemaking process, and will detail the effects of proposed
energy conservation standards for HID lamps.
B. Methodology
To address EPCA requirements that DOE determine whether energy
conservation standards for HID lamps would be technologically feasible
and economically justified, and result in significant energy savings
(42 U.S.C. 6317(b)(1)), DOE's performed five component analyses: (1) A
market and technology assessment to understand better where and how HID
lamps are used; (2) an engineering analysis to estimate the
relationship between product costs and energy use; (3) an LCC analysis
to estimate the costs and benefits to users from increased efficacy in
HID lamps; (4) a national energy savings analysis to estimate the
potential energy savings on a national scale; and (5) a national
consumer impacts analysis to estimate potential economic costs and
benefits that would result from improving energy efficacy in the
considered HID lamps. The following is a brief description of each
analysis.
1. Market and Technology Assessment
DOE conducted research into the market for considered HID lamps,
including national annual shipments, the current range of lamp-and-
ballast system efficacies, lamp applications and utilization, market
structure, and distribution channels. It used information from trade
associations that support industrial sectors and reviewed literature in
technical journals. At DOE's request, NEMA provided data on lamp
shipments of HID lamps, subcategorized by HPS, MV, and MH lamp data
from its member manufacturers, for the five-year period from 2003 to
2008. NEMA had provided data for 1990 to 2002 to DOE in previous
efforts related to today's proposed determination. Based on its market
research, DOE found that HID lamps are typically used in commercial,
industrial, and municipal applications with differing electricity
tariffs. DOE estimates that, on average, HID lamps are used in
applications (e.g., municipal (exterior) and industrial) that typically
operate 12 hours per day or more.
Dimming of HID lamps is not common. DOE examined NEMA's Lighting
Systems Division Document LSD 14-2002 Guidelines on the Application of
Dimming High Intensity Discharge Lamps to evaluate typical practices
for HID dimming. LSD 14-2002 notes that that dimming ballasts are
relatively new (having only been commercially available since the
1990s); that HID lamps should not be dimmed below 50 percent of the
rated lamp wattage; that color, life and efficacy are affected by
dimming; and that few standards exist for dimming HID systems requiring
that the system (lamp and ballast) be tested in the field to determine
if the performance of the lamp and ballast working together is
acceptable. Given these barriers to the dimming of HID lamps in typical
applications, DOE assumed that the HID lamps are operating at full
power for the purpose of the analysis supporting this proposed
determination.
Several comments in response to the 2004 draft report addressed
elements of the HID lamp market and how standards promulgated by DOE
might impact the market. Benya commented that standards that
effectively banned MV lamps could be warranted and beneficial. (Benya,
No. 14 at p. 1) ACEEE commented that DOE should focus on replacing
probe-start MH with pulse-start MH, in addition to possibly introducing
standards for MV lamps. (ACEEE, No. 16 at p. 1.)
Since these comments were received, new legislation was enacted in
California that prevents MV ballasts from being manufactured or
imported pursuant to 10 CFR 431.286. See CAL. CODE REGS. Title 20,
Sec. 1605.3(n)(2) (2010). Consequently the analysis for this proposed
determination assumes that any MV lamp shipments will service existing
MV ballasts only, and that MV lamp shipments will decline as a result.
Regulations currently in effect in six States (Arizona, California,
New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Washington) limit the use of probe-
start MH technologies by banning fixtures in the wattage range of 150-
500 from having probe-start ballasts. DOE's analysis for the proposed
determination uses information regarding the impact of the State
regulations and considers market trends in both MV and probe-start MH
technologies.
A key factor in the relative performance of different HID lamp
technologies is the lamp lifetime. Manufacturers publish the life
rating for HID lamps, known as B50 (i.e., the point at which 50 percent
of an operating population of lamps is still operating). DOE received
information regarding lamp and ballast lifetimes in comments received
in response to the 2003 draft report. DOE received comments that MV and
HPS lamps were typically relamped (i.e., replaced) every 4 years, and
MH lamps typically every 2 years. (Caltrans, No. 8 at p. 2; Allegheny,
No. 12 at p. 1) Allegheny further stated that the lamp life is
generally the rated lamp life by the manufacturer. Typical life of HID
lamps varies with lamp type and wattage, and ranges from 8,000 to
greater than 24,000 hours, according to the manufacturer catalog data
surveyed and included in the preliminary TSD. To determine annual
maintenance costs, DOE uses median rated lamp lifetime as the basis for
relamping schedules.
HID lamps typically cannot operate without a ballast that is
specifically designed for a corresponding lamp technology. The vast
majority of ballasts for HID lamps are of the electromagnetic
(magnetic) type. The industry-accepted life of magnetic ballasts is
50,000 hours, and is widely cited in ballast catalogs and by utility
programs. After the 2003 report, Allegheny stated that MV ballast
lifetimes are 12 years or greater. (Allegheny, No. 12 at p. 1) The life
of the light fixture (also known as a luminaire) varies but generally
lasts as long as the ballast.
[[Page 22035]]
Another factor that can affect the energy consumption of an HID
lighting system is the energy consumption of the ballast. DOE analyzed
the system (lamp and ballast) power since particular lamp technologies
are usually associated with a technology-specific ballast design. DOE
received comments related to system input power in response to the
technical reports preceding today's proposed determination. ACEEE
commented that an energy analysis should use the system wattage for the
input power. (ACEEE, No. 11 at p. 3) In response, DOE selected a
representative ballast to pair with the lamp, and used the system input
power to determine energy usage for the proposed determination. DOE
evaluated manufacturer data on ballast performance for multiple HID
ballast designs including constant-wattage autotransformer, constant-
wattage isolated, high-reactance autotransformer, and magnetically-
regulated electronic ballasts. Based on its evaluation, DOE determined
that the variation in ballast input power across ballast designs for a
given lamp wattage is relatively small compared to the energy use
difference between different HID lighting system technologies. For
example, for 175 W probe-start ballasts, the minimum surveyed input
power was 200 W, the maximum surveyed input power was 226 W, and the
median input power was 208 W. There is only a 13 percent range in input
power from the minimum to the maximum input powers surveyed. DOE
calculated median input wattage across applicable ballast designs to
calculate the system energy consumption and concluded that ballast
energy consumption variation should be less than a 7-percent effect.
This variation is small compared to the relative magnitude of energy
savings calculated in DOE's analysis. By comparison, the most efficient
HID substitute for the baseline 175 watt probe start MH lamp is a 100
watt HPS lamp that uses more than 40 percent less power.
For this proposed determination, DOE analyzed a range of lamp
capacities. At least two conventions exist for characterizing HID lamp
capacity: Input power and light output. DOE categorized representative
HID lamps based on the light output (measured in mean lumens) of the
analyzed baseline lamp types since, as lamps get more efficient, the
input power should decrease as the user service (i.e., light output)
stays the same or increases. The analyzed equipment classes correspond
with medium-wattage HID lamps (defined as between 150 and 500 watts),
which was the primary wattage range considered in the 2004 draft
report. However, because DOE considers lumen output instead of wattage
as a more appropriate measure of lamp utility from a consumer
perspective, it uses lumen output as the basis for categorization in
today's proposed determination as shown in table II.1 in section C.1 of
this notice which provides the engineering analysis results.
2. Engineering Analysis
In the engineering analysis, DOE identified representative baseline
HID lighting systems and energy-efficient substitutes within each lumen
output category. Both the baseline system and the efficiency
substitutes have different power ratings, with the power rating
decreasing with the increased efficacy of the substitute. The
engineering analysis outputs of cost and power consumption are critical
inputs to subsequent financial cost-benefit calculations for individual
consumers performed in the LCC and the national impacts analysis. DOE
developed end-user prices, including a contractor mark-up rate and
average national sales tax, for analyzed lamp, lamp-and-ballast, and
luminaire designs.
DOE did not include MV lamps in the engineering analysis for
today's proposed determination. DOE forecasts that MV lamp shipments
will decline to zero by the effective date of a potential HID lamps
standard, assumed as 2017 because of the ban on MV ballast manufactured
after January 1, 2008, codified in EPCA as amended. (42 U.S.C.
6295(ee).) Consequently, DOE did not analyze MV baseline lamps in its
LCC analysis because MV fixtures are no longer a viable purchase
option. However, DOE did consider the existing MV in existing HID
installed base when it performed its national energy savings/national
consumer benefits analysis. This installed base of MV systems will age
and be replaced with other HID technologies over time.
DOE examined other currently available commercial equipment for
replacing the least efficacious (baseline) HID sources--MV and probe-
start MH. ACEEE commented on the 2003 draft report, noting that a
potential standard should address replacing probe-start MH lamps with
pulse-start MH lamps. (ACEEE, No. 11 at p. 2.) Substitutes include
either HPS or pulse-start MH as typical options when replacing either
MV or probe-start MH technologies. HPS lamps are among the most
efficient electric light sources, and are a viable substitute in
applications where energy efficiency and/or lower first cost is
considered more important than color quality. Pulse-start MH is the
most efficient broad spectrum (``white light'') HID technology, and has
a higher first cost than MV and HPS. DOE received related comments
during the Metal Halide Lamp Fixture (DOE Docket No. EERE-2009-BT-STD-
0018/RIN 1904-AC00) public meeting on January 26, 2010. During this
meeting, Philips noted that after California enacted a provision
regarding ballast efficiency that affects probe-start MH lamp ballasts,
the manufacturer saw sales shift from probe-start MH to both pulse-
start MH and HPS. (Philips, RIN1904-AC00 Public Meeting Transcript, No.
1.2.005, at pp. 85 and 164) Philips noted that when California
implemented standards that eliminated probe-start MH technologies, the
manufacturer saw a majority of its sales for probe-start MH lamps shift
in equal portions to pulse-start MH and HPS lamps, respectively.
Therefore, DOE used both HPS and pulse-start MH as substitute options
to the baseline probe-start MH technologies.
DOE assumes in the analysis supporting today's proposed
determination that changes in lamp technology will lead to changes in
the entire lamp system. DOE therefore used a systems approach in
analyzing the representative equipment types because both lamps and
ballasts determine a system's energy use and light output. Accordingly,
the analysis paired lamps with corresponding ballasts to develop
representative lamp-and-ballast systems, in order to estimate the
actual energy usage and light output of operating lamps.
In the engineering analysis for today's proposed determination, DOE
only considered magnetic ballasts because they are the most common
ballast for HID lighting systems. DOE estimates that magnetic ballasts
constitute over 90 percent of HID ballasts currently sold and an even
higher percentage of the installed HID ballast stock. Electronic
ballasts entered the market at the end of the 1990s, and still occupy
less than a 10 percent market share because of a variety of technical
and operational barriers that are discussed in some detail in the
preliminary TSD.
3. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis
DOE conducted an initial LCC analysis to estimate the net financial
benefit to users from the increased efficacy of HID lamps. The LCC
analysis compared the additional initial cost of a more efficacious
lamp and related fixture to the discounted value of electricity savings
over the life of the fixture ballast. DOE's LCC analysis used
[[Page 22036]]
the following inputs: Estimated average annual operating hours and lamp
lifetimes; estimated average prices for lamps and fixtures;
representative maintenance costs; electricity prices paid by users of
HID lamps; and the discount rate. In commenting on previous draft
reports, PennDOT noted that tariffs vary by region even within the same
State. (PennDOT, No. 5 at p. 1.) While DOE agrees that there is
regional variation of tariffs, for the purpose of today's proposed
determination, DOE uses national average electricity prices for 2009
from the Energy Information Administration's (EIA) Annual Energy
Outlook 2009 (AEO 2009) for commercial and industrial applications to
calculate impacts for the average HID lamp user. The LCC analysis does
not include MV lamps, since MV ballasts can no longer be imported or
manufactured; DOE assumed that when MV ballasts failed consumers would
have to switch to another HID technology.
The LCC analysis not only evaluated the replacement of the HID
lamp, but also those cases where the whole system would need to be
replaced. Given the specificity of HID lamp-and-ballast combinations,
DOE assumed that replacement of baseline HID systems with energy-
efficient substitutes would, at a minimum, require a new lamp-and-
ballast system. In some cases, the physical and operational
characteristics of the replacement lamp-and-ballast system may also
require replacement of the entire fixture. Consequently, DOE treated
lamp-and-ballast and fixture replacement as economic issues in the LCC
analysis, which considers the installed cost of the lamp, lamp-and-
ballast system, and fixture. In analyzing the lighting system, the
ballast has the longer lifetime and therefore represents the lifetime
of the system (which may have the lamp replaced several times before
the ballast is replaced). DOE therefore set the LCC analysis period
equal to the lifetime of the fixture ballast in years, i.e., 50,000
hours divided by the annual operating hours. This approach is
consistent with the LCC methodology that DOE used in the 2003 draft
report.
DOE assigned annual operating hours to representative equipment
based on two operating scenarios. Exterior lighting applications were
assumed for the commercial operating scenario, where HID lamps with
poorer color quality (e.g., HPS) are a viable substitute (e.g., street
and parking lot lighting). Interior lighting applications were assumed
for the industrial operating scenario, where ``white light''
substitutes with higher color quality (e.g., pulse-start MH) are
assumed as mandatory.
DOE obtained information on hours of operation for the different
scenarios from industry publications that provide guidance for
installers and lighting engineers. From these sources DOE estimated
4,200 hours per year of operation for exterior applications and 5,840
hours per year for interior applications. A more detailed discussion of
the data sources and the derivation of these estimates are provided in
the preliminary TSD.
In the LCC analysis, DOE also includes maintenance costs in the
estimation of the LCC of HID lighting systems. DOE examined a range of
publicly available information sources and estimated an average annual
maintenance cost of $225 per relamping for exterior applications. DOE
could not find comparable data for representative interior maintenance
costs but because of the increased accessibility and better working
conditions for interior installations, DOE divided the exterior
relamping costs by three to estimate the interior relamping costs.
Therefore, for today's proposed determination DOE used $225 for each
exterior relamping and $74 for each interior relamping. DOE requests
comment on these representative maintenance costs.
For the LCC analysis, DOE estimated average commercial and
industrial electricity prices using the 2017 to 2030 forecasts from
EIA's AEO 2009. After the 2003 Report, DOE received two comments
regarding the price of electricity. ACEEE recommended using a later
version of the AEO in the final rule. (ACEEE, No. 11 at 3.) PennDOT
stated that energy tariffs vary across the State between the range of
$0.035/kWh to $0.15/kWh. PennDOT felt that the 2003 rates between
$0.09/kWh to $0.11/kWh may not return a valid result when compared to
actual costs. (PennDOT, No. 5 at p. 1.) While DOE agrees that there may
be substantial variability in tariffs, for today's proposed
determination DOE believes that using the average price of electricity
is sufficient to characterize the overall economic justification of a
potential standard. DOE is therefore using the average price per end
use sector (i.e., commercial or industrial) over the course of the
analysis period. DOE requests comment as to whether in the full
rulemaking analysis, DOE's analysis should include the minimum, mean,
and the maximum energy tariffs for the relevant end use sectors.
In the LCC analysis, the discount rate determines the relative
value of future energy savings compared to increases in first costs
that may arise from a potential energy conservation standard. DOE
received comments from ACEEE regarding the discount rates used in the
2003 report. ACEEE felt that the 8-percent rate was reasonable and the
15-percent rate was much too high. (ACEEE, No. 11 at p. 2.) For
commercial and industrial consumers, DOE estimates the cost of capital
for commercial and industrial companies by examining both debt and
equity capital, and develops an appropriately weighted average of the
cost to the company of equity and debt financing. The resulting average
discounted industrial and commercial discount rates used in the LCC
analysis are 7.6 percent and 7.0 percent, respectively.
In the 2003 report, DOE used retail catalog pricing for HID lamp
and fixture prices. In response, NEMA commented that retail price
catalogs are not a good source of actual cost information and
recommended hiring an energy service company to solicit bids on prices.
(NEMA, No. 6 at p. 4.) DOE considered this comment, but while DOE
agrees that there may be inaccuracies in list prices, DOE believes that
there may also be distortions in bid prices that would create data that
is unrepresentative of future costs. Currently the country is
experiencing a deep recession where bid prices are likely to be
substantially deflated compared to the case of average economic
conditions. This is likely to distort any bid price data that would be
solicited by DOE. DOE therefore believes at this time that catalogue
price data is as representative as bid price data for the purposes of
today's proposed determination.
DOE estimated the base purchase price of representative HID lamps,
ballasts, and fixtures using prices available on both the W.W.
Grainger, Inc. and Goodmart Web sites. These online retailer price
catalogues were selected because they offer a wide range of products
(i.e., lamps, ballasts, and fixtures) for multiple types of HID lamps
and wattages. The municipal procurement contracts also exist for HID
lamps and can provide price data, but do not contain price data for
other components of the lamp system needed for the analysis. DOE also
evaluated State procurement contracts for fixtures but found then to be
highly variable. DOE therefore used the prices developed from the
Grainger and Goodmart Web sites as an information source that is
publicly available (requiring no special log in to access the data) and
which offers product information that could be applied to the full
range of HID lighting system technologies and components. The
preliminary TSD lists the price data that
[[Page 22037]]
DOE obtained from all sources, including RS-Means, State procurement
contracts, Grainger, and Goodmart. HID prices vary by region,
manufacturer, quantity, type, and quality (and that end users may pay
different prices), and therefore DOE attempted to select price data for
different lighting system options that were directly comparable. DOE
invites comment on its selection and analysis of the available HID
lighting system price data.
DOE added a contractor mark-up to the fixture cost to reflect the
actual installed prices in the LCC. ACEEE commented that DOE should
assume a 13-percent contractor mark-up rate. (ACEEE, No. 11 at p. 2.)
DOE compared this markup with data from other lighting rules, agreed
with the ACEEE comment, and used a mark-up of 13 percent in the
proposed determination. DOE also added an average national sales tax of
7 percent to the installed cost.
Depending on when different parts of an HID lighting system are
replaced, the costs of switching to improved efficacy lamps can vary.
DOE therefore requested comment in the 2003 draft report regarding when
a standard might prompt: (1) A lamp replacement; (2) replacement of
both the lamp and the ballast; or (3) replacement of the entire HID
lighting fixture. Allegheny commented that for all but roadway fixtures
that are customer-owned and under Allegheny's contract maintenance,
Allegheny would replace the fixture outright if the lamp were no longer
available. (Allegheny, No. 12 at pp. 2-3.) DOE also asked interested
parties ``to provide their estimates of the percentage of the market
that will choose each replacement option.'' Allegheny surveyed fixture
and lamp suppliers and found that 80 percent would replace the fixture,
and the remaining 20 percent would either replace the lamp or lamp-and-
ballast. (Allegheny, No. 12 at pp. 2-3.) Allegheny's comments are
supported by ACEEE's comments that ``evidence supports full luminaire
replacement of some metal halide systems over more time-consuming lamp/
ballast replacements.'' (ACEEE, No. 11 at p. 3.) Today's proposed
determination includes lamp-and-ballast and fixture replacement costs
when determining the LCC for HID lamps.
4. National Energy Savings Analysis
To estimate national energy savings for HID lamps sold from 2017
through 2046, DOE calculated the estimated energy usage of analyzed
lamp-and-ballast systems in a base case (absent a standard) and a
standards case. DOE calculated the installed base of HID lamps using
historical lamp shipments data provided by NEMA. Projected shipments
were based on the lamp lifetimes, system energy use, and operating
scenarios developed for the LCC analysis, as well as estimated market
and substitution trends in the base case and standards case.
To estimate potential energy savings from the proposed energy
conservation standard, DOE used an accounting model that calculated
total end-use electricity savings in each year of a 30-year forecast.
The model featured an equipment-retirement function to calculate the
number of units sold in a given year, or vintage, which would still be
in operation in future years. For example, some of the HID lamps sold
in 2030 will operate through 2035.
DOE calculated primary energy (i.e., energy used by the power
plant) savings associated with end-use electricity savings using data
from EIA's AEO 2009. These data provided an average multiplier for
relating end-use electricity to primary energy use for each year from
2017 to 2030. DOE extrapolated the trend in these years to derive
factors for 2031 to 2046.
5. National Consumer Impacts Analysis
DOE estimated the national economic effect on end users in terms of
the NPV of cumulative benefits from 2017 to 2046. It considered the
effects under the same range of scenarios as it did for estimating
national energy savings. It used the new equipment costs and energy
savings for each energy efficiency level that it applied in the LCC
analysis. To simplify the analysis, DOE estimated the value of energy
savings using the average AEO 2009 forecast electricity price from 2017
to 2030. DOE discounted future costs and benefits by using 3 percent
and 7 percent discount rate, according to the ``Guidelines and Discount
Rates for Benefit Analysis of Federal Programs,'' issued by the Office
of Management and Budget in 1992 (Circular No. A-94, Revised).
C. Analysis Results
1. Engineering Analysis
As described above, DOE conducted separate analyses examining 10
representative HID lamp types, as presented in Table II.1.
Table II.1--Representative Lamp Options
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Energy
Approximate efficient efficient
Category Sub-category light output Baseline W option 1, PMH option 2, HPS
mean lumens * ** W W
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medium wattage (150-500)...... Probe-Start MH 8,800 175 150 100
baseline.
13,700 250 175 150
23,500 360 320 250
25,200 400 320 250
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Mean lumens provided from manufacturers' catalogs.
** PMH = pulse-start metal halide.
In the engineering analysis, for a lamp to be considered a suitable
option, its replacement had to produce at least 90 percent of the mean
lumen output of the baseline system and draw less power than the
baseline lamp-and-ballast system. Power was determined by the lamp-and-
ballast input, based in part on the representative ballast type chosen
for each option.
2. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
Table II.2 to Table II.5 present the results for medium wattage
probe-start MH lamps and higher-efficiency substitute HID lamps in a
lamp-only replacement scenario. In this scenario, a failed baseline
lamp is replaced either with an identical baseline lamp, or with a
substitute lamp-and-ballast system. These analyses were based on
representative, incremental lamp and fixture prices as well as
maintenance costs. A full rulemaking would yield more detailed results
than the
[[Page 22038]]
representative analyses conducted. Generally, the LCC of a high-
efficiency lamp and ballast replacement is higher than the LCC of an
inefficient lamp-only replacement.
Table II.2--175 W Probe-Start MH Baseline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industrial/interior Commercial/exterior
---------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline 175 W Substitute 1 Baseline 175 W Substitute 2
MH $ 150 W PMH $ MH $ 100 W HPS $
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ballast Price................................... .............. 190.22 .............. 234.10
Lamp Price...................................... 49.58 64.09 49.58 49.23
Total First Cost................................ 49.58 254.31 49.58 283.33
Incremental First Cost.......................... .............. 204.73 .............. 233.75
Annual Operating Cost........................... 149.23 141.02 297.28 263.26
Annual Operating Cost Differential.............. .............. 8.21 .............. 34.02
Life-Cycle Cost (7% Discount Rate).............. 808.83 1,056.34 1,947.52 2,059.27
LCC Savings..................................... .............. -247.51 .............. -111.75
Payback Period (years).......................... .............. 24.94 .............. 6.87
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II.3--250 W Probe-Start MH Baseline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industrial/interior Commercial/exterior
---------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline 250 W Substitute 1 Baseline 250 W Substitute 2
MH $ 175 W PMH $ MH $ 150 W HPS $
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ballast Price................................... .............. 195.54 .............. 260.18
Lamp Price...................................... 53.08 68.76 53.08 60.91
Total First Cost................................ 53.08 264.30 53.08 321.09
Incremental First Cost.......................... .............. 211.22 .............. 268.01
Annual Operating Cost........................... 178.85 149.59 330.11 288.18
Annual Operating Cost Differential.............. .............. 29.26 .............. 41.93
Life-Cycle Cost (7% Discount Rate).............. 853.30 994.23 1,983.51 2,126.51
LCC Savings..................................... .............. -140.93 .............. -143.00
Payback Period (years).......................... .............. 7.22 .............. 6.39
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II.4--360 W Probe-Start MH Baseline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industrial/interior Commercial/exterior
---------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline 360 W Substitute 1 Baseline 360 W Substitute 2
MH $ 320 W PMH $ MH $ 250 W HPS $
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ballast Price................................... .............. 226.43 .............. 211.52
Lamp Price...................................... 56.92 90.54 56.92 79.64
Total First Cost................................ 56.92 316.97 56.92 291.16
Incremental First Cost.......................... .............. 260.05 .............. 234.24
Annual Operating Cost........................... 217.75 205.97 373.22 331.69
Annual Operating Cost Differential.............. .............. 11.78 .............. 41.53
Life-Cycle Cost (7% Discount Rate).............. 788.24 1,083.54 1,919.94 2,146.17
LCC Savings..................................... .............. -295.30 .............. -226.23
Payback Period (years).......................... .............. 22.08 .............. 5.64
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II.5--400 W Probe-Start MH Baseline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industrial/interior Commercial/exterior
---------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline 400 W Substitute 1 Baseline 400 W Substitute 2
MH $ 320 W PMH $ MH $ 250 W HPS $
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ballast Price................................... .............. 226.43 .............. 211.52
Lamp Price...................................... 58.08 90.54 58.08 79.64
Total First Cost................................ 58.08 316.97 58.08 291.16
Incremental First Cost.......................... .............. 258.89 .............. 233.08
Annual Operating Cost........................... 237.74 205.97 395.37 331.69
Annual Operating Cost Differential.............. .............. 31.77 .............. 63.68
Life-Cycle Cost (7% Discount Rate).............. 810.40 1,083.54 1,937.06 2,146.17
LCC Savings..................................... .............. -273.14 .............. -209.11
[[Page 22039]]
Payback Period (years).......................... .............. 8.15 .............. 3.66
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II.6 to Table II.69 present the results for medium wattage
probe-start MH lamps and higher-efficiency substitute HID lamps in a
new construction or fixture replacement scenario. In this scenario, a
consumer selects either a baseline or substitute fixture and lamp. In
the exterior lighting cases, the HPS substitutes have a lower LCC.
These analyses were based on representative and incremental lamp and
fixture prices as well as maintenance costs. A full rulemaking would
yield more detailed results than the representative analyses conducted.
Table II.6--175 W Probe-Start MH Baseline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industrial/interior Commercial/exterior
---------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline 175 W Substitute 1 Baseline 175 W Substitute 2
MH $ 150 W PMH $ MH $ 100 W HPS $
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fixture Price (incl. ballast)................... 260.51 310.10 356.51 376.34
Lamp Price...................................... 49.58 64.09 49.58 49.23
Total First Cost................................ 310.09 374.19 406.09 425.57
Incremental First Cost.......................... .............. 64.10 .............. 19.73
Annual Operating Cost........................... 149.23 141.02 297.28 263.26
Annual Operating Cost Differential.............. .............. 8.21 .............. 34.02
Life-Cycle Cost (7% Discount Rate).............. 1,069.34 1,176.22 2,304.03 2,201.51
LCC Savings..................................... .............. -106.89 .............. 102.52
Payback Period (years).......................... .............. 7.81 .............. 0.58
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II.7--250 W Probe-Start MH Baseline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industrial/interior Commercial/exterior
---------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline 250 W Substitute 1 Baseline 250 W Substitute 2
MH $ 175 W PMH $ MH $ 150 W HPS $
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fixture Price (incl. ballast)................... 297.77 325.63 393.77 382.01
Lamp Price...................................... 53.08 68.76 53.08 60.91
Total First Cost................................ 350.85 394.39 446.85 442.92
Incremental First Cost.......................... .............. 43.54 .............. -3.93
Annual Operating Cost........................... 178.85 149.59 330.11 288.18
Annual Operating Cost Differential.............. .............. 29.26 .............. 41.93
Life-Cycle Cost (7% Discount Rate).............. 1,151.07 1,124.32 2,377.28 2,248.34
LCC Savings..................................... .............. 26.75 .............. 128.94
Payback Period (years).......................... .............. 1.49 .............. -0.09
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II.8--360 W Probe-Start MH Baseline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industrial/interior Commercial/exterior
---------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline 360 W Substitute 1 Baseline 360 W Substitute 2
MH $ 320 W PMH $ MH $ 250 W HPS $
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fixture Price (incl. ballast)................... 352.43 415.69 448.43 393.34
Lamp Price...................................... 56.92 90.54 56.92 79.64
Total First Cost................................ 409.35 506.23 505.35 472.98
Incremental First Cost.......................... .............. 96.88 .............. -32.37
Annual Operating Cost........................... 217.75 205.97 373.22 331.69
Annual Operating Cost Differential.............. .............. 11.78 .............. 41.53
Life-Cycle Cost (7% Discount Rate).............. 1,140.67 1,272.81 2,368.37 2,328.00
LCC Savings..................................... .............. -132.14 .............. 40.37
Payback Period (years).......................... .............. 8.22 .............. -0.78
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 22040]]
Table II.9--400 W Probe-Start MH Baseline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industrial/interior Commercial/exterior
---------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline 400 W Substitute 1 Baseline 400 W Substitute 2
MH $ 320 W PMH $ MH $ 250 W HPS $
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fixture Price (incl. ballast)................... 372.31 415.69 468.31 393.34
Lamp Price...................................... 58.08 90.54 58.08 79.64
Total First Cost................................ 430.39 506.23 526.39 472.98
Incremental First Cost.......................... .............. 75.84 .............. -53.41
Annual Operating Cost........................... 237.74 205.97 395.37 331.69
Annual Operating Cost Differential.............. .............. 31.77 .............. 63.68
Life-Cycle Cost (7% Discount Rate).............. 1,182.71 1,272.81 2,405.37 2,328.00
LCC Savings..................................... .............. -90.10 .............. 77.37
Payback Period (years).......................... .............. 2.39 .............. -0.84
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. National Energy Savings and Consumer Impacts
DOE estimated national energy savings and consumer effects of
energy conservation standards for the considered HID lamps using its
own engineering analysis data. DOE assumed that energy conservation
standards would take effect in 2017, and estimated cumulative energy
savings and NPV impacts relative to a base case and a standards case.
The results using DOE's analysis of design options indicate
cumulative energy savings for medium-wattage HID lamps of 2.8 quads and
a corresponding NPV of $15.0 billion (2009$) at a 3 percent discount
rate and $3.5 billion at a 7 percent discount rate over a 30-year
analysis period (2017-2046).
In estimating the NPV, DOE estimated the fraction of replacements
that would use the different technologies and would be either a lamp-
only or a total fixture replacement. While some replacements would have
negative LCC, on a national scale these are outweighed by those lamp
and fixture replacements that have positive economic impacts on
consumers.
D. Discussion
1. Technological Feasibility
Section 346(a)(1) of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6317(a)(1)) mandates that DOE
determine whether energy conservation standards for HID lamps would be
``technologically feasible.'' DOE proposes to determine that energy
conservation standards for HID lamps would be technologically feasible
because they can be satisfied with HID lighting systems that are
currently available on the market.
2. Significance of Energy Savings
Section 346(a)(1) of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6317(a)(1)) mandates that DOE
determine whether energy conservation standards for HID lamps would
result in ``significant energy savings.'' Today's proposed
determination estimates that a standard for HID lamps would result in
energy savings of at least 2.8 quads over a 30-year analysis period
(2017-2046). Although the term ``significant'' is not defined in the
Act, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in Natural
Resources Defense Council v. Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 1373 (DC Cir.
1985), indicated that Congress intended ``significant'' energy savings
in a manner consistent with section 325 of the Act (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(3)(B)) to be savings that were not ``genuinely trivial.'' DOE
published two other determinations in 2006 (Small Electric Motors, 71
FR 38799, 38806 (July 10, 2006)) and 2009 (Non-Class A External Power
Supplies, 74 FR 56928, 56929 (November 3, 2009)) for other equipment
and products that had significant savings. DOE's determination for
small electric motors estimated energy savings of 0.61 to 0.78 quads
over a 20-year period and therefore met the threshold for
``significant.'' In the small electric motors determination, DOE used
analysis for room air conditioners as a precedent, finding that savings
of 0.36 to 0.96 quads over a 30-year period met the requirement for a
standard. 62 FR 50122, 50142 (September 24, 1997). DOE's analysis in
the determination for Non-Class A External Power Supplies resulted in
0.14 quads of energy over 30 years (2013-2042), and DOE deemed those
energy savings as ``significant.'' In the 2009 final rule for energy
conservation standards for refrigerated bottled or canned beverage
vending machines, DOE estimated that 0.159 quads would be saved over 30
years (2012-2042). 74 FR 44914, 44915 (August 31, 2009). DOE believes
that the estimated energy savings of 2.8 quads over 30 years for the
considered HID lamps are not ``genuinely trivial,'' and DOE proposes to
determine that potential energy conservation standards for HID lamps
would result in significant energy savings.
3. Economic Justification
Section 346(b)(1) of EPCA requires that energy conservation
standards for HID lamps be economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6317(b)(1)) Using the methods and data described in section II.B, DOE
conducted a LCC analysis to estimate the net benefits to users from
increased efficiency in the considered HID lamps. DOE then aggregated
the results from the LCC analysis to estimate national energy savings
and national economic impacts. DOE estimated that the net present value
of the consumer costs and benefits from a potential standard are $15.0
billion and $3.5 billion at three percent and seven percent discount
rates respectively. Thus, DOE proposes to determine that potential
energy conservation standards for HID lamps are economically justified.
III. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
This proposed determination is not subject to review under
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' 58 FR
51735 (October 4, 1993).
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996)
requires preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis for
any rule that, by law, must be proposed for public comment, unless the
agency certifies that the proposed rule, if promulgated, will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. A regulatory flexibility analysis examines the impact of the
rule on small entities and considers alternative ways of reducing
negative effects. Also,
[[Page 22041]]
as required by E.O. 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in
Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE published
procedures and policies on February 19, 2003 to ensure that the
potential impact of its rules on small entities are properly considered
during the DOE rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990 (February 19, 2003). DOE
made its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General
Counsel's Web site at http://www.gc.doe.gov.
DOE reviewed today's proposed determination under the provisions of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the policies and procedures
published on February 19, 2003.
Today's proposed determination, if adopted, would set no standards;
it would only positively determine that future standards may be
warranted and should be explored in an energy conservation standards
rulemaking. Economic impacts on small entities would be considered in
the context of such a rulemaking. On the basis of the foregoing, DOE
certifies that the proposed determination, if adopted, would have no
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis for
this proposed determination. DOE will transmit this certification and
supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy
of the Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This proposed determination, which proposes to determine that the
development of energy conservation standards for HID lamps is
warranted, would impose no new information or record keeping
requirements. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
clearance is not required under the Paperwork Reduction Act. (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.)
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
In this notice, DOE proposes to positively determine that future
standards may be warranted and that environmental impacts should be
explored in an energy conservation standards rulemaking. DOE has
determined that review under the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (NEPA), Pub. L. 91-190, codified at 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. is not
required at this time. NEPA review can only be initiated ``as soon as
environmental impacts can be meaningfully evaluated'' (10 CFR
1021.213(b)). Because this proposed determination would only determine
that future standards may be warranted, but would not propose to set
any standard, DOE has determined that there are no environmental
impacts to be evaluated at this time. Accordingly, neither an
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is
required.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
E.O. 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999), imposes
certain requirements on 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 assess carefully
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 developing regulatory policies
that have Federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE published a
statement of policy describing the intergovernmental consultation
process that it will follow in developing such regulations. 65 FR 13735
(March 14, 2000). DOE has examined today's proposed determination and
concludes that it would not preempt State law or have substantial
direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the Federal
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 equipment that is the subject of today's proposed
determination. States can petition DOE for exemption from such
preemption to the extent permitted, and based on criteria, set forth in
EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297) No further action is required by E.O. 13132.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
With respect to the review of existing regulations and the
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 12988, ``Civil
Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996), imposes on Federal
agencies the duty to: (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. Section 3(b) of E.O. 12988
specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable
effort to ensure that the regulation specifies the following: (1) The
preemptive effect, if any; (2) any effect on existing Federal law or
regulation; (3) a clear legal standard for affected conduct while
promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) the retroactive
effect, if any; (5) definitions of key terms; and (6) other important
issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines
issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of E.O. 12988 requires
Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable
standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether these
standards are met, or whether it is unreasonable to meet one or more of
them. DOE completed the required review and determined that, to the
extent permitted by law, this proposed determination meets the relevant
standards of E.O. 12988.
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub.
L. 104-4, codified at 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) requires each Federal
agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State,
local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. For regulatory
actions likely to result in a rule that may cause expenditures by
State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector of $100 million or more in any 1 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)
and (b)) UMRA requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process
to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal
governments on a proposed ``significant intergovernmental mandate.''
UMRA also requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for
timely input to small governments that may be potentially affected
before establishing any requirement 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 (March 18, 1997). (This policy is also available at http://www.gc.doe.gov). Today's proposed determination contains neither an
intergovernmental mandate nor a mandate that may result in the
expenditure of $100 million or more in any year, so these UMRA
requirements do not apply.
[[Page 22042]]
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act
of 1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a
Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family
well-being. This proposed determination would not have any impact on
the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly,
DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family
Policymaking Assessment.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
Pursuant to E.O. 12630, ``Governmental Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,'' 53 FR 8859 (March
15, 1988), DOE determined that this proposed determination would not
result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act
of 2001
The Treasury and General Government Appropriation Act of 2001 (44
U.S.C. 3516, note) requires agencies to review most disseminations of
information they make to the public under guidelines established by
each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. The OMB's
guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (February 22, 2002), and DOE's
guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has
reviewed today's proposed determination under the OMB and DOE
guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable
policies in those guidelines.
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
E.O. 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly
Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355 (May 22,
2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to 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 a final rule or is expected to lead to promulgation of
a final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under
E.O. 12866, or any successor 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 if the proposal is implemented, and
of reasonable alternatives to the proposed action and their expected
benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
DOE has concluded that today's action proposing to determine that
development of energy conservation standards for HID lamps may be
warranted would not have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. This action is also not a significant
regulatory action for purposes of E.O. 12866, or any successor order.
Therefore, this proposed determination is not a significant energy
action. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects
for this proposed determination.
L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
On December 16, 2004, OMB, in consultation with the Office of
Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), issued its Final Information
Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (the Bulletin). 70 FR 2664 (January
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.'' The Bulletin defines ``influential scientific
information'' 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 2667
(January 14, 2005).
In response to OMB's Bulletin, DOE conducted formal in-progress
peer reviews of the energy conservation standards development process
and analyses, and has prepared a Peer Review Report pertaining to the
energy conservation standards rulemaking analyses. The ``Energy
Conservation Standards Rulemaking Peer Review Report,'' dated February
2007, has been disseminated and is available at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/peer_review.html.
IV. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this
notice of proposed determination no later than the date provided at the
beginning of this notice. After the close of the comment period, DOE
will review the comments received and determine, by June 30, 2010,
whether energy conservation standards for HID lamps are warranted.
Comments, data, and information submitted to DOE's e-mail address
for this proposed determination should be provided in WordPerfect,
Microsoft Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file format. Submissions should
avoid the use of special characters or any form of encryption, and
wherever possible comments should include the electronic signature of
the author. No telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
According to 10 CFR Part 1004.11, any person submitting information
that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from
public disclosure should submit two copies: One copy of the document
should have all the information believed to be confidential deleted.
DOE will make its own determination as to the confidential status of
the information and treat it according to its determination.
Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat
submitted information as confidential include (1) a description of the
items; (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as
confidential within the industry; (3) whether the information is
generally known or available from public sources; (4) whether the
information has previously been made available to others without
obligations concerning its confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the
competitive injury to the submitting persons which would result from
public disclosure; (6) a date after which such information might no
longer be considered confidential; and (7) why disclosure of the
information would be contrary to the public interest.
B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comments
Comments are welcome on all aspects of this proposed determination.
DOE is particularly interested in receiving comment from interested
parties on the following issues as they relate to HID lamps:
Applications not included in the proposed determination
analysis;
Definition of high-pressure sodium lamps;
Equipment (including lamp, ballast, and fixture)
lifetimes;
Possible negative effects on small businesses;
Present-year shipments estimates;
Present-year efficiency distributions;
Market-growth forecasts;
[[Page 22043]]
Usage profiles;
Technology options for increasing efficiency;
Costs related to increasing efficiency;
Equipment cost;
Maintenance costs;
Unit energy consumption calculations and values; and
Alternative sources, databases, and methodologies for the
analyses and inputs used in this proposed determination.
V. Approval of the Office of the Assistant Secretary
The Assistant Secretary of DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy has approved publication of this proposed
determination.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Issued in Washington, DC, on April 22, 2010.
Cathy Zoi,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 2010-9714 Filed 4-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P