10 CFR 431----金卤灯装置能效要求
更新时间：2023-04-19 14:14:01 阅读量： 实用文档 文档下载
- 10张表格看懂“新十条”推荐度：
- 相关推荐
Vol. 79 Monday,
No. 27 February 10, 2014
Part II
Department of Energy
10 CFR Part 431
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Metal
Halide Lamp Fixtures; Final Rule
7746 Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 27/Monday, February 10, 2014/Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[Docket Number EERE–2009–BT–STD– 0018]
RIN 1904–AC00
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Metal Halide Lamp Fixtures
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as amended, prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including metal halide lamp fixtures (MHLFs). EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to determine whether more-stringent standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified, and would save a significant amount of energy. In this final rule, DOE is adopting more-stringent energy conservation standards for MHLFs. It has determined that the new and amended energy conservation standards for this equipment would result in significant conservation of energy, and are technologically feasible and economically justified.
DATES: The effective date of this rule is April 11, 2014. Compliance with the new and amended standards established for MHLFs in today’s final rule is required by February 10, 2017.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register on April 11, 2014. ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for review at 6385ab3e0242a8956aece475. All documents in the docket are listed in the 6385ab3e0242a8956aece475 index. However, some documents listed in the index, such as those containing information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly available.
A link to the docket Web page can be found at: 6385ab3e0242a8956aece475/ buildings/appliance_standards/ rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/16. The 6385ab3e0242a8956aece475 Web page will contain simple instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket.
For further information on how to review the docket, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or by email:
Brenda.Edwards@6385ab3e0242a8956aece475.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Lucy deButts, 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) 287–1604. Email:
metal_halide_lamp_fixtures@
6385ab3e0242a8956aece475.
Mr. Ari Altman, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of the General Counsel,
GC–71, 1000 Independence Avenue
SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 287–6307. Email:
ari.altman@6385ab3e0242a8956aece475.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Summary of the Final Rule and Its Benefits
A. Benefits and Costs to Customers
B. Impact on Manufacturers
C. National Benefits
D. Conclusion
II. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
1. Current Standards
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for
MHLFs
3. Compliance Date
III. Issues Affecting the Scope of This
Rulemaking
A. Additional MHLFs for Which DOE Is
Setting Standards
1. EISA 2007 Exempted MHLFs
a. MHLFs With Regulated-Lag Ballasts
b. MHLFs With 480 V Electronic Ballasts
c. Exempted 150 W MHLFs
2. Additional Wattages
3. General Lighting
4. High-Frequency Electronic Ballasts
5. Outdoor Fixtures
6. Hazardous Locations
7. Summary of MHLFs for Which DOE Is
Setting Standards
B. Alternative Approaches to Energy
Conservation Standards: System
Approaches
C. Standby Mode and Off Mode Energy
Consumption
IV. General Discussion
A. Test Procedures
1. Current Test Procedures
2. Test Input Voltage
a. Average of Tested Efficiency at All
Possible Voltages
b. Posting the Highest and Lowest
Efficiencies
c. Test at Single Manufacturer-Declared
Voltage
d. Test at Highest Rated Voltage
e. Test on Input Voltage Based on Wattage
and Available Voltages
3. Testing High-Frequency Electronic
Ballasts
4. Rounding Requirements
B. Technological Feasibility
1. General
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible
Levels
C. Energy Savings
1. Determination of Savings
2. Significance of Savings
D. Economic Justification
1. Specific Criteria
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and
Customers
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to
Increase in Price
c. Energy Savings
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of
Equipment
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
g. Other Factors
2. Rebuttable Presumption
V. Methodology and Discussion
A. Market and Technology Assessment
1. General
2. Equipment Classes
a. Input Voltage
b. Lamp Wattage
c. Fixture Application
d. Electronic Configuration
e. Circuit Type
f. Summary
B. Screening Analysis
C. Engineering Analysis
1. Approach
2. Representative Equipment Classes
3. Representative Wattages
4. Representative Fixture Types
5. Ballast Efficiency Testing
6. Input Power Representations
7. Baseline Ballast Models
a. 70 W Baseline Ballast
b. 1000 W Baseline Ballast
c. 1500 W Baseline Ballast
d. Summary of Baseline Ballasts
8. Selection of More-Efficient Units
a. Higher-Efficiency Magnetic Ballasts
b. Electronic Ballasts
9. Efficiency Levels
10. Design Standard
11. Scaling to Equipment Classes Not
Analyzed
12. Manufacturer Selling Prices
a. Manufacturer Production Costs
b. Empty Fixture Costs
c. Incremental Costs for Electronically
Ballasted MHLFs
d. Costs Associated With the Design
Standard
e. Manufacturer Markups
D. Markups to Determine Equipment Price
1. Distribution Channels
2. Estimation of Markups
3. Summary of Markups
E. Energy Use Analysis
F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
Analyses
1. Equipment Cost
2. Installation Cost
3. Annual Energy Use
4. Energy Prices
5. Energy Price Projections
6. Replacement Costs
7. Equipment Lifetime
8. Discount Rates
9. Analysis Period Fixture Purchasing
Events
G. National Impact Analysis—National
Energy Savings and Net Present Value
Analysis
1. Shipments
a. Historical Shipments
7747 Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 27/Monday, February 10, 2014/Rules and Regulations
1For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A.
2All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute as amended through the American Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act (AEMTCA), Public Law 112–210 (Dec. 18, 2012). 3The scope of this rulemaking encompasses entire MHLFs, including the metal halide lamps and metal halide ballasts the fixtures contain.
Therefore, the ratings of inpidual components are
often discussed at a system level. For example,
when referring to the rated wattages or available
input voltages of the lamps and ballasts a fixture is
designed to operate with, this final rule frequently
uses shorthand such as ‘‘100 W ballast’’ for a ballast
operating a lamp rated at 100 watts or ‘‘480 V
fixture’’ for a fixture housing a ballast with a
dedicated input voltage of 480 volts.
4DOE is proposing to continue using a ballast
efficiency metric for regulation of MHLFs, rather
than a system or other approach. See section 0 for
further discussion.
b. Fixture Stock Projections
c. Base Case Shipment Scenarios
d. Standards-Case Efficiency Scenarios
2. Site-to-Source Energy Conversion
H. Customer Subgroup Analysis
I. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
1. Manufacturer Production Costs
2. Shipment Projections
3. Markup Scenarios
4. Production and Capital Conversion Costs
5. Other Comments From Interested Parties
a. Compliance Period
b. Alternative Technologies
c. Opportunity Cost of Investments
d. Replacement Ballast Market
e. Potential Impact on Metal Halide Lamp
Manufacturers
6. Manufacturer Interviews
J. Employment Impact Analysis
K. Utility Impact Analysis
L. Emissions Analysis
M. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other
Emissions Impacts
1. Social Cost of Carbon
a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions
b. Social Cost of Carbon Values Used in
Past Regulatory Analyses
c. Current Approach and Key Assumptions
2. Valuation of Other Emissions
Reductions
VI. Other Issues for Discussion
A. Proposed Standard Levels in August
2013 NOPR
B. Reported Value
C. Three-Year Compliance Date
VII. Analytical Results
A. Trial Standard Levels
B. Economic Justification and Energy
Savings
1. Economic Impacts on Inpidual
Customers
a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
b. Customer Subgroup Analysis
c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
a. Industry Cash-Flow Analysis Results
b. 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 Customer Costs and
Benefits
c. Impacts on Employment
4. Impact on Utility or Performance of
Equipment
5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
6. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy
C. Conclusions
1. Trial Standard Level 5
2. Trial Standard Level 4
3. Trial Standard Level 3
4. Trial Standard Level 2
D. Final Standard Equations
E. Backsliding
VIII. Procedural Issues and Regulatory
Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866
and 13563
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act
1. Description and Estimated Number of
Small Entities Regulated
a. Methodology for Estimating the Number
of Small Entities
b. Manufacturer Participation
c. Metal Halide Ballast and Fixture
Industry Structure
d. Comparison Between Large and Small
Entities
2. Description and Estimate of Compliance
Requirements
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. Review Under the Information Quality
Bulletin for Peer Review
M. Congressional Notification
IX. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Summary of the Final Rule and Its
Benefits
Title III, Part B1of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA or the Act),
Public Law 94–163 (42 U.S.C. 6291–6309, as
codified), established the Energy
Conservation Program for Consumer Products
Other Than Automobiles.2Pursuant to EPCA,
any new or amended energy conservation
standard that DOE prescribes for certain
equipment, such as metal halide lamp
fixtures (MHLFs or ‘‘fixtures’’3), shall 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 significant
conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(3)(B)) In accordance with these and
other statutory provisions discussed in this
notice, DOE is adopting new and amended
energy conservation standards for MHLFs.
The new and amended standards, which are
the minimum allowable ballast efficiencies4
based on fixture location, ballast type, and
rated lamp wattage, are shown in Table I.1.
These new and amended standards apply to
all equipment listed in Table I.1 and
manufactured in, or imported into, the
United States on or after the compliance date
in the DATES section of this notice
(additionally, see section II.B.3 of this notice
for more information on the compliance date
determination).
T ABLE I.1—E NERGY C ONSERVATION S TANDARDS FOR MHLF S
Designed to be operated with lamps of the following rated lamp
wattage Indoor/outdoor Test input voltage? Minimum standard equation?
%
≥50 W and ≤100 W.......................Indoor..................480 V......................(1/(1+1.24×P∧(￥0.351))) ￥ 0.0200. ≥50 W and ≤100 W.......................Indoor..................All others.................1/(1+1.24×P∧(￥0.351)).
≥50 W and ≤100 W.......................Outdoor...............480 V......................(1/(1+1.24×P∧(￥0.351))) ￥ 0.0200. ≥50 W and ≤100 W.......................Outdoor...............All others.................1/(1+1.24×P∧(￥0.351)).
>100 W and <150 W*...................Indoor..................480 V......................(1/(1+1.24×P∧(￥0.351))) ￥ 0.0200. >100 W and <150 W*...................Indoor..................All others.................1/(1+1.24×P∧(￥0.351)).
>100 W and <150 W*...................Outdoor...............480 V......................(1/(1+1.24×P∧(￥0.351))) ￥ 0.0200. >100 W and <150 W*...................Outdoor...............All others.................1/(1+1.24×P∧(￥0.351)).
≥150 W** and ≤250 W..................Indoor..................480 V......................0.880.
≥150 W** and ≤250 W..................Indoor..................All others.................For ≥150 W and ≤200 W: 0.880.
For >200 W and ≤250 W:
1/(1+0.876×P∧(￥0.351)).
≥150 W** and ≤250 W..................Outdoor...............480 V......................0.880.
7748 Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 27/Monday, February 10, 2014/Rules and Regulations T ABLE I.1—E NERGY C ONSERVATION S TANDARDS FOR MHLF S—Continued
Designed to be operated with lamps of the following rated lamp
wattage Indoor/outdoor Test input voltage? Minimum standard equation?
%
≥150 W** and ≤250 W..................Outdoor...............All others.................For ≥150 W and ≤200 W: 0.88.
For >200 W and ≤250 W:
1/(1+0.876×P∧(￥0.351)).
>250 W and ≤500 W.....................Indoor..................480 V......................For >250 W and <265 W: 0.880.
For ≥265 W and ≤500 W: (1/(1+0.876×P∧(￥0.351))) ￥ 0.0100. >250 W and ≤500 W.....................Indoor..................All others.................1/(1+0.876×P∧(￥0.351)).
>250 W and ≤500 W.....................Outdoor...............480 V......................For >250 W and <265 W: 0.880.
For ≥265 W and ≤500 W: (1/(1+0.876×P∧(￥0.351))) ￥ 0.0100. >250 W and ≤500 W.....................Outdoor...............All others.................1/(1+0.876×P∧(￥0.351)).
>500 W and ≤1000 W...................Indoor..................480 V......................>500 W and ≤750 W: 0.900.
>750 W and ≤1000 W:
0.000104×P + 0.822.
For >500 W and ≤1000 W: may not utilize a probe-start ballast. >500 W and ≤1000 W...................Indoor..................All others.................For >500 W and ≤750 W: 0.910.
For >750 W and ≤1000 W: 0.000104×P+0.832.
For >500 W and ≤1000 W: may not utilize a probe-start ballast. >500 W and ≤1000 W...................Outdoor...............480 V......................>500 W and ≤750 W: 0.900.
>750 W and ≤1000 W:
0.000104×P + 0.822.
For >500 W and ≤1000 W: may not utilize a probe-start ballast. >500 W and ≤1000 W...................Outdoor...............All others.................For >500 W and ≤750 W: 0.910.
For >750 W and ≤1000 W: 0.000104×P+0.832.
For >500 W and ≤1000 W: may not utilize a probe-start ballast. *Includes 150 W fixtures specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, which are fixtures rated only for 150 watt lamps; rated for use in wet lo-cations, as specified by the NFPA 70–2002, section 410.4(A); and containing a ballast that is rated to operate at ambient air temperatures above 50 °C, as specified by UL 1029–2007.
**Excludes 150 W fixtures specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, which are fixtures rated only for 150 watt lamps; rated for use in wet lo-cations, as specified by the NFPA 70–2002, section 410.4(A); and containing a ballast that is rated to operate at ambient air temperatures above 50 °C, as specified by UL 1029–2007.
?Tested input voltage is specified in 10 CFR 431.324.
?P is defined as the rated wattage of the lamp the fixture is designed to operate.
A. Benefits and Costs to Customers
Table I.2 presents DOE’s evaluation of the economic impacts of today’s standards on customers of MHLFs, as measured by the
average life-cycle cost (LCC) savings and the
median payback period. The average LCC
savings are positive for a majority of users for
all equipment classes.
T ABLE I.2—I MPACTS OF T ODAY’S S TANDARDS ON C USTOMERS OF MHLF S*
Representative equipment class Representative
wattage Average LCC
savings
2012$
Median
payback
period
years
≥50 W and ≤100 W (indoor, magnetic baseline)...............................70 W.......................................................27.00 4.5 ≥50 W and ≤100 W (outdoor, magnetic baseline).............................70 W.......................................................34.88 4.5 >100 W and <150 W** (indoor).........................................................150 W.....................................................24.63 7.3 >100 W and <150 W** (outdoor).......................................................150 W.....................................................30.70 8.1 ≥150 W? and ≤250 W (indoor)..........................................................250 W..................................................... 4.51 14.2 ≥150 W? and ≤250 W (outdoor)........................................................250 W..................................................... 6.74 17.4 >250 W and ≤500 W (indoor)............................................................400 W.....................................................7.95 15.0 >250 W and ≤500 W (outdoor)..........................................................400 W.....................................................13.15 18.4 >500 W and ≤1000 W (indoor)..........................................................1000 W...................................................1221.54 0.8 >500 W and ≤1000 W (outdoor)........................................................1000 W...................................................1631.94 0.8 *On average, indoor and outdoor fixtures have 20- and 25-year lifetimes, respectively.
**Includes 150 W MHLFs exempted by EISA 2007, which are MHLFs rated only for 150 W lamps; rated for use in wet locations, as specified
by the National Electrical Code 2002, section 410.4(A); and containing a ballast that is rated to operate at ambient air temperatures above 50 °C,
as specified by UL 1029–2001.
?Excludes 150 W MHLFs exempted by EISA 2007, which are MHLFs rated only for 150 W lamps; rated for use in wet locations, as specified
by the National Electrical Code 2002, section 410.4(A); and containing a ballast that is rated to operate at ambient air temperatures above 50 °C,
as specified by UL 1029–2001.
B. Impact on Manufacturers
The industry net present value (INPV) is the sum of the discounted cash flows to the industry from the base year through the end of the analysis period (2014 to 2046). Using a real discount rate of 8.9 percent, DOE estimates that the base case INPV for
manufacturers of MH ballasts ranges from
$67 million in the low-shipment scenario to
$74 million in the high-shipment scenario in
2012$. Under today’s standards, DOE expects
that ballast manufacturers may lose up to
26.7 percent of their INPV, which is
approximately $17.9 million, in the low-
shipment, preservation of operating profit
markup scenario.
For MHLF, using a real discount rate of 9.5
percent, DOE estimates that the base case
INPV for manufacturers of MHLFs ranges
from $346 million in the low-shipment
7749 Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 27/Monday, February 10, 2014/Rules and Regulations
5All monetary values in this section are expressed in 2012 dollars and are discounted to 2013. Value ranges correspond with estimates for the low and high shipment scenarios.
6A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for NO X and Hg are presented in short tons. 3DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to the Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2013 Reference case, which generally represents current legislation
and environmental regulations for which
implementing regulations were available as of
December 31, 2012.
7Technical Support Document: Technical Update
of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact
Analysis Under Executive Order 12866. Interagency
Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United
States Government. May 2013 (Revised November
2013). 6385ab3e0242a8956aece475/sites/default/files/omb/
assets/inforeg/technical-update-social-cost-of-
carbon-for-regulator-impact-analysis.pdf.
8DOE is currently investigating valuation of
avoided Hg and SO2emissions.
scenario to $379 million in the high- shipment scenario in 2012$. Under today’s standards, DOE expects that MHLF manufacturers may lose up to 1.0 percent of their INPV, which is approximately $3.6 million, in the low-shipment, preservation of operating profit markup scenario.
When adding these two MH industries together (MHLF and MH ballast), DOE estimates that the combined base case INPV for manufacturers of MHLFs and MH ballasts ranges from $413 million in the low- shipment scenario to $453 million in the high-shipment scenario in 2012$. Under today’s standards, DOE expects that all MH manufacturers (MHLF and MH ballast manufacturers) may lose up to 5.2 percent of their INPV, which is approximately $21.5 million, in the low-shipment, preservation of operating profit markup scenario. Additionally, based on DOE’s interviews with manufacturers of MHLFs and ballasts, DOE does not expect any plant closings or significant loss of employment. C. National Benefits5
DOE’s analyses indicate that today’s
standards would save a significant amount of
energy. The lifetime savings for MHLFs
purchased in the 30-year period that begins
in the year of compliance with new and
amended standards (2017–2046) amount to
0.39–0.49 quads.
The cumulative net present value (NPV) of
total customer costs and savings of today’s
standards for MHLFs ranges from $0.29
billion (at a 7-percent discount rate, low
shipments scenario) to $1.1 billion (at a 3-
percent discount rate, high shipments
scenario). This NPV expresses the estimated
total value of future operating cost savings
minus the estimated increased equipment
costs for equipment purchased in 2017–2046.
In addition, today’s standards would have
significant environmental benefits. The
energy savings would result in cumulative
greenhouse gas emission reductions of
approximately 22.5–27.8 million metric tons
(Mt)6of carbon dioxide (CO2), 105.9–132.4
thousand tons of methane, 0.5–0.6 thousand
tons of nitrous oxide (N2O), 37.5–47.2
thousand tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2), 28.2–
35.0 tons of nitrogen oxides (NO X) and 0.05–
0.06 tons of mercury (Hg).3Through 2030,
the estimated energy savings would result in
cumulative emissions reductions of 6.3–6.8
Mt of CO2.
The value of the CO2reductions is
calculated using a range of values per metric
ton of CO2(otherwise known as the Social
Cost of Carbon or SCC) developed by a recent
interagency process.7The derivation of the
SCC values is discussed in section V.M.
Using discount rates appropriate for each set
of SCC values, DOE estimates that the net
present monetary value of the CO2emissions
reductions is between $0.15 billion and $2.55
billion. DOE also estimates that the net
present monetary value of the NO X emissions
reductions is $17.34 million at a 7-percent
discount rate, and $44.20 million at a 3-
percent discount rate.8
Table I.3 summarizes the national
economic costs and benefits expected to
result from today’s standards for MHLFs.
T ABLE I.3—S UMMARY OF N ATIONAL E CONOMIC B ENEFITS AND C OSTS OF MHLF E NERGY C ONSERVATION S TANDARDS*
Category Present value
million 2012$ Discount rate
(%)
Benefits
Operating Cost Savings...............................................................................................................................754 7
1,636 3 CO2Reduction Monetized Value ($11.8/t case)**......................................................................................146 5 CO2Reduction Monetized Value ($39.7/t case)**......................................................................................682 3 CO2Reduction Monetized Value ($61.2/t case)**......................................................................................1,088 2.5 CO2Reduction Monetized Value ($117/t case)**.......................................................................................2,106 3 NO X Reduction Monetized Value (at $2639/ton)**.....................................................................................17 7
37 3
Total Benefits?.....................................................................................................................................1,453 7
2,355 3
Costs
Incremental Installed Costs.........................................................................................................................465 7
721 3
Net Benefits
Including CO2and NO X? Reduction Monetized Value...............................................................................988 7
1,634 3 *This table presents the primary (low shipments scenario) estimate of costs and benefits associated with fixtures shipped in 2017–2046. These
results include benefits to customers which accrue after 2047 from the equipment purchased in 2017–2046. The results account for the incre-
mental variable and fixed costs incurred by manufacturers due to the standard, some of which may be incurred in preparation for the rule.
**The CO2values represent global monetized values of the SCC, in 2012$, in 2015 under several scenarios of the updated SCC values. The
first three cases use the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5%, 3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The fourth case rep-
resents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3% discount rate. The SCC time series used by DOE incorporate an esca-
lation factor. The value for NO X is the average of the low and high values used in DOE’s analysis.
?Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using the series corresponding to average SCC with a 3-percent discount rate.
The benefits and costs of today’s standards, for equipment sold in 2017–2046, can also be expressed in terms of annualized values. The annualized monetary values are the sum of
(1) the annualized national economic value
of the benefits from operating the equipment
(consisting primarily of operating cost
savings from using less energy, minus
increases in equipment purchase and
7750 Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 27/Monday, February 10, 2014/Rules and Regulations
9DOE used a two-step calculation process to convert the time-series of costs and benefits into annualized values. First, DOE calculated a present value in 2013, the year used for discounting the NPV of total customer costs and savings, for the time-series of costs and benefits using discount rates of 3 and 7 percent for all costs and benefits
except for the value of CO2reductions. For the
latter, DOE used a range of discount rates, as shown
in Table I.3. From the present value, DOE then
calculated the fixed annual payment over a 30-year
period (2017 through 2046) that yields the same
present value. The fixed annual payment is the
annualized value. Although DOE calculated
annualized values, this does not imply that the
time-series of cost and benefits from which the
annualized values were determined is a steady
stream of payments.
installation costs, which is another way of representing customer NPV), plus (2) the annualized monetary value of the benefits of emission reductions, including CO2emission reductions.9
Although adding the value of customer savings to the values of emission reductions provides a valuable perspective, two issues should be considered. First, the national operating cost savings are domestic U.S. customer monetary savings that occur as a result of market transactions, while the value of CO2reductions is based on a global value. Second, the assessments of operating cost savings and CO2savings are performed with different methods that use different time frames for analysis. The national operating
cost savings is measured for the lifetime of
MHLFs shipped in 2017–2046. The SCC
values, on the other hand, reflect the present
value of all future climate-related impacts
resulting from the emission of one metric ton
of carbon dioxide in each year. These
impacts continue well beyond 2100.
Estimates of annualized benefits and costs
of today’s standards are shown in Table I.4.
The results under the primary estimate are as
follows. Using a 7-percent discount rate for
benefits and costs other than CO2reduction,
for which DOE used a 3-percent discount rate
along with the average SCC series that uses
a 3-percent discount rate, the cost of the
standards in today’s rule is $46 million per
year in increased equipment costs, while the
benefits are $74 million per year in reduced
equipment operating costs, $38 million in
CO2reductions, and $1.71 million in reduced
NO X emissions. In this case, the net benefit
amounts to $68 million per year. Using a 3-
percent discount rate for all benefits and
costs and the average SCC series, the cost of
the standards in today’s rule is $40 million
per year in increased equipment costs, while
the benefits are $91 million per year in
reduced operating costs, $38 million in CO2
reductions, and $2.07 million in reduced
NO X emissions. In this case, the net benefit
amounts to $91 million per year.
T ABLE I.4—A NNUALIZED B ENEFITS AND C OSTS OF N EW AND A MENDED S TANDARDS FOR MHLF S
Discount rate Primary (low) net
benefits estimate*
Million 2012$/year
High net benefits
estimate*
Million 2012$/year
Benefits
Operating Cost Savings...........................................................................7%.............................74 (92)
3%.............................91 (119)
CO2Reduction at ($11.8 case)**............................................................5%.............................11 (13)
CO2Reduction at ($39.7/t case)**..........................................................3%.............................38 (46)
CO2Reduction at ($61.2/t case)**.......................................................... 2.5%..........................56 (68)
CO2Reduction at ($117.0/t case)**........................................................3%.............................117. (142)
NO X Reduction at ($2639/ton)**.............................................................7%............................. 1.71........................... 1.95
3%............................. 2.07........................... 2.46 Total Benefits?..................................................................................7% plus CO2range...87 to 194...................107 to 236
7%.............................114. (140)
3%.............................131. (168)
3% plus CO2range...104 to 211.................135 to 264
Costs
Incremental Product Costs......................................................................7%.............................46 (52)
3%.............................40 (48)
Net Benefits
Total?...............................................................................................7% plus CO2range...41 to 148...................54 to 184
7%.............................68 (87)
3%.............................91 (120)
3% plus CO2range...64 to 171...................87 to 216
*This table presents the annualized costs and benefits associated with fixtures shipped in 2017–2046. These results include benefits to con-sumers which accrue after 2046 from the fixtures purchased from 2017–2046. The results account for the incremental variable and fixed costs in-curred by manufacturers due to the standard, some of which may be incurred in preparation for the rule. The Primary (Low) and High Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the AEO2013 Reference case and High Estimate, respectively. The Primary (Low) and High Benefits Estimates are also based on projected fixture shipments in the Low Shipments, Roll-up and High Shipments, Roll-up scenarios, respec-tively. In addition, the Primary (Low) estimate uses incremental equipment costs that assume fixed equipment prices throughout the analysis pe-riod. The High estimate uses incremental equipment costs that reflect a declining trend for equipment prices, using AEO price trends (deflators). The methods used to derive projected price trends are explained in section V.F.1.
**The CO2values represent global monetized values of the SCC, in 2012$, in 2015 under several scenarios of the updated SCC values. The first three cases use the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5-percent, 3-percent, and 2.5-percent discount rates, respectively. The fourth case represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3-percent discount rate. The SCC time series used by DOE incorporate an escalation factor. The value for NO X is the average of the low and high values used in DOE’s analysis.
? Total Benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are derived using the series corresponding to average SCC with 3-percent dis-count rate. In the rows labeled ‘‘7% plus CO2range’’ and ‘‘3% plus CO2range,’’ the operating cost and NO X benefits are calculated using the la-beled discount rate, and those values are added to the full range of CO2values.
D. Conclusion
Based on the analyses culminating in this final rule, DOE found the benefits to the nation of the standards (energy savings,
customer LCC savings, positive NPV of
customer benefit, and emission reductions)
outweigh the burdens (loss of INPV and LCC
increases for some users of this equipment).
DOE has concluded that the standards in
7751
Federal Register /Vol. 79, No. 27/Monday, February 10, 2014/Rules and Regulations
10For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A.
11All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute as amended through the American Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act (AEMTCA), Public Law 112–210 (Dec. 18, 2012).
today’s final rule represent the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result in significant conservation of energy.
II. Introduction
The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority underlying today’s final rule, as well as some of the relevant historical background related to the establishment of standards for MHLFs.
A. Authority
Title III, Part B 10of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA or the Act), Public Law 94–163 (42 U.S.C. 6291–6309, as codified) established the Energy
Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles, a program covering most major household appliances (collectively referred to as ‘‘covered
equipment’’),11which includes the types of MHLFs that are the subject of this
rulemaking. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(19)) EPCA, as amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007) prescribes energy conservation standards for this equipment (42 U.S.C. 6295(hh)(1)), and directs DOE to conduct a rulemaking to
determine whether to amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(hh)(2)(A)) DOE notes that under 42 U.S.C. 6295(hh)(3)(A), the agency must conduct a second review of energy conservation standards for MHLFs and publish a final rule no later than January 1, 2019.
Pursuant to EPCA, DOE’s energy
conservation program for covered equipment consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing; (2) labeling; (3) the establishment of federal energy conservation standards; and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is primarily responsible for labeling, and DOE implements the remainder of the program. Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of covered equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6293) Manufacturers of covered equipment must use the
prescribed DOE test procedure as the basis for certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with the applicable energy
conservation standards adopted under EPCA and when making representations to the public regarding the energy use or efficiency of that equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and 6295(s)) Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the
equipment complies with standards adopted pursuant to EPCA. Id. DOE test procedures for MHLFs currently appear at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) section 431.324.
DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or amended standards for covered equipment. As indicated above, any new or amended standard for covered
equipment must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any standard that would not result in the significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)) Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard: (1) For certain equipment, including MHLFs, if no test procedure has been established for the
equipment, or (2) if DOE determines by rule that the new or amended standard is not technologically feasible or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)–(B)) In deciding whether a new or amended
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 factors:
1. The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and customers of the equipment subject to the standard;
2. The savings in operating costs
throughout the estimated average life of the covered equipment in the type (or class)
compared to any increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the covered equipment that are likely to result from the imposition of the standard;
3. The total projected amount of energy, or as applicable, water, savings likely to result directly from the imposition of the standard;
4. Any lessening of the utility or the
performance of the covered equipment likely to result from the imposition of the standard; 5. The impact of any lessening of
competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the imposition of 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))
EPCA, as codified, also contains what is known as an ‘‘anti-backsliding’’ provision, which prevents the Secretary from
prescribing any new or amended standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of covered
equipment. (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 of any covered equipment 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))
Further, EPCA, as codified, establishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the additional cost to the customer of purchasing equipment 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
customer will receive as a result of the
standard, as calculated under the applicable test procedure. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii).
Additionally, 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1) specifies requirements when promulgating a standard for a type or class of covered equipment that has two or more subcategories. DOE must specify a different standard level than that which applies generally to such type or class of equipment for any group of covered equipment that has the same function or intended use if DOE determines that
equipment within such group (A) consumes a different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered equipment within such type (or class); or (B) has a
capacity or other performance-related feature that other equipment within such type (or class) does 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 equipment, DOE must consider such factors as the utility to the customer of such a feature and other factors DOE deems appropriate. Id. Any rule prescribing such a standard must include an explanation of the basis on which such higher or lower level was established. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2))
Federal energy conservation requirements generally supersede state laws or 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 42 U.S.C. 6297(d)).
Finally, pursuant to the amendments
contained in section 310(3) of EISA 2007, any final rule for new or amended energy
conservation standards promulgated after July 1, 2010, are required to address standby mode and off mode energy use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) Specifically, when DOE adopts a standard for covered equipment 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 the standard, or, if that is not feasible, adopt a separate standard for such energy use for that equipment. (42
U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)(A)–(B)) DOE’s current test procedures and standards for MHLFs address standby mode and off mode energy use. However, in this rulemaking, DOE only addresses active mode energy consumption as the equipment included in the scope of coverage only consumes energy in active mode.
B. Background
1. Current Standards
EISA 2007 prescribed the current energy conservation standards for MHLFs
manufactured on or after January 1, 2009. (42 U.S.C. 6295(hh)(1)) The current standards are set forth in Table II.1. EISA 2007 excludes from the standards: MHLFs with regulated- lag ballasts, MHLFs with electronic ballasts that operate at 480 volts (V); and MHLFs that (1) are rated only for 150 watt (W) lamps; (2) are rated for use in wet locations; and (3) contain a ballast that is rated to operate at ambient air temperatures higher than 50 °C.
7752 Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 27/Monday, February 10, 2014/Rules and Regulations
12All the spreadsheets models developed for this rulemaking proceeding are available at: 6385ab3e0242a8956aece475/buildings/appliance_ standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/16.
T ABLE II.1—F EDERAL E NERGY E FFICIENCY S TANDARDS FOR MHLF S*
Ballast type Operated lamp rated wattage range Minimum ballast efficiency
%
Pulse-start........................................................................................................≥150 and ≤500 W. (88)
Magnetic Probe-start........................................................................................≥150 and ≤500 W. (94)
Nonpulse-start Electronic.................................................................................≥150 and ≤250 W. (90)
Nonpulse-start Electronic.................................................................................≥250 and ≤500 W. (92)
*(42 U.S.C. 6295(hh)(1)).
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for MHLFs
DOE is conducting this rulemaking to review and consider amendments to the energy conservation standards in effect for MHLFs, as required under 42 U.S.C.
6295(hh)(2) and (4). On December 30, 2009, DOE published a notice announcing the availability of the framework document,
‘‘Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Framework Document for Metal Halide Lamp Fixtures,’’ and a public meeting to discuss the proposed analytical framework for the rulemaking. 74 FR 69036. DOE also posted the framework document on its Web site; this document is available at http://
6385ab3e0242a8956aece475/buildings/appliance_ standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/16. The framework document described the procedural and analytical approaches that DOE anticipated using to evaluate energy conservation standards for MHLFs, and identified various issues to be resolved in conducting this rulemaking.
DOE held a public meeting on January 26, 2010, during which it presented the contents of the framework document, described the analyses it planned to conduct during the rulemaking, sought comments from interested parties on these subjects, and in general, sought to inform interested parties about, and facilitate their involvement in, the rulemaking. At the meeting and during the period for commenting on the framework document, DOE received comments that helped identify and resolve issues involved in this rulemaking.
DOE then gathered additional information
and performed preliminary analyses to help
develop potential energy conservation
standards for MHLFs. On April 1, 2011, DOE
published in the Federal Register an
announcement (the preliminary analysis
notice) of the availability of the preliminary
technical support document (the preliminary
TSD) and of another public meeting to
discuss and receive comments on the
following matters: (1) The equipment classes
DOE planned to analyze; (2) the analytical
framework, models, and tools that DOE was
using to evaluate standards; (3) the results of
the preliminary analyses performed by DOE;
and (4) potential standard levels that DOE
could consider. 76 FR 1812 (April 1, 2011).
In the preliminary analysis notice, DOE
requested comment on these issues. The
preliminary TSD is available at http://
6385ab3e0242a8956aece475/buildings/appliance_
standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/16.
The preliminary TSD summarized the
activities DOE undertook in developing
standards for MHLFs, and discussed the
comments DOE received in response to the
framework document. It also described the
analytical framework that DOE uses in this
rulemaking, including a description of the
methodology, the analytical tools, and the
relationships among the various analyses that
are part of the rulemaking. The preliminary
TSD presented and described in detail each
analysis DOE performed up to that point,
including descriptions of inputs, sources,
methodologies, and results.
The public meeting announced in the
preliminary analysis notice took place on
April 18, 2011. At this meeting, DOE
presented the methodologies and results of
the analyses set forth in the preliminary TSD.
Interested parties discussed the following
major issues at the public meeting: (1)
Alternative approaches to performance
requirements and the various related
efficiency metrics; (2) the possibility of
including design standards; (3) amendments
to the test procedures for metal halide (MH)
ballasts to account for multiple input
voltages; (4) the cost and feasibility of
utilizing electronic ballasts in MHLFs; (5)
equipment class pisions; (6) overall pricing
methodology; (7) lamp lifetimes; (8)
cumulative regulatory burden; (9) shipments;
and (10) the possibility of merging the MHLF
and the high-intensity discharge (HID) lamp
rulemakings.
In August 2013, DOE published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NOPR) in the Federal
Register proposing new and amended energy
conservation standards for MHLFs. In
conjunction with the NOPR, DOE also
published on its Web site the complete TSD
for the proposed rule, which incorporated the
analyses DOE conducted and technical
documentation for each analysis. The NOPR
TSD was accompanied by the LCC
spreadsheet, the national impact analysis
spreadsheet, and the manufacturer impact
analysis (MIA) spreadsheet—all of which are
available on DOE’s Web site.12The proposed
standards were as shown in Table II.2.78 FR
51463 (August 20, 2013).
T ABLE II.2—E NERGY C ONSERVATION S TANDARDS P ROPOSED IN THE NOPR
Designed to be operated with lamps of
the following rated lamp wattage Indoor/outdoor? Test input voltage??Minimum standard equation?
%
≥50 W and ≤100 W.............................Indoor............................480 V.............................99.4/(1+2.5×P∧(￥0.55)).?
≥50 W and ≤100 W.............................Indoor............................All others.......................100/(1+2.5×P∧(￥0.55)).
≥50 W and ≤100 W.............................Outdoor..........................480 V.............................99.4/(1+2.5×P∧(￥0.55)).
≥50 W and ≤100 W.............................Outdoor..........................All others.......................100/(1+2.5×P∧(￥0.55)).
>100 W and <150 W*.........................Indoor............................480 V.............................99.4/(1+0.36×P∧(￥0.30)).
>100 W and <150 W*.........................Indoor............................All others.......................100/(1+0.36×P∧(￥0.30)).
>100 W and <150 W*.........................Outdoor..........................480 V.............................99.4/(1+0.36×P∧(￥0.30)).
>100 W and <150 W*.........................Outdoor..........................All others.......................100/(1+0.36×P∧(￥0.30)).
≥150 W**and ≤250 W........................Indoor............................480 V.............................For ≥150 W and ≤200 W: 88.0.
For >200 W and ≤250 W: 0.06×P + 76.0. ≥150 W**and ≤250 W........................Indoor............................All others.......................For ≥150 W and ≤200 W: 88.0.
For >200 W and ≤250 W: 0.07×P + 74.0. ≥150 W**and ≤250 W........................Outdoor..........................480 V.............................For ≥150 W and ≤200 W: 88.0
For >200 W and ≤250 W: 0.06×P + 76.0. ≥150 W**and ≤250 W........................Outdoor..........................All others.......................For ≥150 W and ≤200 W: 88.0.
For >200 W and ≤250 W: 0.07×P + 74.0.
7753 Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 27/Monday, February 10, 2014/Rules and Regulations
13As a point of reference, 50 °C is equivalent to 122°F.
14A notation in the form ‘‘EEI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at pp. 14–15, 67–69’’ identifies a comment that DOE has received and included in the docket of this rulemaking. This particular notation refers to a comment: (1) Submitted by EEI;
(2) in the transcript of the MHLF NOPR public meeting, document number 48 in the docket of this rulemaking; and (3) appearing on pages 14–15 and 67–69 of that transcript.
T ABLE II.2—E NERGY C ONSERVATION S TANDARDS P ROPOSED IN THE NOPR—Continued
Designed to be operated with lamps of
the following rated lamp wattage Indoor/outdoor? Test input voltage??Minimum standard equation?
%
>250 W and ≤500 W...........................Indoor............................480 V.............................91.0.
>250 W and ≤500 W...........................Indoor............................All others.......................91.5.
>250 W and ≤500 W...........................Outdoor..........................480 V.............................91.0.
>250 W and ≤500 W...........................Outdoor..........................All others.......................91.5.
>500 W and ≤2000 W.........................Indoor............................480 V.............................For >500 W to <1000 W: 0.994×(0.0032×P +
89.9).
For ≥1000 W to ≤2000 W: 92.5 and may not uti-
lize a probe-start ballast.
>500 W and ≤2000 W.........................Indoor............................All others.......................For >500 W to <1000 W: 0.0032×P + 89.9.
For ≥1000 W to ≤2000 W: 93.1 and may not uti-
lize a probe-start ballast.
>500 W and ≤2000 W.........................Outdoor..........................480 V.............................For >500 W to <1000 W: 0.994×(0.0032×P +
89.9).
For ≥1000 W to ≤2000 W: 92.5 and may not uti-
lize a probe-start ballast.
>500 W and ≤2000 W.........................Outdoor..........................All others.......................For >500 W to <1000 W: 0.0032×P + 89.9.
For ≥1000 W to ≤2000 W: 93.1 and may not uti-
lize a probe-start ballast.
*Includes 150 W MHLFs exempted by EISA 2007, which are MHLFs rated only for 150 W lamps; rated for use in wet locations, as specified by the NFPA 70–2002, section 410.4(A); and containing a ballast that is rated to operate at ambient air temperatures above 50 °C, as specified by UL 1029–2007.
**Excludes 150 W MHLFs exempted by EISA 2007, which are MHLFs rated only for 150 W lamps; rated for use in wet locations, as specified by the NFPA 70–2002, section 410.4(A); and containing a ballast that is rated to operate at ambient air temperatures above 50 °C, as specified by UL 1029–2007.
?DOE’s proposed definitions for ‘‘indoor’’ and ‘‘outdoor’’ MHLFs are described in section V.A.2.
??Input voltage for testing would be specified by the test procedures. Ballasts rated to operate lamps less than 150 W would be tested at 120 V, and ballasts rated to operate lamps ≥150 W would be tested at 277 V. Ballasts not designed to operate at either of these voltages would be tested at the highest voltage for which the ballast is designed to operate.
?P is defined as the rated wattage of the lamp that the MHLF is designed to operate.
In the NOPR DOE invited comment, particularly on the following issues: (1) The expanded scope of coverage, (2) the proposed amendments to the test procedure, (3) equipment class pisions, (4) the efficiency levels (ELs) analyzed, (5) the method of estimating magnetically ballasted system input power, (6) the determination to include a design standard that would prohibit the sale of probe-start ballasts in newly sold MHLFs for certain wattages, (7) the derived manufacturer selling prices (MSPs), (8) the equipment class scaling factor for tested input voltage, and (9) the proposed trial standard level (TSL 3). 78 FR 51463 (August 20, 2013).
DOE held a NOPR public meeting on September 27, 2013, to hear oral comments on and solicit information relevant to the proposed rule (hereafter the NOPR public meeting). Interested parties in attendance discussed the following major issues: (1) The compliance date, (2) amendments to the test procedure, (3) scope of the rulemaking, (4) equipment class pisions, (5) impacts on the magnetic ballast footprint, (6) impacts on fixture design, (7) testing and manufacturing variation, and (8) impacts of solid-state lighting market penetration on MHLF shipments.
DOE considered the comments received in response to the NOPR after its publication and at the NOPR public meeting when developing this final rule, and responds to these comments in this notice.
3. Compliance Date
EPCA, as amended by EISA 2007, contains guidelines for the compliance date of the standards amended by this rulemaking. EPCA requires DOE to determine whether to amend the standards in effect for MHLFs and
whether any amended standards should
apply to additional MHLFs. The Secretary
was directed to publish a final rule no later
than January 1, 2012 to determine whether
the energy conservation standards
established by EISA 2007 for MHLFs should
be amended, with any amendment applicable
to equipment manufactured after January 1,
2015. (42 U.S.C. 6295(hh)(2)(B)) As discussed
in section VI.C, DOE has determined it will
maintain the three-year interval between the
publication date of the final rule in the
Federal Register and the compliance date.
III. Issues Affecting the Scope of This
Rulemaking
A. Additional MHLFs for Which DOE Is
Setting Standards
The existing energy conservation standards
for MHLFs are established in EPCA through
amendments made by EISA 2007. (42 U.S.C.
6295(hh)(1)(A)) The statute excludes from
coverage MHLFs with regulated-lag ballasts;
electronic ballasts that operate at 480 V; and
ballasts that are rated only for (1) use with
150 W lamps, (2) use in wet locations, and
(3) operation in ambient air temperatures
higher than 50 °C.13DOE considered
expanding the coverage of its energy
conservation standards to include these
exempted MHLF types and additional rated
lamp wattages. For each previously exempted
MHLF type and for all expansions of the
covered wattage range, DOE considered
potential energy savings, technological
feasibility, and economic justification when
determining whether to include them in the
scope of coverage.
Some stakeholders expressed confusion at
the NOPR public meeting, stating that they
interpreted this rulemaking as establishing
efficiency standards for all metal halide
ballasts rather than just ballasts in new metal
halide lamp fixtures. The Edison Electric
Institute (EEI) contended that the rule is
misleading because the title indicates it is a
rule for metal halide lamp fixtures when it
actually establishes standards for all metal
halide ballasts, including replacement
ballasts. (EEI, Public Meeting Transcript, No.
48 at pp. 14–15, 67–69)14DOE clarifies that
the scope of this rulemaking affects all new
MHLFs. Ballasts sold with new fixtures after
the compliance date must meet or exceed the
standards promulgated by this rulemaking.
Any ballasts sold on the replacement market
do not need to comply with these standards.
Regarding the additional fixtures that DOE
proposed including in the scope of coverage,
the California Energy Commission (CEC)
generally supported the expanded scope for
MHLFs DOE proposed in the NOPR. (CEC,
No. 52 at p. 3) DOE received no other
comment regarding the general approach to
expand the scope of coverage and considers
specific scope comments in the following
sections.
7754 Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 27/Monday, February 10, 2014/Rules and Regulations
1. EISA 2007 Exempted MHLFs
a. MHLFs With Regulated-Lag Ballasts Regulated-lag ballasts are mainly used for specialty applications where line voltage variation is large. Regulated-lag ballasts are designed to withstand significant line voltage variation with minimum wattage variation to the lamp, which results in an efficiency penalty compared to ballasts whose output changes more significantly with line voltage variation. The power regulation provided by regulated-lag ballasts is higher than any other magnetic ballast. To be able to withstand large variations, regulated-lag ballasts are designed to be significantly larger than standard ballasts. Through manufacturer interviews and market research, DOE determined that the size and weight of regulated-lag ballasts limit their use as substitutes in traditional applications. Manufacturers and market research confirmed that their exemption did not lead to a significant market shift to regulated-lag ballasts. Furthermore, DOE’s market research found none of this equipment available in major manufacturers’ catalogs. The absence of regulated-lag ballasts from catalogs indicates a very small market share and therefore limited potential for significant energy savings. Thus, in the NOPR DOE proposed continuing to exempt MHLFs with regulated-lag ballasts from energy conservation standards.
Universal Lighting Technologies (ULT) and the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) agreed with DOE’s proposal to continue exempting regulated-lag ballasts from the scope of this rulemaking. NEMA further added that this higher cost technology is used in limited and specific applications, such as heavy industrial, security, and street and tunnel lighting, in order to avoid lamp failures caused by severe voltage dips. (ULT, No. 50 at p. 2; NEMA, No.
56 at p. 5; NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at p. 48) Agreeing with this description of a limited, niche market and receiving no comments to the contrary, in this final rule DOE exempts regulated-lag ballasts from energy conservation standards.
b. MHLFs With 480 V Electronic Ballasts
In the NOPR, DOE concluded that 480 V electronic ballasts have a very small market share as they are only manufactured by one company and have limited availability from distributors. As a result, DOE determined that there is limited potential for significant energy savings, and in the NOPR proposed continuing to exempt MHLFs with 480 V electronic ballasts from energy conservation standards.
Philips Lighting (Philips), ULT, and NEMA agreed with DOE’s decision to exclude 480 V electronic ballasts in the scope of this rulemaking. ULT noted that very few 480 V electronic ballasts are in the market, while Philips commented that 480 V electronic ballasts do not exist at any wattage. (Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at p. 130; ULT, No. 50 at p. 2; NEMA, No. 56 at p. 5) Having received no comments in disagreement, DOE continues to exempt 480 V electronic ballasts from energy conservation standards in this final rule. c. Exempted 150 W MHLFs
After receiving exemption from energy
conservation standards in EISA 2007,
shipments of 150 W outdoor MHLFs rated for
wet and high-temperature locations
increased. Further, some indoor applications
use the exempted outdoor MHLFs, negating
possible energy savings for indoor 150 W
MHLFs. Therefore, in the NOPR DOE
concluded that including the currently
exempt 150 W MHLFs in the scope of
coverage has the potential for significant
energy savings. Additionally, as a range of
ballast efficiencies exists in commercially
available ballasts, DOE found that improving
the efficiencies of the ballasts included in
these fixtures is technologically feasible and
economically justified. Accordingly, in the
NOPR DOE proposed including 150 W
MHLFs in wet locations and ambient
temperatures greater than 50 °C in the scope
of this rulemaking.
NEMA, ULT, CEC, and the Southern
Company disagreed with DOE’s decision to
include all 150 W ballasts in the scope of this
rulemaking. (NEMA, No. 56 at pp. 5, 12;
ULT, No. 50 at pp. 2–3; CEC, No. 52 at p. 3;
Southern Company, No. 64 at p. 2; No. 64 at
p. 2) NEMA commented that while DOE does
have the authority to include this equipment,
it must be done in a technologically and
economically feasible manner. NEMA stated
that the efficiencies adopted in the final rule
must be substantially lowered from those
proposed in the NOPR to be technologically
feasible. (NEMA, No. 56 at pp. 5, 24) In
support of this point, ULT and NEMA noted
that the industry has not yet been able to
create a 150 W MHLF with a magnetic ballast
that achieves 88 percent efficiency, which is
the minimum efficiency requirement
proposed in the NOPR for previously exempt
150 W MHLFs. (ULT, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 48 at pp. 108–109; ULT, No.
50 at pp. 5–6, 23–24; NEMA, No. 56 at p. 13)
In contrast, in a joint comment the Pacific
Gas and Electric Company, Southern
California Gas Company, San Diego Gas and
Electric, and Southern California Edison
(hereafter referred to as the California
investor-owned utilities or the ‘‘CA IOUs’’)
supported DOE’s proposal to include
previously exempt 150 W MHLFs in the
scope of coverage. CA IOUs were unaware of
any specific attributes that limit 150 W
ballasts from reaching greater efficiency, and
believe the lower efficiencies of these ballasts
are more likely due to their prior exemption
from standards, as there is significant room
for improvement. Therefore, CA IOUs
supported the inclusion of these ballasts. (CA
IOUs, No. 54 at pp. 1–2) Also, in a joint
comment the Appliance Standards
Awareness Project, American Council for an
Energy-Efficient Economy, National
Consumer Law Center, Natural Resources
Defense Council, Northwest Energy
Efficiency Alliance, and Northwest Power
and Conservation Council (hereafter referred
to as the ‘‘Joint Comment’’) supported
including 150 W MHLFs previously
exempted by EISA 2007 in the scope of this
final rule. (Joint Comment, No. 62 at p. 9)
DOE agrees that commercially available
magnetic ballasts cannot meet the EISA 2007
specified 88 percent efficiency. However, the
150 W fixtures exempted by EISA 2007 have
a range of magnetic ballast efficiencies
available below 88 percent and therefore
energy conservation standards are
technologically feasible. These fixtures can
be considered separately from those 150 W
fixtures covered by EISA 2007 by separating
them into different equipment classes and
DOE therefore finds no reason the previously
exempt 150 W fixtures should not be covered
by this rulemaking. Therefore in this final
rule, DOE has included 150 W fixtures rated
for use in wet locations and ambient
temperatures greater than 50 °C in the scope
of coverage.
NEMA, ULT, and Southern Company
commented that the inclusion of 150 W
ballast efficiency requirements would
practically prohibit usage of 150 W magnetic
ballasts, thereby forcing the usage of
electronic ballasts in new fixtures. (NEMA,
No. 56 at p. 6; ULT, No. 50 at pp. 2–3;
Southern Company, No. 64 at p. 2) ULT and
Southern Company expressed concerns that
electronic ballasts for MH lamps are not
proven in outdoor applications and are
vulnerable to failures due to moisture,
temperatures higher than 50 °C, and voltage
variations and surges caused by lightning and
other natural events. (ULT, No. 50 at pp. 2–
3; Southern Company, No. 64 at p. 2)
DOE considered both more efficient
magnetic and more efficient electronic
ballasts as replacements for ballasts in the
previously exempt 150 W fixtures. DOE has
determined that, with the proper fixture
adjustments, electronic ballasts can be used
in the same applications as magnetic ballasts.
For detailed discussion of this decision, see
section V.A. DOE has concluded that the
standard levels adopted in this final rule are
economically justified.
General Electric (GE) commented that
energy conservation standards for previously
exempt 150 W MHLFs could actually
increase rather than decrease national energy
consumption. GE noted that the purpose of
the 150 W exemption from EISA 2007 was to
shift the market from 175 W fixtures to 150
W fixtures, thereby saving energy. Thus, GE
disagreed with the way DOE analyzed 150 W
fixtures and noted that the previously exempt
fixtures should not be subject to standards
higher than max tech. (GE, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 48 at pp. 135–136)
CA IOUs acknowledged that 150 W ballasts
can be a low-wattage replacement for 175 W
applications. Accordingly, CA IOUs
encouraged increasing efficiency standards
for both wattage levels equally, so as not to
inadvertently push customers to the higher-
wattage alternatives. (CA IOUs, No. 54 at pp.
1–2) CEC agreed, stating that by incentivizing
150 W fixtures through minimal efficiency
standards, the market would be driven
toward purchasing these lower-wattage
fixtures instead of 175 W or 200 W fixtures.
(CEC, No. 52 at p. 3)
The Joint Comment noted that while
customers may choose to shift between
different wattage MHLFs, continuing to
exempt 150 W MHLFs is not the best
solution. For example, a continued
exemption might create market distortions
and hinder the transitions to more efficient
light-emitting diode (LED) lamps in this
7755 Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 27/Monday, February 10, 2014/Rules and Regulations
15DOE uses this shorthand to refer to MHLFs
with ballasts designed to operate lamps rated
greater than or equal to 50 W and less than 150 W,
MHLFs with ballasts designed to operate lamps rated greater than 500 W and less than or equal to 2000 W, and MHLFs with ballasts designed to operate lamps rated greater than or equal to 150 W and less than or equal to 500 W, respectively.
16U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 2010 U.S. Lighting Market Characterization. 2010. Available at 6385ab3e0242a8956aece475/buildings/ publications/pdfs/ssl/2010-lmc-final-jan-2012.pdf.
wattage category. (Joint Comment, No. 62 at p. 9) The Joint Comment also stated that even if the inclusion of 150 W fixtures leads to the use of more 175 W or 200 W fixtures, it might not result in more energy consumption as switching to higher-wattage fixtures could also reduce the number of fixtures installed. In situations where the number of fixtures installed is not reduced, additional energy use could be offset by increased ballast efficiency in this wattage bin. In addition, the increased price of the 175 W fixtures provides more disincentive to purchase them over 150 W fixtures. Finally, the Joint Comment argued that if the standards apply to all wattage ranges from 50 W to 500 W, switching from 150 W to a higher-wattage fixture would not be a concern because all fixtures would be subject to the same standards. (Joint Comment, No. 62 at p. 9) DOE notes that the exemption of certain 150 W fixtures from EISA 2007 resulted in
a shift from 175 W to the exempted 150 W fixtures, which resulted in energy savings. In the shipments analysis, DOE considers how different standards for 150 W and 175 W MHLFs may impact customer choices. For example, when the initial first cost for 150
W fixtures exceeds that of 175 W fixtures, the shipments analysis models a shift to 175 W MHLFs. Even with some customers shifting to higher wattage MHLFs, energy conservation standards for 150 W fixtures still result in energy savings due to increased ballast efficiency. In this final rule, DOE has determined that standards for previously exempt 150 W MHLFs are technologically feasible, economically justified, and would result in significant energy savings (see section VII.C for details). Therefore, DOE has included previously exempt 150 W fixtures in the scope of coverage of this rulemaking.
2. Additional Wattages
Based on equipment testing and market research, DOE found in the NOPR that energy conservation standards for MHLFs rated for wattages greater than 50 W and less than 150 W, and MHLFs rated for wattages greater than 500 W, are technologically feasible, economically justified, and would result in significant energy savings. DOE determined that MHLFs rated for wattages greater than 2000 W only served small-market-share applications like graphic arts, ultraviolet (UV) curing, and scanners. Therefore, in the NOPR DOE proposed to include in the scope of coverage 50 W–150 W MHLFs and 501 W– 2000 W MHLFs, in addition to the 150 W– 500 W MHLFs15covered by EISA 2007. NEMA and ULT opposed the expansion of coverage of this rulemaking to include 50 W– 150 W MHLFs. They further commented that coverage of 50 W–100 W MHLFs would require redesign of all magnetic ballasts in that range, which would be nearly equivalent to banning magnetic ballasts. (NEMA, No. 56 at p. 6; ULT, No. 50 at pp. 2–3)
DOE has found MHLFs with a variety of
ballast efficiencies in the 50 W–150 W range,
including the 50 W–100 W range specifically
cited by NEMA and ULT. Therefore, DOE
believes energy conservation standards for 50
W–150 W MHLFs are technologically
feasible. DOE considered both more efficient
magnetic and more efficient electronic
ballasts as replacements for ballasts in this
rulemaking. DOE has determined that, with
the proper fixture adjustments, electronic
ballasts can be used in the same applications
as magnetic ballasts. For detailed discussion
of this decision, see section V.A. Economic
impacts of standard levels on inpidual
customers, manufacturers, and the nation are
discussed in section VII.B. DOE has
concluded that the standard levels adopted
in this final rule for 50 W–150 W MHLFs are
economically justified and would result in
significant energy savings. Therefore, DOE
has included 50 W–150 W MHLFs in the
scope of coverage for this final rule.
DOE received several comments regarding
the inclusion of MHLFs greater than 500 W
in the scope of coverage. CA IOUs and
Earthjustice supported the expansion of the
scope of coverage to include 50 W–2000 W
fixtures. (CA IOUs, No. 54 at pp. 1–2;
Earthjustice, Public Meeting Transcript, No.
48 at p. 171) CA IOUs commented that
because 18 percent of MH ballasts are
designed to operate lamps greater than 500
W, there exists an opportunity for significant
energy savings. (CA IOUs, No. 54 at pp. 1–
2)
In contrast, NEMA and ULT disagreed with
the inclusion of MHLFs greater than 500 W,
noting that coverage of the 501 W–2000 W
range would require redesign of the 750 W
fixture family and this would come with
significant cost increase. (NEMA, No. 56 at
pp. 6–7; ULT, No. 50 at pp. 2–3)
DOE believes that standards for 500 W–
1000 W MHLFs are technologically feasible
because MHLFs in this wattage range contain
ballasts that exhibit a range of efficiencies,
indicating it is possible for a standard to
improve the efficiency of ballasts already on
the market. Specifically, DOE has found 750
W MHLFs with ballasts at multiple
efficiencies that span both EL1 and EL2.
Furthermore, DOE has analyzed MHLFs in
this wattage range and concluded that
standards for these MHLFs are economically
justified and result in significant energy
savings (see section VII.B of this notice for
more details). Therefore, DOE includes 500
W–1000 W MHLFs in the scope of coverage
for this rulemaking.
NEMA, GE, ULT, Musco Sports Lighting,
LLC (Musco Lighting), Venture Lighting
International, Inc. (Venture), and OSRAM
SYLVANIA Inc. (OSI) all asserted that
fixtures greater than 1000 W should not be
covered by this rulemaking, as they are only
operated in ‘‘specialty lighting’’ applications.
They stated that the lamps’ limited
applications and low hours of operation do
not result in appreciable savings
opportunities, provide little energy gains at a
significant cost, and pose an unjustified
burden on manufacturers. (NEMA, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at p. 114; NEMA,
No. 56 at pp. 6–7; GE, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 48 at pp. 115, 172; ULT, No.
50 at pp. 2–3; Musco Lighting, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at pp. 118, 180;
Musco Lighting, No. 55 at pp. 3–4; Venture,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at p. 170;
OSI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at p.
172) Further, NEMA cited the 2010 U.S.
Lighting Market Characterization (2010
LMC),16as evidence that stadium and sports
lighting, the most common application for
fixtures greater than 1000 W, is a niche
market, unsuitable for energy savings
exploration. Specifically, NEMA noted that
in the 2010 LMC, the 839,000 MH lamps in
stadium applications represent 2.8 percent of
outdoor MH lamps (0.4 percent of all outdoor
lamps) and only 1.2 percent of all installed
MH lamps (see Table 4.1 in the 2010 LMC).
For MH lamps in stadium applications, the
average wattage is 1554 W (see Table 4.28 in
the 2010 LMC) with an average usage of just
1 hour per day (see Table 4.29 in the 2010
LMC). NEMA agreed with the 2010 LMC that
this is a reasonable average usage profile for
MH lamps greater than 1000 W. In contrast,
typical outdoor MH lamps average 12.1 hours
per day ranging from 8.8 hours on building
exteriors to 15 hours in parking areas.
(NEMA, No. 56 at pp. 6–7)
Musco Lighting pointed out that DOE’s
decision to not directly analyze 480 V
magnetic ballasts due to low shipment
volume supported their assertion that 1500
W fixtures should be exempt from energy
conservation standards. Musco Lighting
specified that as more than 50 percent of
their shipments of 1500 W MHLFs contained
a 480 V ballast, both MHLF types should be
exempt. (Musco Lighting, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 48 at p. 129)
DOE determined that sports lighting,
which is the predominant application for
lamps above 1000 W, fits the definition of
general lighting and is therefore included in
the scope of this rulemaking (see the
following section III.A.3 for additional
discussion). Although these higher wattage
MHLFs do not comprise a large percentage of
the market, their high wattage could
potentially result in significant energy
savings. DOE notes that MHLFs greater than
1000 W exist in a variety of efficiencies and
therefore standards for these MHLFs are
technologically feasible. DOE acknowledges,
however, that MHLFs greater than 1000 W
have a different cost-efficiency relationship
than 501 W to 1000 W MHLFs. Therefore, in
this final rule, DOE created a separate
equipment class to analyze these MHLFs. See
section V.A.2 for additional detail. After
considering the economic impacts of
standards for MHLFs greater than 1000 W on
inpidual customers, manufacturers, and the
nation, DOE has concluded that standards for
these MHLFs are not economically justified.
Therefore, in this final rule, DOE has not
included MHLFs greater than 1000 W in the
scope of coverage and has not adopted energy
conservation standards for these MHLFs. See
section VII for a discussion of the economic
impacts.
7756 Federal Register /Vol. 79, No. 27/Monday, February 10, 2014/Rules and Regulations
17The general lighting application definition
prescribed by EISA 2007 was previously
incorporated into the consumer products section (10 CFR Part 430), but has not yet been added to the commercial and industrial equipment section (10 CFR Part 431).
3. General Lighting
EISA 2007 defines the scope of this
rulemaking as applying to MHLFs used in general lighting applications. (42 U.S.C. 6291(64)) In section 2 of 10 CFR Part 430, Subpart A, a general lighting application is defined as lighting that provides an interior or exterior area with overall illumination. In the NOPR, DOE proposed to add this
definition to 10 CFR Part 431.2,17the section of the CFR that relates to commercial and industrial equipment, such as MHLFs. DOE’s research indicated that there are a number of applications, such as outdoor sports lighting and airfield lighting, which commonly use MH ballasts of 1000 W to 2000 W and
provide general illumination to an exterior area. In the NOPR, DOE proposed that such applications are general lighting applications and are covered by this rulemaking.
ULT, NEMA, GE, Musco Lighting stated that all MHLFs above 1000 W have limited operating hours and are for specialty
applications, not general lighting. (ULT, No. 50 at pp. 2–3; NEMA, No. 56 at pp. 6–7; GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at p. 115; Musco Lighting, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at p. 118) Earthjustice commented that the definition of ‘‘general lighting’’ refers to overall illumination of an interior or exterior area, not to the hours of use of an
application. Therefore, Earthjustice stated that these higher-wattage lamps that serve applications such as sports lighting, parks, and airfields that provide overall
illumination to exterior areas should not be considered niche equipment. (Earthjustice, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at pp. 171, 174)
DOE agrees that the higher wattages fall under the CFR definition of general lighting. As mentioned previously, DOE also
acknowledges that these lamps have limited operating hours and used these hours of use to calculate their energy savings potential. However, DOE does not believe that low operating hours impacts whether high
wattage MHLFs are used in general lighting applications. DOE has determined that sports lighting is a general lighting application because it is ‘‘lighting that provides an interior or exterior area with overall
illumination.’’ In this final rule, DOE adopts this definition for general lighting application in 10 CFR 431.2.
4. High-Frequency Electronic Ballasts
Electronic ballasts can be separated into two main types, low-frequency electronic (LFE) and high-frequency electronic (HFE). HFE ballasts are electronic ballasts with frequencies greater than or equal to 1000 hertz (Hz). DOE received comment that HFE ballasts should not be included in the scope of coverage based on compatibility issues and the lack of test procedure (DOE’s proposed test procedure is discussed in section IV.A). Venture and NEMA commented that there are no ANSI standards for the HFE ballasts that may be required to meet the analyzed
standard levels, and therefore there will be limited MH lamps for use with these ballasts for a substantial period of time. (Venture, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at p. 29; NEMA, No. 56 at p. 9) NEMA elaborated that many MH lamps are not compatible with existing HFE ballasts because of variation in arc tube size and shape. Due to this variation, HFE acoustic resonances can cause arc
instability or even lamp failure. (NEMA, No. 44 at p. 6) NEMA specifically noted that high-frequency electronic ballasts are
incompatible with the most efficacious lamps (ceramic metal halide). A standard that requires high frequency electronic ballasts could reduce overall energy savings because these ballasts are not compatible with the most efficacious MH lamps. (NEMA, No. 56 at p. 9) Furthermore, a standard that eliminates ballasts capable of operating ceramic metal halide lamps would be a violation of EPCA section 325(o)(4) which prohibits DOE from adopting a standard that interested parties have demonstrated results in the elimination of product features from the market. (NEMA, No. 44 at pp. 6–7) NEMA stated that industry standards for high
frequency ballasts and lamps have only just begun to be developed and without these standards there will continue to be limited compatibility between high frequency
ballasts and lamps (NEMA, No. 44 at p. 7). Even when acceptable frequency ranges are found, NEMA commented that HFE ballasts can also cause electrode back arcing, leading to shortened lamp life. (NEMA, No. 44 at p. 6)
As in the NOPR, DOE recognizes there are compatibility issues associated with HFE ballasts and some MH lamps, in particular ceramic metal halide (CMH) lamps. A standard that requires HFE ballasts could result in a full or partial elimination of CMH lamps from the market due to these
compatibility issues. The elimination of CMH lamps could increase energy usage, as CMH lamps are some of the most efficacious MH lamps on the market. In the NOPR, DOE indicated it would take compatibility issues with HFE ballasts into account when
selecting the eventual adopted standard of today’s final rule. However, as detailed in section IV.A of this notice, DOE has not adopted a test procedure for HFE ballast, based on the lack of an industry consensus test method for this ballast type. DOE has found that in the absence of an applicable test method for these lamps, HFE ballasts cannot be subject to energy conservation standards. Therefore, DOE has not included HFE ballasts in the scope of coverage of this rulemaking.
5. Outdoor Fixtures
In the NOPR, DOE included both indoor and outdoor MHLFs in the scope of coverage because DOE determined that standards for both types of fixtures were technologically feasible, economically justified, and would result in significant energy savings. Because DOE concluded that indoor and outdoor fixtures had different cost-efficiency
relationships, DOE analyzed them in separate equipment classes.
The American Public Power Association (APPA) noted that separating the outdoor and indoor lamps or exempting outdoor lamps is
necessary because the usage patterns of
outdoor lamps differ immensely from indoor. As the circumstances are different when considering both classes, APPA furthered, it is difficult to understand the effects of
proposed efficiency standards on each group. APPA also noted that it may make sense to exempt outdoor fixtures from energy conservation standards because the
electronic ballasts will have difficulty in
extreme weather conditions. APPA, No. 51 at p. 4; APPA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at p. 103)
As mentioned previously, in the NOPR DOE determined that standards for both types of fixtures were technologically
feasible, economically justified, and would result in significant energy savings. This conclusion is reaffirmed by the analysis in the final rule and DOE therefore includes both indoor and outdoor fixtures in the scope of coverage for this rulemaking. DOE agrees with analyzing outdoor and indoor fixtures separately by placing indoor and outdoor MHLFs into separate equipment classes. While the efficiencies achievable by indoor and outdoor fixtures are the same, the different costs affect the resultant cost- efficiency curves. See section V.A.2 of this notice for details on the equipment classes. 6. Hazardous Locations
Although DOE did not consider exempting fixtures designed for use in hazardous
locations in the NOPR, NEMA commented that these fixtures need to be exempt from energy conservation standards. As these fixtures are used in potentially explosive atmospheres and listed to Underwriters Laboratories Inc. standard (UL) 844, any change in ballast size would require the fixture to be redesigned and re-tested, creating a tremendous burden on
manufacturers. This is because the redesign, retesting, and relisting of these MHLFs would take significantly longer than three years, and leave this equipment type unavailable for an extended period of time. This would result in serious safety concerns until these fixture types were available again. NEMA also finds it would be very difficult for manufacturers to recoup the investment in standards- induced efficiency improvement for these types of MHLFs due to their limited market. Therefore, NEMA suggested that hazardous location fixtures should be granted an
exemption from the rulemaking. (NEMA, No. 56 at p. 14)
As discussed in section V.C.8, the standard levels analyzed in this rulemaking do not require an increase in ballast size. Therefore, DOE does not believe hazardous location fixtures would need to be modified due to a change in ballast size. DOE notes that the vast majority of hazardous location fixtures are specified for use with magnetic ballasts. Therefore, DOE investigated existing fixtures, and the requirements of UL 844, to determine whether higher standards for ballasts, specifically those that require electronic ballast technology, would cause existing hazardous location fixtures to be redesigned and/or retested. After reviewing the UL 844 requirements, DOE found no constraints that would specifically or effectively preclude the use of electronic ballasts. Instead, UL 844 contains explosion protection requirements
7757
Federal Register /Vol. 79, No. 27/Monday, February 10, 2014/Rules and Regulations
18While not comprehensive, DOE identified
hazardous location fixtures certified for use with
magnetic ballasts that operate lamps with rated
wattages between 150 W and 750 W.
for a luminaire, including requirements that no part of the fixture reach the thermal
ignition temperature of a particulate or gas in the environment. DOE’s survey of existing hazardous location fixtures found that these fixtures are commonly rated for use with a type of MH ballast and specific wattage. For example, a hazardous location fixture may be rated for use with a magnetic MH ballast of a given wattage (e.g., a 750 W magnetic MH ballast). Most hazardous location fixtures that are currently available are certified for use with magnetic ballasts, with offerings at a variety of wattages.18DOE only identified one hazardous location fixture that was rated for use with electronic ballasts (in this case, a 150 W electronic ballast). DOE was unable to confirm that hazardous location fixtures compatible with electronic ballasts were available at the same wattages as hazardous location fixtures compatible with magnetic ballasts that are currently offered on the market. However, as discussed in section VII.C, DOE is not adopting standards that are expected to require the use of electronic ballast technology. Therefore, DOE does not believe the adopted standards in this
rulemaking will require hazardous location fixtures to be redesigned and retested and does not exempt them from the standards adopted in this final rule.
7. Summary of MHLFs for Which DOE Is Setting Standards
EISA 2007 established energy conservation standards for MHLFs with ballasts designed to operate lamps with rated wattages between 150 W and 500 W. As previously discussed, EISA 2007 also exempted three types of fixtures within the covered wattage range from energy conservation standards. In this final rule, DOE extends coverage to MHLFs with ballasts designed to operate lamps rated 50 W–150 W and 501 W–1000 W. DOE also includes one type of previously exempt fixture in the scope of coverage: 150 W MHLFs rated for use in wet locations and containing a ballast that is rated to operate at ambient air temperatures greater than 50 °C. DOE continues to exempt regulated-lag ballasts and 480 V electronic ballasts. For all ballasts included in the scope of coverage, DOE has determined that energy
conservation standards are technologically feasible, economically justified, and would result in significant energy savings. As such, DOE adopts standards for these MHLFs in this final rule.
B. Alternative Approaches to Energy
Conservation Standards: System Approaches As discussed in the NOPR, DOE considered several alternatives to establishing energy conservation standards for MHLFs by regulating the efficiency of the ballast contained within the fixture. Specifically, DOE considered a lamp-and- ballast system metric, fixture-level metrics, and the compliance paths specified in California’s Title 20 regulations (which are now preempted by federal energy conservation standards in 10 CFR 431.326, 74
FR 12058; March 23, 2009). DOE concluded that, after considering all of these alternate approaches, maintaining the EISA 2007
approach of regulating MHLFs by specifying a minimum ballast efficiency was the most widely accepted, least burdensome approach that would ensure energy conservation standards resulted in energy savings. Therefore, in the NOPR DOE proposed standards for MHLFs by requiring that MHLFs contain ballasts that comply with minimum specified efficiencies. NEMA agreed, citing the increased testing burden associated with testing every combination of lamp and ballast sold in a fixture, and
recognizing that the majority of MHLFs are not shipped with a lamp. (NEMA, No. 56 at p. 8) Receiving no comment to the contrary, DOE maintains this approach in this final rule.
C. Standby Mode and Off Mode Energy Consumption EPCA requires energy conservation
standards adopted for covered equipment
after July 1, 2010 to address standby mode
and off mode energy use. (42 U.S.C.
6295(gg)(3)) The requirement to incorporate
standby mode and off mode energy use into
the energy conservation standards analysis is therefore applicable in this rulemaking.
DOE determined that it is not possible for
MHLFs to meet off mode criteria because there is no condition in which the components of an MHLF are connected to the
main power source and are not already in a
mode accounted for in either active or
standby mode. DOE recognizes that MHLFs
could be designed with auxiliary control
devices that could consume energy in
standby mode. However, DOE has yet to
encounter such a control device design, or
other type of MHLF that uses energy in
standby mode, on the market. Therefore, in
the NOPR DOE concluded that it cannot
establish a standard that incorporates
standby mode or off mode energy
consumption. Receiving no comment to the
contrary, DOE maintains this conclusion in
the final rule and does not include standby mode or off mode energy consumption in the standards adopted in this final rule. IV. General Discussion
A. Test Procedures 1. Current Test Procedures
The current test procedures for MH ballasts and MHLFs are outlined in Subpart S of 10
CFR Part 431. The test conditions, setup, and methodology generally follow the guidance of ANSI C82.6–2005. Testing requires the use of a reference lamp, which is to be driven by the ballast under test conditions until the
ballast reaches operational stability. Ballast
efficiency for the fixture is then calculated as
the measured ballast output power pided
by the ballast input power. In the NOPR,
DOE considered changes to the test
procedure regarding input voltage, the testing of HFE ballasts, and rounding requirements.
2. Test Input Voltage MH ballasts can be operated at a variety of voltages. The most common voltages are 120 V, 208 V, 240 V, 277 V, and 480 V. Ballasts will also commonly be rated for more than one voltage, such as dual-input-voltage
ballasts that can be operated at 120 V or 277 V, or quad-input-voltage ballasts that can be operated at 120 V, 208 V, 240 V, or 277 V. Through manufacturer feedback and testing, DOE found that the specific design of a
ballast and the voltage of the lamp operated by the ballast can affect the trend between input voltage and efficiency.
The existing test procedures do not specify the voltage at which a ballast is to be tested, and the majority of ballasts sold are capable of operating at multiple input voltages. Therefore, to ensure consistency among testing and reported efficiencies, DOE considered methods of standardizing this aspect of testing in the NOPR.
a. Average of Tested Efficiency at All Possible Voltages
One method analyzed in the NOPR was
testing ballasts at each input voltage at which they are able to operate, and then having a
standard for the average of these efficiencies. As averaging the efficiencies could misrepresent the performance of the ballast in its common uses and could increase the testing burden, in the NOPR, DOE did not propose this method. Having received no comments to the contrary, DOE continues to
reject using the average of tested efficiency at all possible voltages in this final rule. b. Posting the Highest and Lowest Efficiencies A second approach considered in the NOPR was requiring testing at each input voltage and listing the best and worst efficiencies on the MHLF label. DOE found that, similar to averaging efficiencies, this approach would increase the compliance testing burden for manufacturers compared to a requirement to test ballasts only at a single voltage. Therefore, DOE did not propose this method. Having received no comments to the contrary, DOE continues to reject the posting of the highest and lowest efficiencies on an MHLF label in this final rule. c. Test at Single Manufacturer-Declared Voltage A third approach considered in the NOPR
was that the test procedures should allow testing at a single voltage determined by the
manufacturer and declared in the test report.
DOE concluded that this approach would not be favorable as the efficiency at the
manufacturer-declared voltage and the efficiency at the more commonly used
voltages may not be the same, and as such could potentially reduce the energy savings of this rulemaking. Thus, DOE did not
propose to test ballast efficiency at a single manufacturer-declared voltage. GE agreed that a multi-tap ballast should be tested at just one input voltage. Rather than testing at the designated highest voltage, GE stated that it should be up to the manufacturer to choose the voltage at which
the ballast was optimally designed for purposes of reporting efficiencies. (GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at p. 83)
DOE agrees with testing multi-tap ballasts at a single voltage. DOE’s position against allowing manufacturers to declare their testing input voltage stems from concerns
7758 Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 27/Monday, February 10, 2014/Rules and Regulations
that manufacturers could optimize efficiency at a voltage that is most convenient or least expensive, rather than the voltage most commonly used by customers. If optimal efficiency is achieved at a less commonly used voltage, the reported ballast efficiency would not be representative of the ballast efficiency in the ballast’s more common applications. If the efficiency at the tested voltage and at the most commonly used voltage are not directly correlated, energy savings could potentially be reduced. For these reasons, DOE rejects the proposal to allow manufacturers to select the voltage at which ballasts are tested in this final rule. d. Test at Highest Rated Voltage
Another input voltage specification that DOE considered was testing the ballast at the highest voltage possible. However, DOE concluded that a ballast’s highest rated voltage is not always its most common input voltage, and therefore testing and enforcing standards at the highest voltage could reduce the potential energy savings of this rulemaking. Accordingly, in the NOPR DOE did not propose to test ballast efficiency at the highest rated voltage. Having received no comments to the contrary, DOE continues to reject testing at the highest rated voltage in this final rule.
e. Test on Input Voltage Based on Wattage and Available Voltages
The final approach analyzed was testing the most common input voltages for each wattage range. This meant, when possible, ballasts less than 150 W are tested at 120 V, ballasts greater than or equal to 150 W are tested at 277 V, and if those specified voltages are unavailable, the ballast is tested at the highest available voltage. DOE concluded that because this proposal only requires testing at one input voltage, it minimizes testing burden. In addition, because the input voltage specification matches the most commonly used voltage, the requirement encourages optimization of efficiency around an input voltage commonly used in practice.
NEMA and ULT agreed with DOE’s NOPR proposals regarding the input voltage for testing. (NEMA, No. 56 at p. 8; ULT, No. 50 at p. 4) Having received no comments to the contrary, in this final rule, DOE amends the test procedure to require that ballasts be tested at the following input voltages:
?For ballasts less than 150 W with an available voltage of 120 V, ballasts will be tested at 120 V.
?For ballasts less than 150 W that lack 120 V as an available voltage, ballasts will be tested at the highest available input voltage. ?For ballasts operated at 150 W–2000 W that also have 277 V as an available input voltage, ballasts will be tested at 277 V. ?For ballasts operated at 150 W–2000 W that lack 277 V as an available input voltage, ballasts will be tested at the highest available input voltage.
3. Testing High-frequency Electronic Ballasts MHLF test procedures reference the 2005 version of ANSI C82.6 for testing both electronic and magnetic MH ballasts. However, ANSI C82.6–2005 does not provide a method for testing HFE ballasts. In the NOPR, DOE found that the instrumentation
commonly used for HFE MH ballast testing
is the same instrumentation used for
electronic fluorescent lamp ballast testing.
Therefore, DOE proposed the same
instrumentation used in electronic
fluorescent lamp ballast testing be used for
testing HFE MH ballasts. These proposed
requirements specified that once the output
frequency of a MH ballast is determined to
be greater than or equal to 1000 Hz (the
frequency at which DOE defines HFE
ballasts) the test procedure instrumentation
would be required to include a power
analyzer that conforms to ANSI C82.6–2005
with a maximum of 100 picofarads (pF)
capacitance to ground and a frequency
response between 40 Hz and 1 MHz. The test
procedures would also require a current
probe compliant with ANSI C82.6–2005 that
is galvanically isolated and has a frequency
response between 40 Hz and 20 MHz, and
lamp current measurement where the full
transducer ratio is set in the power analyzer
to match the current to the analyzer. The full
transducer ratio would be required to satisfy
the following equation:
Where:
I in is current through the current transducer;
V out is the voltage out of the transducer;
R in is the power analyzer impedance; and
R s is the current probe output impedance.
DOE received comment on the lack of
compatibility standards between HFE
ballasts and MH lamps. NEMA
commented that no work has begun on
the ANSI C82.6 test procedure standard
for HFE ballasts. (NEMA, No. 44 at p. 7)
Philips noted that as HFE ballasts do not
have testing standards, measurement
errors and testing differences could lead
to false efficiency values. (Philips,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at p.
70) Similarly, NEMA stated that lack of
industry testing standard meant
efficiencies are computed using internal
test procedures. Therefore, using catalog
data gathered from more than one
manufacturer combines different test
procedures. (NEMA, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 48 at p. 31; NEMA, No.
44 at p. 8) NEMA also noted that labs
cannot be accredited by the National
Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation
Program (NVLAP) to submit HFE ballast
testing to DOE without a test procedure
to accredit to. (NEMA, No. 56 at p. 9)
Further, NEMA noted that it is difficult
to precisely measure the power of these
HFE ballasts at frequencies over 100
kHz, which experience a 2–5 percent
measurement uncertainty. With a tenth
of a percentage precision on ballast
efficiency, it will be very difficult to
attain these levels of measurement.
(NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, No.
48 at p. 30; NEMA, No. 44 at p. 8)
DOE agrees that there are no industry
test procedures for HFE ballasts. While
the addition of instrumentation
requirements addresses some concerns,
specifications for lamps to be paired
with the ballast during testing and a
complete test method specific to HFE
ballasts (an equivalent document to
ANSI C82.6—which covers magnetic
ballasts and LFE ballasts, but not HFE
ballasts) are not currently available.
Therefore, in this final rule, DOE is not
adopting any changes to the test
procedure for HFE ballasts. As
discussed in section III.A.4 of this
notice, DOE is not considering
standards for HFE ballasts because a test
procedure for HFE ballasts does not
exist.
4. Rounding Requirements
Through testing, DOE found that
testing multiple samples of the same
ballast yielded a range of ballast
efficiencies typically differing by less
than one percent. Because this data
introduces both test measurement and
sample to sample variation, the test
measurement itself should be at least
this accurate. Therefore, DOE came to
the conclusion that test procedures can
resolve differences of less than one
percent and rounding to the tenths of a
percent would be reasonable. In the
NOPR, DOE proposed amending the MH
ballast test procedure for measuring and
recording input wattage and output
wattage to require rounding to the
nearest tenth of a watt, and the resulting
calculation of efficiency to the nearest
tenth of a percent.
ULT, EEI, and NEMA commented that
most test equipment for MHLFs is not
calibrated to the proposed level of
precision. ANSI standards require
wattmeters to have 0.5 percent accuracy.
(ULT, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 48
at p. 82; EEI, Public Meeting Transcript,
No. 48 at p. 85; NEMA, No. 44 at p. 13).
Further, NEMA noted that white paper
NEMA LSD–63–2012 on variability
estimated the tolerance for a sample of
four magnetic ballasts to be 4.7 percent
when 99 percent confidence factor is
required. (NEMA, No. 56 at p. 8) On the
contrary, CA IOUs commented that
efficiency measurement equipment
accurate to plus or minus 0.5 percent is
already capable of measuring efficiency
to the nearest watt for lamps of 100 W
and above, and the nearest tenth of a
watt for lamps below 100 W. CA IOUs
argued this supports tenths place
rounding of an efficiency figure and
setting of standards to the tenth of a
percent. (CA IOUs, No. 54 at pp. 2–3).
Finally, EEI commented that if the
difference between EL1 and EL2 is 0.6
percent, and there is a testing tolerance
7759 Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 27/Monday, February 10, 2014/Rules and Regulations
19The American Iron and Steel Institute type numbers and AK Steel designations for electrical steel grades consist of the letter M followed by a number. The M stands for magnetic material; the number is representative of the core loss of that grade.
20In the past DOE presented energy savings
results for only the 30-year period that begins in the
year of compliance. In the calculation of economic
impacts, however, DOE considered operating cost
savings measured over the entire lifetime of
equipment purchased in the 30-year period. DOE
has chosen to modify its presentation of national
energy savings to be consistent with the approach
used for its national economic analysis.
of plus or minus 1 percent, there could be a classing issue. (EEI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at p. 159).
DOE reviewed ANSI C82.6–2005 and found that the instrumentation requirements stipulate that watts be measured with 3.5 digits of resolution, with basic accuracy of 0.5 percent. For an efficiency calculation that involves output power pided by input power, 3.5 digits of resolution allows for rounding efficiency to three significant figures (e.g., 0.895 or 89.5 percent) using only three digits. DOE also notes that some manufacturers have submitted compliance data to DOE’s certification, compliance, and enforcement (CCE) database rounded to three significant figures and, in response to the NOPR, manufacturers had responded to certain issues using efficiency data rounded to three significant figures. Both of these suggest that manufacturers already have the capability to accomplish these measurements. DOE also considered LSD–63, as suggested by NEMA, but found that it details the population distribution from all sources of variation and did not find that it provides any information regarding the ability to measure the efficiency of an inpidual ballast to three significant figures. For these reasons, this final rule amends the test procedure to require measuring and calculating ballast efficiency to three significant figures. DOE also adopts energy conservation standards that are
specified to three significant figures.
B. Technological Feasibility
1. General
In each 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 equipment that is 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
equipment or in working prototypes to
be technologically feasible. 10 CFR 430,
subpart C, appendix A, section 4(a)(4)(i).
After DOE has determined that
particular technology options are
technologically feasible, it further
evaluates each technology option in
light of the following additional
screening criteria: (1) Practicability to
manufacture, install, or service; (2)
adverse impacts on equipment utility or
availability; and (3) adverse impacts on
health or safety. Section V.B of this
notice discusses the results of the
screening analysis for MHLFs,
particularly the designs DOE
considered, those it screened out, and
those that are the basis for the TSLs in
this rulemaking. For further details on
the screening analysis for this
rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the final
rule TSD.
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible
Levels
When DOE adopts a new or amended
standard for a type or class of covered
equipment, it must determine the
maximum improvement in energy
efficiency or maximum reduction in
energy use that is technologically
feasible for such equipment. (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 MHLFs, using the design
parameters for the most efficient
equipment available on the market or in
working prototypes. For MHLFs from
50–500 W, the max-tech fixtures use
high-grade electronic ballasts. For
MHLFs from 501–2000 W, the max-tech
fixtures use magnetic ballasts that
incorporate high-grade, grain-oriented
steel (M619). (See chapter 5 of the final
rule TSD for additional detail.) The
max-tech levels that DOE determined
for this rulemaking are listed in Table
IV.1.
T ABLE IV.1—M AX-T ECH L EVELS
Equipment class wattage range Efficiency level* Efficiency-level equation?
%
≥50 and ≤100............................................................EL4..........................................................1/(1+0.360×P∧(￥0.297))
>100 and <150*........................................................EL4..........................................................1/(1+0.360×P∧(￥0.297))
≥150** and ≤250.......................................................EL4..........................................................1/(1+0.360×P∧(￥0.297))
>250 and ≤500..........................................................EL4..........................................................1/(1+0.360×P∧(￥0.297))
>500 and ≤1000........................................................EL2..........................................................For >500 W and ≤750 W: 0.910
For >750 W and ≤1000 W: 0.000104×P+0.832 >1000 and ≤2000......................................................EL2..........................................................0.936
*Includes 150 W fixtures exempted by EISA 2007, which are fixtures rated only for 150 watt lamps; rated for use in wet locations, as specified by the NFPA 70–2002, section 410.4(A); and containing a ballast that is rated to operate at ambient air temperatures above 50 °C, as specified by UL 1029–2007.
**Excludes 150 W fixtures exempted by EISA 2007, which are fixtures rated only for 150 watt lamps; rated for use in wet locations, as speci-fied by the NFPA 70–2002, section 410.4(A); and containing a ballast that is rated to operate at ambient air temperatures above 50 °C, as speci-fied by UL 1029–2007.
?P is defined as the rated wattage of the lamp that the fixture is designed to operate.
C. Energy Savings
1. Determination of Savings
For each TSL, DOE projected energy savings from the products that are the subject of this rulemaking purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the year of compliance with new and
amended standards (2017–2046). The
savings are measured over the entire
lifetime of equipment purchased in the
30-year period.20DOE quantified the
energy savings attributable to each TSL
as the difference in energy consumption
between each standards case and the
base case. The base case represents a
projection of energy consumption in the
absence of new or amended mandatory
efficiency standards, and considers
7760 Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 27/Monday, February 10, 2014/Rules and Regulations
21‘‘Review of Site (Point-of-Use) and Full-Fuel-
Cycle Measurement Approaches to DOE/EERE
Building ApplianceEnergy-Efficiency Standards,’’
(Academy report) was completed in May 2009 and
included five recommendations. A copy of the study can be downloaded at: 6385ab3e0242a8956aece475/ catalog.php?record_id=12670.
22DOE also presents a sensitivity analysis that considers impacts for products shipped in a 9-year period.
market forces and policies that affect demand for more efficient equipment. For example, in the base case, DOE models a migration from covered metal halide lamp fixtures to higher efficiency technologies such as high-intensity fluorescent (HIF), induction lights, and LEDs. DOE also models a move to other HID fixtures such as high-pressure sodium, based on data given by manufacturers during the 2010 Framework public meeting. (Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 8 at p. 91)
DOE used its NIA spreadsheet model to estimate energy savings from new and amended standards for the metal halide lamp fixtures that are the subject of this rulemaking. The NIA spreadsheet model (described in section V.G of this notice) calculates energy savings in 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 the savings in the energy that is used to generate and transmit the site electricity. To calculate this quantity, DOE derives annual conversion factors from the model used to prepare the Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook 2013 (AEO2013).
DOE has begun to also estimate full- fuel-cycle energy savings. 76 FR 51282 (August 18, 2011), as amended at 77 FR 49701 (August 17, 2012). The full-fuel- cycle (FFC) metric includes the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels, and thus presents a more complete picture of the impacts of energy efficiency standards. DOE’s evaluation of FFC savings is driven in part by the National Academy of Science’s (NAS) report on FFC measurement approaches for DOE’s Appliance Standards Program.21The NAS report discusses that FFC was primarily intended for energy efficiency standards rulemakings where multiple fuels may be used by a particular product. In the case of this rulemaking pertaining to metal halide lamp fixtures, only a single fuel—electricity—is consumed by the equipment. DOE’s approach is based on the calculation of an FFC multiplier for each of the energy types used by covered equipment. Although the addition of FFC energy savings in the rulemakings is consistent with the recommendations, the methodology for estimating FFC does not project how fuel markets would
respond to this particular standards
rulemaking. The FFC methodology
simply estimates how much additional
energy, and in turn how many tons of
emissions, may be displaced if the
estimated fuel were not consumed by
the equipment covered in this
rulemaking. It is also important to note
that inclusion of FFC savings does not
affect DOE’s choice of adopted
standards.
2. Significance of Savings
As noted above, 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(3)(B) prevents DOE from
adopting a standard for covered
equipment unless such standard would
result in ‘‘significant’’ energy savings.
Although the term ‘‘significant’’ is not
defined in the Act, the U.S. Court of
Appeals, in Natural Resources Defense
Council v. Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355,
1373 (D.C. Cir. 1985), indicated that
Congress intended ‘‘significant’’ energy
savings in this context to be savings that
were not ‘‘genuinely trivial.’’ The energy
savings for all of the TSLs considered in
this rulemaking (presented in section
VII.B.3.a) are nontrivial, and, therefore,
DOE considers them ‘‘significant’’
within the meaning of section 325 of
EPCA.
D. Economic Justification
1. Specific Criteria
EPCA provides seven factors to be
evaluated in determining whether a
potential energy conservation standard
is economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The following sections
discuss how DOE has addressed each of
those seven factors in this rulemaking.
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers
and Customers
In determining the impacts of an
amended standard on manufacturers,
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.22The industry-
wide impacts analyzed include INPV,
which values the industry on the basis
of expected future cash flows; cash
flows by year; changes in revenue and
income; and other measures of impact,
as appropriate. Second, DOE analyzes
and reports the impacts on different
types of manufacturers, including
impacts on small manufacturers. Third,
DOE considers the impact of standards
on domestic manufacturer employment
and manufacturing capacity, as well as
the potential for standards to result in
plant closures and loss of capital
investment. Finally, DOE takes into
account cumulative impacts of various
DOE regulations and other regulatory
requirements on manufacturers.
For inpidual customers, measures of
economic impact include the changes in
LCC and payback period (PBP)
associated with new or amended
standards. These measures are
discussed further in the following
section. For customers in the aggregate,
DOE also calculates the national net
present value of the economic impacts
applicable to a particular rulemaking.
DOE also evaluates the LCC impacts of
potential standards on identifiable
subgroups of customers that may be
affected disproportionately by a national
standard.
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared
to Increase in Price
EPCA requires DOE to consider the
savings in operating costs throughout
the estimated average life of the covered
equipment compared to any increase in
the price of the covered equipment that
are likely to result from the imposition
of the standard (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducts this
comparison in its LCC and PBP analysis.
The LCC is the sum of the purchase
price of equipment (including its
installation) and the operating expense
(including energy, maintenance, and
repair expenditures) discounted over
the lifetime of the equipment. To
account for uncertainty and variability
in specific inputs, such as equipment
lifetime and discount rate, DOE uses a
distribution of values, with probabilities
attached to each value. For its analysis,
DOE assumes that consumers will
purchase the covered products in the
first year of compliance with amended
standards.
The LCC savings and the PBP for the
considered ELs are calculated relative to
a base case that reflects projected market
trends in the absence of amended
standards. DOE identifies the percentage
of customers estimated to receive LCC
savings or experience an LCC increase,
in addition to the average LCC savings
associated with a particular standard
level.
c. Energy Savings
Although significant conservation of
energy is a separate statutory
requirement for imposing an energy
conservation standard, EPCA requires
DOE, in determining the economic
7761
Federal Register /Vol. 79, No. 27/Monday, February 10, 2014/Rules and Regulations
23The EIA does not approve use of the name
‘‘NEMS’’ unless it describes an AEO version of the model without any modification to code or data. Because the present analysis entails some minor code modifications and runs the model under various policy scenarios that deviate from AEO assumptions, the name ‘‘NEMS–BT’’ refers to the model as used here.
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 V.G, DOE uses the NIA spreadsheet to project national site energy savings.
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Equipment
In establishing classes of equipment,
and in evaluating design options and
the impact of potential standard levels, DOE evaluates standards that would not lessen the utility or performance of the
considered equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) The standards adopted in today’s final rule will not reduce the utility or performance of the equipment under consideration in this rulemaking. One piece of evidence for this claim includes that magnetic ballast ELs are allowed for every covered MHLF wattage and application,
meaning that manufacturers are not
required to change the electronic
configuration of their current offerings.
A second piece of evidence is that
commercially available stack height and footprint is being maintained for all
ballasts, resulting in no required change from current MHLF size. Another piece of evidence is that no standards were adopted for MHLFs greater than 1000
W, so that all commercially available
MHLFs at such wattages are subjected to no mandatory adjustments. Overall, the adopted standards were selected to
protect the interest of customers and do not lessen MHLF performance or utility. 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 the imposition of a standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) It also directs the Attorney General to determine the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result from a
standard and to transmit such
determination to the Secretary within 60
days of the publication of a proposed
rule, together with an analysis of the
nature and extent of the impact. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) DOE
transmitted a copy of its proposed rule
to the Attorney General with a request
that the Department of Justice (DOJ)
provide its determination on this issue. DOE addresses the Attorney General’s
determination in this final rule.
f. Need for National Energy Conservation The energy savings from new and
amended 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.
The new and amended standards also are likely to result in environmental benefits in the form of reduced
emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases associated with energy production. DOE reports the emissions impacts from today’s standards, and from each TSL it considered, in section VII.B.6 of this notice. DOE also reports estimates of the economic value of
emissions reductions resulting from the considered TSLs. g. Other Factors EPCA allows the Secretary of Energy,
in determining whether a standard is
economically justified, to consider any
other factors that the Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) 2. Rebuttable Presumption As set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii), EPCA creates a
rebuttable presumption that an energy
conservation standard is economically justified if the additional cost to the customer of equipment that meets the
standard is less than three times the value of the first year’s energy savings resulting from the standard, as
calculated under the applicable DOE test procedure. DOE’s LCC and PBP analyses generate values used to
calculate the effect potential amended energy conservation standards would have on the payback period for customers. 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 customers, manufacturers,
the nation, and the environment, as required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results of this analysis serve as the basis for DOE’s evaluation of the economic justification
for a potential standard level (thereby supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of
economic justification). The rebuttable- presumption payback calculation is
discussed in section VII.B.1 of this final rule. V. Methodology and Discussion
DOE used two spreadsheets to estimate the impact of the adopted standards. The first spreadsheet
calculates LCCs and PBPs of potential new energy conservation standards. The second provides shipments forecasts and then calculates national energy
savings and NPV impacts of new energy conservation standards. The Department also assessed manufacturer impacts, largely through use of the Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM). Additionally, DOE uses a version of EIA’s National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) to estimate the impacts of
energy efficiency standards on electric utilities and the environment. The NEMS model simulates the energy
sector of the U.S. economy. The version of NEMS used for appliance standards analysis is called NEMS–BT (BT stands for DOE’s Building Technologies
Program), and is based on the AEO2013 version of NEMS with minor modifications.23The NEMS–BT
accounts for the interactions between the various energy supply and demand sectors and the economy as a whole. For more information on NEMS, refer to The National Energy Modeling System: An Overview, DOE/EIA–0581 (98) (Feb. 1998), available at: 6385ab3e0242a8956aece475/FTPROOT/forecasting/058198.pdf .
As a basis for this final rule, DOE has continued to use the approaches
explained in the NOPR. DOE used the same general methodology as applied in the NOPR, but revised some of the assumptions and inputs for the final rule in response to public comments. The following sections discuss these revisions.
A. Market and Technology Assessment 1. General
When completing an energy
conservation standards rulemaking,
DOE develops information that provides an overall picture of the market for the equipment concerned, including the purpose of the equipment, the industry structure, and the market
characteristics. This activity includes both quantitative and qualitative
assessments based on publicly available information. The subjects addressed in the market and technology assessment for this rulemaking include: equipment classes and manufacturers; historical
7762 Federal Register /Vol. 79, No. 27/Monday, February 10, 2014/Rules and Regulations
24DOE uses this shorthand to refer to MHLFs
designed to operate lamps rated at equal to or
greater than 50 W and equal to or less than 100 W, greater than 100 W and less than 150 W (however, including MHLFs designed to operate lamps rated at 150 W and exempted from EISA 2007), equal to or greater than 150 W and less than or equal to 250 W, greater than 250 W and less than or equal to 500 W, and greater than 500 W and less than or equal to 2000 W, respectively.
shipments; market trends; regulatory
and non-regulatory programs; and technologies or design options that could improve the energy efficiency of the equipment under examination. See chapter 3 of the final rule TSD for further discussion of the market and technology assessment.
2. Equipment Classes When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE pides covered equipment into equipment classes by the type of energy used or by capacity or other performance-related features that justifies a different standard. In making a determination whether a performance- related feature justifies a different standard, DOE must consider such factors as the utility to the customer of the feature and other factors DOE determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) DOE then considers separate standard levels for each equipment class based on the criteria set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). In the NOPR, DOE proposed to pide equipment classes by input voltage, rated lamp wattage, and designation for indoor versus outdoor applications. a. Input Voltage
MHLFs are available in a variety of input voltages (most commonly 120 V, 208 V, 240 V, 277 V, and 480 V), and the majority of fixtures are equipped with ballasts that are capable of
operating at multiple input voltages (for example, quad-input-voltage ballasts are able to operate at 120 V, 208 V, 240 V, and 277 V). DOE determined that input voltage represents a feature affecting
consumer utility as certain applications demand specific input voltages. DOE’s
ballast testing did not indicate a
prevailing relationship (e.g., higher
voltages are not always more efficient)
between discrete input voltages and
ballast efficiencies, with one exception. In the NOPR, DOE found that ballasts
tested at 480 V were less efficient on
average than ballasts tested at 120 V or
277 V.
As discussed in section IV.A of this
final rule, MH ballasts will be tested at
a single input voltage based on the lamp wattage operated by the ballast. Ballasts that operate lamps less than 150 W shall be tested at 120 V, and all others shall
be tested at 277 V, unless the ballast is
incapable of operating at the specified
input voltage; in that case, the ballast
shall be tested at the highest input
voltage possible. Because dedicated 480 V ballasts have a distinct utility in that
certain applications require 480 V
operation and a difference in efficiency relative to ballasts tested at 120 V and 277 V, in the NOPR DOE proposed separate equipment classes for ballasts tested at 480 V (in accordance with the test procedure).
Philips noted that when
manufacturing multi-tap magnetic ballasts, each tap must be precisely
placed. The voltage variation in each tap makes it more difficult for multi-tap
ballasts to meet efficiency requirements than ballasts with dedicated voltage. (Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at p. 99) NEMA, ULT, and Southern Company supported a separate equipment class for dedicated 480 V ballasts. (NEMA, No. 56 at p. 12; ULT, No. 50 at p. 5; Southern Company, No. 64 at p. 2) DOE acknowledges that the existence of multiple voltage taps could cause multi-tap ballasts to be less efficient than dedicated voltage ballasts. However, DOE’s testing of commercially available ballasts did not identify this trend. Rather, DOE’s test results indicated that the only obvious relationship between input voltage and ballast efficiency is that ballasts tested at 480 V were less efficient on average than ballasts tested at 120 V or 277 V. As stated above, DOE believes that input
voltage offers unique utility because
certain applications require specific
input voltages. Therefore, in this final rule, DOE creates a separate equipment class for ballasts that are tested at 480 V. b. Lamp Wattage As lamp wattage increases, lamp-and- ballast systems generally produce increasing amounts of light (lumens).
Because certain applications require more light than others, wattage often
varies by application. For example, low- wattage (less than 150 W) lamps are typically used in commercial applications for general lighting. Medium-wattage (150 W–500 W) lamps are commonly used in warehouse,
street, and general commercial lighting. High-wattage (greater than 500 W) lamps are used in searchlights, stadiums, and other applications that require powerful white light. Because different applications require different amounts of light and the light output of lamp-and-ballast systems is typically reflected by the wattage, wattage affects
consumer utility. Additionally, the wattage of a lamp operated by a ballast is correlated with the ballast efficiency; ballast efficiency generally increases as lamp wattage increase. Because wattage affects consumer utility and has a strong
correlation to efficiency, DOE determined in the NOPR that separate equipment classes based on wattage
were warranted. DOE found that even within a
designated wattage range (such as 101 W–150 W), the potential efficiencies ballasts can achieve is not constant, but rather varies with wattage. Thus for certain wattage bins, instead of setting a constant efficiency standard, DOE used an equation-based energy conservation standard (see section V.C). DOE combined the wattage bins and
equations rather than using a single equation spanning all covered wattages for two reasons. First, the range of
ballast efficiencies considered can differ significantly by lamp wattage, making it difficult to construct a single continuous equation for ballast efficiency from 50 W to 2000 W. This efficiency difference can be attributed to the varying cost of increasing ballast efficiency for different wattages and the impact of legislated (EISA 2007) standards that affect only some wattage ranges. Second, different wattages often serve different
applications and have unique cost- efficiency relationships. Analyzing certain wattage ranges as separate equipment classes allows DOE to establish the energy conservation standards that are cost-effective for every wattage.
In the NOPR, DOE proposed to define MHLF equipment classes by the
following rated lamp wattage ranges: 50 W–100 W, 101 W–150 W, 150 W–250 W, 251 W–500 W, and 501 W–2000 W.24 As discussed previously in section III.A.1, there is an existing EISA 2007 exemption for ballasts rated for only 150 W lamps, used in wet locations, and that operate in ambient air temperatures higher than 50 °C. This exemption has led to a difference in the commercially available efficiencies for ballasts that are contained within fixtures exempted versus not exempted from EISA 2007. The exempted fixtures have ballasts with a range of efficiencies similar to ballasts that operate lamps less than 150 W. Fixtures not exempted by EISA 2007 have ballasts that follow efficiency trends representative of ballasts greater than 150 W. As a result, DOE proposed that 150 W MHLFs previously exempted by EISA 2007 be included in the 101 W– 150 W range, while 150 W MHLFs
subject to EISA 2007 standards continue to be included in the 150 W–250 W range.
7763 Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 27/Monday, February 10, 2014/Rules and Regulations
25DOE uses this shorthand to refer to MHLFs designed to operate with lamps rated at greater than 500 W and less than or equal to 1000 W, and greater than 1000 W and less than or equal to 2000 W, respectively.
26The NFPA 70–2002 states that fixtures installed in wet or damp locations shall be installed such that water cannot enter or accumulate in wiring components, lampholders, or other electrical parts. All fixtures installed in wet locations shall be marked, ‘‘Suitable for Wet Locations.’’ All fixtures installed in damp locations shall be marked
Continued
ULT and NEMA stated that industry data shows ballast losses are significantly higher in 150 W ballasts relative to 175 W to 500 W ballasts due to the increased lamp current in 150 W MHLFs. (ULT, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at p. 108; ULT, No. 50 at pp. 5–6, 23; NEMA, No. 56 at p. 13) ULT explained that for 150 W–175 W fixtures, the lower the wattage, the larger the ballast needed to maintain efficiency. ULT noted that this relationship is the net effect of three main factors: (1) Higher lamp current, (2) increased impedance, and (3) decreased wire cross-section. In conjunction, these factors make it impossible to have an 88 percent efficient 150 W ballast on a 3.25 inch by 3.75 inch (commonly referred to as a
‘‘3x4’’) frame. (ULT, No. 50 at pp. 23– 24) ULT believed that 150 W fixtures could belong to the lower wattage bin; otherwise, the proposed standards would result in a ban of magnetic autotransformer 150 W ballasts. (ULT, No. 50 at p. 5)
DOE agrees with ULT and NEMA that 150 W ballasts have a lower maximum achievable efficiency relative to 175 W ballasts because of the resistive losses characteristic to ballasts at 150 W. Commercially, DOE also found that 150 W ballasts have a range of efficiencies similar to wattages below 150 W. Both of these trends support 150 W fixtures being categorized in separate equipment classes than 175 W fixtures. While DOE continues to group 150 W fixtures covered by EISA 2007 in the 150 W–250 W equipment class, in this final rule DOE maintains the NOPR approach to group 150 W fixtures previously exempt by EISA 2007 in the 101 W–150 W equipment class.
NEMA proposed that DOE establish a separate equipment class for 575 W ballasts but did not provide supporting detail for this proposal. (NEMA, No. 56 at p. 17) DOE examined the efficiency distribution of 575 W ballasts and found that efficiency varied in a manner similar to that of other ballasts within the 500 W to 1000 W wattage range. DOE is unaware of significant differences in the cost-efficiency relationship, consumer utility, or application of 575W fixtures relative to 1000 W fixtures, and therefore is not establishing a separate equipment class for these MHLFs. DOE continues to group all 501 W–1000 W MHLFs in one wattage bin, using 1000 W fixtures as representative of the entire class. Musco Lighting disagreed with the grouping of fixtures in the 501 W–2000 W range. Musco Lighting stated that there are significant differences between the markets and applications of 1500 W and 1000 W MHLFs, and, accordingly,
they should not be grouped together.
(Musco Lighting, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 48 at p. 107) Musco
Lighting commented that 1500 W
fixtures should not be in the same
equipment class as 1000 W fixtures.
Musco Lighting commented that a
majority of 1500 W fixtures operate at
480 V input, which distinguishes them
from other equipment classes. (Musco
Lighting, Public Meeting Transcript, No.
48 at p. 129) Musco Lighting further
commented that annual operating hours
should be taken into account so that
MHLFs used in applications with very
different operating hours would not be
included in the same equipment class.
Musco Lighting gave the example of
sports lighting having much fewer
operating hours than indoor warehouse
lighting. (Musco Lighting, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at p. 161)
Upon further review, DOE agrees that
there are differences between 1500 W
and 1000 W fixtures. DOE determined
that the trend between increasing
wattage and increasing efficiency found
from 501 W–1000 W did not continue
above 1000 W. DOE found that above
1000 W, efficiency increased to a lesser
extent with increased wattage. This is
consistent with the NOPR analysis, in
which different equations were used
above and below 1000 W. DOE also
found that lamp lifetime and annual
operating hours are much shorter for
1500 W fixtures relative to 1000 W
fixtures because 1500 W fixtures are
predominantly used in sports lighting.
This causes 1500 W fixtures to have
different cost-efficiency relationships
relative to 1000 W fixtures. There is also
a different cost-efficiency relationship
based on the MSP of the fixtures
themselves, representing a different
portfolio of applications used from 501–
1000 W and above 1000 W. Therefore,
DOE determined that separate
equipment classes should be established
for 501 W–1000 W and 1001 W–2000 W
fixtures.25
In summary, DOE established MHLF
equipment classes by the following
rated lamp wattage bins: 50 W–100 W,
101 W–150 W, 150 W–250 W, 251 W–
500 W, 501 W–1000 W, and 1001 W–
2000 W. DOE maintained that 150 W
fixtures previously exempted by EISA
2007 are included in the 101 W–150 W
range, while 150 W fixtures subject to
EISA 2007 standards are included in the
150 W–250 W range.
c. Fixture Application
MHLFs are used in a variety of
applications such as parking lots,
roadways, warehouses, big-box retail,
and flood lighting. Although the fixture
size, shape, and optics are often tailored
to the application, generally the same
type of ballast is utilized for most of the
applications. DOE found in the NOPR,
however, that indoor and outdoor
MHLFs are subject to separate cost-
efficiency relationships, specifically at
the electronic ballast levels.
As outdoor applications can be
subject to large voltage transients,
MHLFs in such applications require 10
kV voltage transient protection.
Magnetic MH ballasts are typically
resistant to voltage variations of this
magnitude, while electronic MH ballasts
are generally not as resilient. Therefore,
in order to meet this requirement,
electronic ballasts in outdoor MHLFs
would need either (1) an external surge
protection device or (2) internal
transient protection of the ballast using
metal-oxide varistors (MOVs) in
conjunction with other inductors and
capacitors.
DOE also noted that indoor fixtures
can require the inclusion of a 120 V
auxiliary tap. This output is used to
operate an emergency incandescent
lamp after a temporary loss of power
while the MH lamp is still too hot to
restart. These taps are generally required
for only one out of every ten indoor
lamp fixtures. A 120 V tap is easily
incorporated into a magnetic ballast due
to its traditional core and coil design,
and incurs a negligible incremental cost.
Electronic ballasts, though, require
additional design to add this 120 V
auxiliary power functionality.
These added features impose an
incremental cost to the ballast or fixture
(further discussed in section V.C.12 of
this notice). As these incremental costs
could affect the cost-effectiveness of
fixtures for indoor versus outdoor
applications, in the NOPR DOE
proposed separate equipment classes for
indoor and outdoor fixtures.
DOE proposed that outdoor fixtures
be defined as those that (1) are rated for
use in wet locations and (2) have 10 kV
of voltage transient protection. DOE
proposed to define the wet location
rating as specified by the National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA) 70–
2002,26section 410.10(A) or UL 1598
7764 Federal Register /Vol. 79, No. 27/Monday, February 10, 2014/Rules and Regulations
‘‘Suitable for Wet Locations’’ or ‘‘Suitable for Damp Locations.’’
27UL Standard Publication 1598 defines a wet location is one in which water or other liquid can drip, splash, or flow on or against electrical equipment. A wet location fixture shall be
constructed to prevent the accumulation of water on live parts, electrical components, or conductors not identified for use in contact with water. A fixture that permits water to enter the fixture shall be provided with a drain hole.
Wet Location Listed.27Providing two possible definitions will reduce the compliance burden as many
manufacturers are already familiar with one or both of these ratings (the NFPA 70–2002 definition was included in EISA 2007 and both are used in
California energy efficiency regulations). For 10 kV voltage transient protection, DOE proposed to use the 10 kV voltage pulse withstand requirement from ANSI C136.2–2004.
APPA agreed with separating equipment classes for indoor and
outdoor fixtures, as they have separate uses that create differences in the frequency and length of use. APPA stated that because the circumstances are different when considering both classes, it is difficult to understand the effects of proposed efficiency standards on each group. (APPA, No. 51 at p. 4; APPA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at p. 103) Conversely, NEMA noted that separate equipment classes for indoor and outdoor fixtures could be problematic as, at the ballast level, there is no way of knowing whether equipment will be used indoors or outdoors. (NEMA, No. 56 at p. 14) Acuity Brands Lighting, Inc. (Acuity) commented that fixture application should also take into account the probability of transient voltages and extreme conditions, even in indoor applications. (Acuity, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at p. 162) NEMA and ULT suggested combining indoor and outdoor equipment classes, except for electronic ballasts, as fewer classes will mean fewer reporting requirements. NEMA acknowledged that this will conflict with DOE’s desire to encourage electronic ballasts in outdoor
applications. (NEMA, No. 56 at p. 9; ULT, No. 50 at p. 4)
DOE believes that indoor and outdoor MHLFs should be placed into separate equipment classes. While the
efficiencies achievable indoors and outdoors are the same, the different costs between indoor and outdoor fixtures result in different cost- efficiency curves. When electronic ballasts are used in outdoor
applications, they require additional transient protection because of the potential for voltage surges in outdoor locations. Indoor fixtures with
electronic ballasts also have an added cost to provide 120 V auxiliary power functionality for use in the event of a power outage. Both of these cost adders are discussed in more detail in section V.C.12. As these costs adders differ
based on a fixture being used indoors or outdoors, the cost-efficiency
relationships differ based on indoor or outdoor application, and therefore separate equipment classes are
warranted. Thus, in this final rule DOE establishes separate equipment classes for indoor and outdoor fixtures. DOE defines outdoor fixtures as those that (1) are rated for use in wet locations and (2) have 10 kV of voltage transient
protection. Conversely, fixtures that do not meet these requirements will be defined as indoor fixtures. DOE
continues to use the wet location rating definition from the National Fire
Protection Association 70–2002, section 410.10(A) or UL 1598 Wet Location listing.
d. Electronic Configuration Of the two MH ballast types
(electronic and magnetic), magnetic ballasts are currently more common, making up more than 90 percent of MH ballast shipments. Magnetic ballasts typically use transformer-like copper or aluminum windings on a steel or iron core. The newer electronic ballasts, which are more efficient but less common, rely on integrated circuits, switches, and capacitors or inductors to control current and voltage to the lamp. Both electronic and magnetic ballasts are capable of producing the same light output and, with certain modifications (e.g., thermal management, transient protection, 120 V auxiliary power functionality), can be used
interchangeably in all applications. In the NOPR, DOE concluded that
electronic configuration and circuit type do not affect consumer utility. With the necessary design alterations, electronic ballasts can provide the same utility as any magnetic ballast circuit type.
Because electronic ballasts are typically more efficient than magnetic ballasts, utility is not lost with increasing efficiency. Therefore, DOE did not propose to define equipment classes based on electronic configuration. ULT stated that electronic HID ballasts were originally intended for indoor, niche purposes. Therefore, automatically expecting that electronic MH ballasts would be able to perform in outdoor conditions, including
applications subjected to wind, extreme temperature, and transient surges, is not reasonable. ULT noted that electronic ballasts’ vulnerability in outdoor
applications is known throughout the
industry. (ULT, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at p. 52)
NEMA also disagreed with DOE not piding equipment classes by
electronic configuration. NEMA stated that performance requirements should be separated for electronic and magnetic ballasts to avoid an enormous burden on the industry. (NEMA, No. 56 at p. 12, 24) NEMA commented that they
disagreed with DOE’s suggestion that an electronic ballast is a design option for a magnetic ballast, as they are
completely different technologies. (NEMA, No. 56 at p. 14).
DOE has determined that these electronic ballasts, when fitted in an appropriate fixture, can be used in the same applications as magnetic ballasts. As mentioned in the previous section, various protections will be required for electronic ballasts in these applications. See section V.C.8.b for more detail about the feasibility of electronic ballasts as more efficient replacements for magnetic ballasts. After adjusting
outdoor fixture prices to account for the modifications necessary to incorporate electronic ballasts, DOE has found that electronic ballasts can be reliably used in the same outdoor applications as magnetic ballasts. Therefore, DOE did not find that magnetic ballasts provided a unique utility over electronic ballasts. Thus, in this final rule, DOE included electronic and magnetic ballasts in the same equipment class.
e. Circuit Type
NEMA disagreed with DOE not piding equipment classes by circuit type, citing the fluorescent lamp ballast rule as precedent. (NEMA, No. 56 at pp. 12, 24) ULT and NEMA proposed three different technology classes; magnetic series reactors, magnetic
autotransformers, and electronic. (ULT, No. 50 at p. 5; NEMA, No. 44 at p. 17) NEMA explained the need for piding equipment classes in this way by describing the technologies’ different utilities and relationships to efficiency. Specifically, NEMA stated that series reactors circuits are the most efficient, although they do not offer any power regulation. Power factor correction is weak with this ballast type, and high power factor increases total harmonic distortion. This circuit type only works for lamps that require an open circuit voltage lower than the mains. It results in an increased inrush and current, and reduced maximum number of lamps per circuit. (NEMA, No. 44 at p. 18)
Autotransformer ballasts may be used on various mains voltages, and the ballast open circuit voltage may be
higher than the mains voltage. Constant- wattage autotransformer (CWA) designs
7765 Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 27/Monday, February 10, 2014/Rules and Regulations
include a secondary coil and operate
with lower harmonic distortion. They offer better power regulation than series
reactors and are highly reliable. (NEMA, No. 44 at p. 19) Electronic circuits are
typically less reliable than autotransformer circuits, but operate with similar energy efficiency to series reactors. (NEMA, No. 44 at p. 20)
DOE agrees that within magnetic ballasts there are multiple circuit types, such as reactor and autotransformer. However, DOE has found that electronic ballasts can provide the same utility as
any magnetic circuit type and can be
substituted in all applications, while
being generally more efficient than all
magnetic ballasts. DOE also notes that
all of the magnetic ELs in this final rule
are determined by autotransformer
magnetic ballasts, as autotransformer
ballasts are the most common type on
the market. Because reactor ballasts are
typically more efficient than
autotransformer ballasts, DOE found
that setting a magnetic ballast EL based
on autotransformer efficiency would not
prohibit reactor ballasts. For these
reasons, DOE did not find it necessary
in this final rule to separate equipment
classes by circuit type.
f. Summary
DOE developed equipment classes in
this final rule using three class-setting
factors: input voltage, rated lamp
wattage, and fixture application. DOE
presents the resulting equipment classes
in Table V.1
T ABLE V.1—MHLF E QUIPMENT C LASSES T ABLE
Designed to be operated with lamps of the following
rated lamp wattage Indoor/outdoor? Input voltage
type?
≥50 W and ≤100 W...............................................................................Indoor.......................................................................Tested at 480 V.
≥50 W and ≤100 W...............................................................................Indoor.......................................................................All others.
≥50 W and ≤100 W...............................................................................Outdoor....................................................................Tested at 480 V.
≥50 W and ≤100 W...............................................................................Outdoor....................................................................All others.
>100 W and <150 W*...........................................................................Indoor.......................................................................Tested at 480 V.
>100 W and <150 W*...........................................................................Indoor.......................................................................All others.
>100 W and <150 W*...........................................................................Outdoor....................................................................Tested at 480 V.
>100 W and <150 W*...........................................................................Outdoor....................................................................All others.
≥150 W** and ≤250 W..........................................................................Indoor.......................................................................Tested at 480 V.
≥150 W** and ≤250 W..........................................................................Indoor.......................................................................All others.
≥150 W** and ≤250 W..........................................................................Outdoor....................................................................Tested at 480 V.
≥150 W** and ≤250 W..........................................................................Outdoor....................................................................All others.
>250 W and ≤500 W.............................................................................Indoor.......................................................................Tested at 480 V.
>250 W and ≤500 W.............................................................................Indoor.......................................................................All others.
>250 W and ≤500 W.............................................................................Outdoor....................................................................Tested at 480 V.
>250 W and ≤500 W.............................................................................Outdoor....................................................................All others.
>500 W and ≤1000 W...........................................................................Indoor.......................................................................Tested at 480 V.
>500 W and ≤1000 W...........................................................................Indoor.......................................................................All others.
>500 W and ≤1000 W...........................................................................Outdoor....................................................................Tested at 480 V.
>500 W and ≤1000 W...........................................................................Outdoor....................................................................All others.
>1000 W and ≤2000 W.........................................................................Indoor.......................................................................Tested at 480 V.
>1000 W and ≤2000 W.........................................................................Indoor.......................................................................All others.
>1000 W and ≤2000 W.........................................................................Outdoor....................................................................Tested at 480 V.
>1000 W and ≤2000 W.........................................................................Outdoor....................................................................All others.
*Includes 150 W MHLFs exempted by EISA 2007, which are MHLFs rated only for 150 W lamps; rated for use in wet locations, as specified by the NFPA 70–2002, section 410.4(A);); and containing a ballast that is rated to operate at ambient air temperatures above 50 °C, as specified by UL 1029–2007.
**Excludes 150 W MHLFs exempted by EISA 2007, which are MHLFs rated only for 150 W lamps; rated for use in wet locations, as specified by the NFPA 70–2002, section 410.4(A);); and containing a ballast that is rated to operate at ambient air temperatures above 50 °C, as specified by UL 1029–2007.
?DOE’s proposed definitions for ‘‘indoor’’ and ‘‘outdoor’’ MHLFs are described in section V.A.2.c.
?Input voltage for testing would be specified by the test procedures. Ballasts rated to operate lamps less than 150 W would be tested at 120 V, and ballasts rated to operate lamps ≥150 W would be tested at 277 V. Ballasts not designed to operate at either of these voltages would be tested at the highest voltage the ballast is designed to operate. See section IV.A for further detail.
B. Screening Analysis
For the screening analysis, DOE consults with industry, technical experts, and other interested parties to determine which technology options to consider further and which to screen out. Appendix A to subpart C of 10 CFR Part 430, ‘‘Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for Consideration of New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Products’’ (the Process Rule), sets forth procedures to guide DOE in its consideration and promulgation of new or revised energy conservation standards. These procedures elaborate on the statutory criteria provided in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) and, in part, eliminate problematic
technologies early in the process of
prescribing or amending an energy
conservation standard. In particular,
sections 4(b)(4) and 5(b) of the Process
Rule provide guidance to DOE for
determining which design options are
unsuitable for further consideration:
Technological feasibility. DOE will
consider technologies incorporated in
commercial products or in working
prototypes to be technologically
feasible.
Practicability to manufacture, install,
and service. If mass production and
reliable installation and servicing of a
technology in commercial products
could be achieved on the scale
necessary to serve the relevant market at
the time the standard comes into effect,
then DOE will consider that technology
practicable to manufacture, install, and
service.
Adverse impacts on product utility or
product availability. If DOE determines
a technology would have significant
adverse impacts on the utility of the
product to significant subgroups of
consumers, or would result in the
unavailability of any covered equipment
type with performance characteristics
(including reliability), features, sizes,
capacities, and volumes that are
substantially the same as equipment
generally available in the United States
正在阅读：
以爱心温暖人间为题的作文800字.doc04-18
媒体应对突发公共卫生事件的策略08-30
当好参谋助手 打造核心智库09-27
中医五脏的虚证表现10-13
关于大学生对护肤品需求的调研报告10-18
重叠问题教学反思01-01
为了一个玩具作文800字07-15
- 教学能力大赛决赛获奖-教学实施报告-（完整图文版）
- 互联网+数据中心行业分析报告
- 2017上海杨浦区高三一模数学试题及答案
- 招商部差旅接待管理制度(4-25)
- 学生游玩安全注意事项
- 学生信息管理系统(文档模板供参考)
- 叉车门架有限元分析及系统设计
- 2014帮助残疾人志愿者服务情况记录
- 叶绿体中色素的提取和分离实验
- 中国食物成分表2020年最新权威完整改进版
- 推动国土资源领域生态文明建设
- 给水管道冲洗和消毒记录
- 计算机软件专业自我评价
- 高中数学必修1-5知识点归纳
- 2018-2022年中国第五代移动通信技术(5G)产业深度分析及发展前景研究报告发展趋势(目录)
- 生产车间巡查制度
- 2018版中国光热发电行业深度研究报告目录
- (通用)2019年中考数学总复习 第一章 第四节 数的开方与二次根式课件
- 2017_2018学年高中语文第二单元第4课说数课件粤教版
- 上市新药Lumateperone(卢美哌隆)合成检索总结报告
- 金卤灯
- 能效
- 装置
- 要求
- CFR
- 431
- 10
- 中医适宜技术—针刺肩痛穴(附答案)
- 2022年江西财经大学法学院630法理学、国际法之国际法考研导师圈
- 土石方工程招标文件
- word完整版七年级下平移练习题附答案
- 【部编版】语文三年级上学期《期末测试题》及答案
- 考点6 金属的化学性质
- “互联网+政务服务”工作落实情况总结
- 买卖车辆协议书范文(协议范本)
- TS16949内审员考试题及答案
- 2022版高中数学第三章基本初等函数(Ⅰ)3.2.3指数函数与对数函数
- 计算机房安全保护管理制度详细版
- 工厂人事年终工作总结范文二篇
- 2022ICU护理工作计划
- 浅谈如何上好小学信息技术课
- 专题3.2 函数的性质-2022-2022学年高一数学尖子生同步培优题典(
- 房地产公司工程部管理制度.doc
- 2022年新北师大版小学四年级下册数学期中考试测试卷及答案
- 太原食品项目立项申请报告
- 常用企业宣传语及口号三篇.doc
- 防静电地板施工工艺及验收标准